INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript
has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the
text directly from the original or copy submitted.
Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typemiter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality ofthis reproduction is dependent upon Ule quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that ihe author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also. if unauthorized copyright
material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by seco tinn ig the original, beginning at the upper lefthand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 8" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illusmons
appearing in this copy for
an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
Bell & Howell information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 481061346 USA
THE CONCEPT OF DIVINE PERSONS IN ST. GREGORY OF NYSSAiS WORKS
Lucian T u r c e s c u
A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Theology of the University of St. Michael's College a n d the Department of Theclogy of che Toranto School of Theology in partial fulfilment of :he requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology awarded by the University of St. Michael's C o l k g e
Toronto 1 9 9 9 O
Lucian T u r c e s c u
Nationai Library Canada
Bibliotheque nationale du Canada
Acquisitions and Bibliographic Services
Acquisitions et services bibliographiques
395 Wellington Street
395,rue Weil+ngton Ottawa ON K1A O N 4
I*(of
OttawaON K1AON4 Canada
Canada
Your irk Volre relbrenm
Our fib Notre reference
The author has granted a nonexclusive licence allowing the National Library of Canada to reproduce, loan, distribute or sell copies of t h ~ sthesis in microform, paper or electronic formats.
L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive pennettant a la Bibliotheque nationale du Canada de reproduire, prster, distribuer ou vendre des copies de cette these sous la forme de microfiche/fiim, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format electronique.
The author retains ownershp of the copyright in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts from it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission.
L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur qui protege cette these. Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent &re imprimes ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation.
Abstract of the Dissextation
"The Concepc of Divine Persons in St. Gregory of Nyssa's Works"
Doctor of Philosophy in Theology, 1959 Faculty of Theology of t h e University of St. Michael's College and the Department of Theology of t h e Toronto School of Theology Lucian Turcescu Chapter One deals with the status auaestionis and t h e methodology, as well as the fact a notion of person did n o t exist i n a n t i q u i t y p r i o r t o t h e Cappadocian Fathers.
Chapter Two
considers some philosophical concepts which contributed to a prehistory of the concept of person: individuals a n d relations in Aristocle, individuals in Stoicism, the individual as a collection of properties in Platonism, and the Plotinian will of t h e One.
I contend that Gregory p r o b a b l y used these concepts to
shape his own concept of person.
Besides philosophical sources,
h o w e v e r , he used extensively t h e Bible and t h e writings of his
Christian predecessors.
In Chapters Three to Five I analyze the m o s t relevant works i n w h i c h Gregory d e a l s w i t h divine persons.
Here is a summary of
the concept of divine persons emerging from t h e s e writings. First, t o refer to a person in general, Gregory uses Greek terms
such as : hyoostasis,
P ~ O S ~ D Operiaraohousa ~ ,
merike ousia, i d i k g ousia and even atornon.
(or periqraphs),
Second, to
distinguish a divine person from the nature which that person
owns in common w i t h two other persons, h e uses the analogy of the
i n d i v i d u a l and t h e c n i v e r s a l .
Also, t o d i s t i n g u i s h be~wee~.
n a c u r e a n d p e r s o n s , Gregory b e l i e v e s t h a t , u n l i k e n a t u r e , p e r s o n s
a r e enumerable e n c i t i e s .
T h i r d , t o e s t a b l i s h t h e i d ~ n r i r yo f
e a c h d i v i n s p e r s o n and why each i s u n i q u e , Gregory a a z p ~ sf o r C h r i s t i a n usage t h e P l a r o n i c view of a n i n d i v i d u a l a s a u n i q u e collection of properties.
Fourth, co e x p r e s s t h e p a r t i c u l a r i z i n g
noces o f e a c h d i v i n e p e r s o n , G r e g o r y a l s o speaks o f causal r e l a r i o n s : t h 2 F a t h e r i s t h e c a u s e , t h e Son i s f r o m the c a u s e o r
directly f r o m t h e f i r s t , and t h e S p i r i t i s from t h e c a u s s ( i - e . from t h e F a t h e r ) t h r o u g h t h a t which i s d i r e c t l y from t h e first
(i.e. t h r o u g h t h e S o n ) .
Under t h e influence o f A r i s t o t k ' s
c a t e g o r y of r e l a t i o n , Gregory u n d e r s c o r e s t h a t t h e c h r e d i v i n e persons are r e l a t i o n a l e n t i t i e s .
F i f t h , relations i n Gregory's
t h e o l o g y mean more t h a n mere o n t o l o g i c a l c a u s a l i t y .
They a r e
manifested i n t h e p e r f e c t communion e x i s t i n g among che t h r e e divine persons.
T h i s communion a l l o w s f o r b o t h t h e d i s t i n c t i o n
of each p e r s o n a n d t h e p e r f e c t u n i t y among t h e m .
I t i s communion
t h a t makes t h e t h r e e c o l l e c t i o n s o f properties p e r s o n s .
Last b u t
n o t l e a s t G r e g o r y c o n c e i v e s o f God a s a willing subject who
always chooses t h e good a n d wishes t o be what h e i s .
The
o n t o l o g i c a l view o f t h e w i l l o f God betrays a F l o t i n i i n influence.
Acknowledgements My s p e c i a l t h a n k s go to my ~ w oc o - d i r e c t o r s , P r o f 2 s s o r s Paul Fedwick a n d J o h n R i s t , for t h e i r h e l p , e n c o u r a g e m e n t , p r o m p t n e s s a n d p a t i e n c e a s I researched a n d wrote t h i s dissertation. I also w i s h to acknowledge the work done b y t h e committee r e a d e r s a s well a s t h a c o f o t h e r s who showed i n t e r e s t i n my c h a p t e r s a n d offered s u g g e s t i o n s , or supported m e i n a n y o t h e r w a y s . T h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n could not have b e e n i n i t i a t e d a n d eompkted without t h e c o n s t a n c s u p p o r t o f my wife, L a v i n i a S t a n , t 3 whom I owe v e r y special t h a n k s .
iii
TABLE 3 F CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS
INTRODUCTION
.............................................. ...............................................
The Necessity o f S t u d y i n g t h e Concept o f D i v i n e P z r s o n s in Gregory of Nyssa and the S c o p e of rhe P r e s e n c S m d y 1 Chapter
I . STATUS QUAESTIONIS ANC P!ETHCDOLOGY
......................
1 . Did a N o ~ i o nof Person 3xisc in Antiquity? . . . . . . . . . 1 . The Status Quaestionis in Pagan and Christian T h o u g h t 2 . Mechodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 . PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPTS THAT SHAPED GREGORY OF NYSSA'S VIEW OF AM INDIVIDUAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . Individuals i n A r i s t o t l e ........................... 2 . R e l a t i o n i n Aristctle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . I n d i v i d u a l s in Stoicism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . The individual a s a c o l l e c t i o n o f p r o p e r t i e s i n
Platonism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . T h e F l o t i n i a n wili cf the One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conchsicns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13 12 24 50
54
55 65 76
34 90
103
3 . THE L E S S E R T R I N I T . 4 R I A N TFlEP-TISES I: TO H I S BRCTHER PETER. ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OUSIA AND I-IYFOSTASIS . . . . . . . . . . . 104
1 . T h e Common a n d the Particular . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . Further Differences between oucria arid u ~ o o ~ a o i.s. . . . 3 . Definitions of u ~ r & ~ ~ a o. i.q. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . Divine Persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
.
107 111 116 121 130
THE LESSER TRINITARIAN TREATISES 11: TO EUSTATHIUS. ON THE HOLY TRINITY. TO ABLABIUS. ON NOT THREE GODS AND TO THE GREEKS. BASED ON THE COMMON NOTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
.
1 . To Eustathius On the H o l y Trinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . Tc Ablabium On Not T h r e e Gods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . 1 T h e c o n c e p t o f enumeration o f individuals . . . . 2.2 Causal differences among che divine persons . . 3 . To the Greeks Based on the Common Notions . . . . . . . . . 4 . Eustathius of Antioch. G r e g o r y of Nyssa and t h e i r possible philosophical sources ...................
.
.
133 137
143 147 150 163
5 . AGAINST EUNOMIUS AND THE REFUTATION OF THE CONFESSION OF FAITH
OF EUNOMIUS
1 . Patristic antecedents of divine relationality . . . . . . 2 . G r e g o r y of Nyssa's view of divine relationality . . . . 3 . Biblical views of divine relationality in Grogoryts works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Homecoming vs . adoption and the will of God . . . . . . . . 5 . A note on Gregory of Nyssa's use of gender language in r e f e r e n c e to God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. A note on ~ p d n o pTi)sc ~ u p & in ~ ~ he Cappadccian Fathers Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY ANG CONCLUSIGNS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
....................................
...............................................
ABBREVIATIONS GCS GNO
Loeb
Die g r i e c h i s c h e n chrisclichen Schriftsteller G r e g o r i i N y s s e n i Opera L c e b Classical L i b r a r y
LXX
Septuaginc
NPNF
The N i c e n e and P o s t - N i c e n ? P a t r o l o g i a Graeca Sources c h r e t i e n n e s
PG SC
Fathers
INTRODUCTION T h e Necessity o f S t u d y i n a t h e C o n c e p t o f D i v i n e P e r s o n s i n
G r e a o r v o f N v s s a a n d t h e S c o ~ eo f t h e P r e s e n t S t u d v T h e c o n c e p t a n d d e f i n i t i o n of p e r s o n h o o d h a v e become c e n t r a l i n
s t n i c a l d e b a t e , n o t o n l y b e c a u s e o f i s s u e s s u c h a s c l o n i n g humans hut a l s o t h e n e e d t o a n s w e r q u e s t i o n s s u c h a s : S h o u l d
"personhood" d e t e r m i n e t h e a l l o c a t i o n o f s c a r c e m e d i c a l r e s o u r c e s , a n d s h o u l d its p e r c e i v e d a b s e n c e a l l o w the t e r m i n a t i o n of l i f e ?
cf p e r s o n .
The a n s w e r s t o these q u e s t i o n s d e p e n d o n o n e ' s c o n c e p t T h e r e a r e two d o m i n a n t v i e w s i n t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y
Many s c h o l a r s , i n c l u d i n g p h i l o s o p h e r s , a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s ,
s o c i a l t h e o r i s t s , and t h e o l o g i a n s , d e f i n e a person as a c e n t e r of z o n s c i o u s n e s s . T h i s view,
known a s t h e P s y c h o l o g i c a l A p p r o a c h c o
p e r s o n , c a n b e t r a c e d back t o D e s c a r t e s ' famous b u t u n p r o v a b l e d i c t u m C o a i t o , e r a o sum.
Nonetheless,
i t was t h e s e v e n t e e n t h -
c e n t u r y p h i l o s o p h e r J o h n Locke who d e f i n e d a human p e r s o n i n t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l s e n s e when h e w r o t e :
" [W]e m u s t c o n s i d e r what Person s t a n d s f o r ; w h i c h , I t h i n k , is a t h i n k i n g i n t e l l i g e n t B e i n g , t h a t has r e a s o n and r e f l e c t i o n , a n d c a n c o n s i d e r it self a s i t s e l f , t h e same t h i n k i n g t h i n g i n d i f f e r e n t times a n d p l a c e s ; w h i c h i t d o e s o n l y b y t h a t c o n s c i o u s n e s s , w h i c h i s i n s e p a r a b l e from
t h i n k i n g , and as i t seems t o m e e s s e n t i a l t o i t . " ' Based on t h i s c o n c e p t , some t w e n t i e t h - c e n t u r y p h i l o s o p h e r s o f
mind a r g u e t h a t a human p e r s o n c e a s e s t o e x i s t when h e r m e m o r i e s , reason, and consciousness a r e i r r e t r i e v a b l y l o s t . ;
The
' J o h n L o c k e , An E s s a y Concernina Human U n d e r s ~ a n d i n q , e a . Feter Niddicch ( O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1 9 7 5 ; o r i g i n a l work 2 5 b l i s h e . J . 1G;9T_I) 1 . , 9. -Here a r e some a d v o c a t e s of t h e P s y c h o l o g i c a l A p p r o a c h : H . " Mind 50 ( l 9 4 l ) , 330-350; J o h n H o s p e r s , An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h i c a l A n a l v s i s , s e c o n d e d i t i o n , ( E n g l e w o o d C l i f f s , N J : P r e n t i c e H a l l , 1 9 6 7 ) , 410-414; P!ark J o h n s t o n , "Human B e i n g s , " J o u r n a l o f P h i l o s o ~ h v8 4 ( 1 9 8 7 ) : 53-83; idem, " F i s s i o n a n d t h e Facts," P h i l o s o ~ h i c a lP e r s ~ e c t i v e s 3 ( 1 9 8 9 ) : 369-397; David L e w i s , " S u r v i v a l a n d I d e n t i t y , " i n T h e I d e n t i t i e s o f P e r s o n s , e d . A . Rorty ( B e r k e l e y , C a : U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1 9 7 6 ) ; J. L . Mackie, P r o b l e m s f r o m Locke ( O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1 9 7 6 ) ; Thomas N a g e l , The V i e w f r o m Nowhere ( N e w York: O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , l 9 8 6 ) , 40; H a r o l d Noonan, P e r s o n a l I d e n t i t v ( L o n d o n : R o u t l e d g e , 1 9 8 9 ) , 1 3 ; R o b e r t N c z i c k , P h i l o s o p h i c a i E x p l a n a t i o n s ( C a m b r i d g e , MA: H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, l M l ) , c h a p t e r 1; Derek P a x f i t , " P e r s o n a l I d e n t i t y , " P h i l o s o ~ h i c a lEieview 8 0 ( 1 9 7 1 ) : 3-27; idsm, R e a s o n s a m Persons ( 3 x f o r d : Clarendon P r e s s , 1 9 8 4 ) , 207; John Perry, "Can t h e Self D i v i d e ? , " J o u r n a l of P h i l o s o ~ h v69 ( 1 9 7 2 ) : 4 6 3 - 4 8 8 ; J o h n P o l l o c k , How ts B u i l d a P e r s o n : A P r o l e a o m e n o n (Cambridge, >!A: MIT Press, N a g ) , c h a p t e r 2 ; H . H . Price, Essavs i n t h e P h i l o s o p h v o f R e l i a i o n (London: O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 7 2 ) , 104 f . ; A n t h o n y Q u i n t o n , "The S o u l , " J o u r n a l of P h i l o s o ~ h v5 9 ( 1 9 6 2 ) : 393-403; Jay F. R o s e n b e r g , T h i n k i n a C l e a r l v About D e a t h (Englewood C l i f f s , N J : P r e n t i c e H a l l , 1 9 8 3 ) , 92 ff, 2 2 3 ; B e r t r a n d R u s s e l l , "Do W e S u r v i v e D e a t h ? " i n Whv I Am Not a C h r i s t i a n a n d O t h e r E s s a y s o n R e l i a i o n and R e l a t e d Subjects, t h i r d e d i t i o n (London: Unwin B o o k s , l 9 6 7 ) , 7 3 ; Sydney S h o e m a k e r , " P e r s o n s a n d T h e i r P a s t s , " A m e r i c a n P h i i o s o p h i c a l Q u a r t e r l y 7 ( 1 9 7 0 ) : 269-285; idem, " P e r s o n a l i d e n t i t y : A M a t e r i a l i s t ' s A c c o u n t " i n S . Shoemaker a n d R . Swinburne, P e r s o n a l I d e n t i t v ( O x f o r d : B a s i l B l a c k w e l l , 1984), 90; P . F. S t r a w s o n , "Comments o n Some A s p e c t s o f P e t e r U n g e r ' s I d e n t i t v , C o n s c i o u s n e s s and V a l u e , " P h i l o s o p h v a n d P h e n o m e n o l o o i c a l R e s e a r c h 5 2 ( 1 9 9 2 ) : 145-148; P e t e r Unger, I d e n t i t v . C o n s c i o u s n e s s and V a l u e ( N e w York: O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, N g O ) , c h a p t e r 5; D a v i d W i g g i n s , "Locke, B u t l e r , a n d t h e S t r e a m of C o n s c i o u s n e s s : And Men A s A N a t u r a l Kindf' i n The
-
r.
Grice, " P e r s o n a l I d e n t i t y ,
proponents of this view hold that the life of such a human being can be terminated, without any moral reservations, because the
person is no longer c h e r e .
The following example best explains
how a person can irr2trievably loose her memories, reason and
eonsciousness: Imagine that you fall into what physiologists call a persistent v2gezative state. As a result of temporary heart failure, your b r a m is deprived of oxygen for ten minutes before circulation i s restored, by which time the neurons of your cerebral cartex nave died of anoxia. Because thought and consciousness are impossible unless the cortex is intact, and because brain sells do not regenerate, your higher mental f u n c t i c n s are irretrievably lost. You will never again b e able c o rerwrnber the past, or plan for the future, or hear a loved sns's voice, or be consciously aware sf anythlng at 311, for t h e equipment you needed to do t h o s e chinqs is d s s r r ~ y e dand cannot be replaced. You have become, as t h e z l ~ n i c a lidiom has it, "irreversibly noncoqnitive." The subcorrical parts of the brain, however, such as the thalamus, kasal ganglia, brainstem, and cerebellum, a r e more resistant c o damage from lack of blood than the cerebrum is, and they somerimes hold out and continue functioning e v e n when the cerebrum has been destroyed. Those are the x g a n s t h a i sustain your "vegetative" functions such as respiration, circulation, digestion, and metabolism . . . . The result is a human animal that is as much like you as a n y c h i n g could be without having a mind.' When moving frsn pnilosoph:~and psychology to theology and when attempting to apply the psychological definition of person
Identities of Persons, ed. A. Rorty (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, N Y 6 ) , 168, 1 7 3 n . 4 4 ; idem, Sameness and Substance (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980), 160, '~ricT. Olson, The Human Animal: Personal Identitv without Psvchologv (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 7 ff.
t o t h e C h r i s t i a n God, t h e o l o g i a n s a r e c o n f r o n t e d w i t h t h e
f o l l o w i n g dilemma: How c a n t h e r e b e o n e v o l i t i o n , o n e c o g n i t i o n , a n d o n e a c t i o n i n a x i - p e r s o n a l God?
I n o t h e r words, b e c a u s e
t h e o p e r a t r i n i t a i i s ad e x t r a sunt i n d i v i s a ,
it a p p e a r s t o these
~ h e o l o g i a n st h a t there i s i n the T r i n i t y o n l y o n e c e n t e r of s o n s c i o u s n e s s which zhey a r e i n c l i n e d t o c a l l "parson." C o n s e q u e n t l y , they a s k : "Why a d m i t t h r e e p e r s o n s ? " zase f o r
exampie
WIX
Karl B a r t h . '
This was t h e
He c o n s i d e r e d t h a t t h e t e r m
p e r s o n "was n e v e r a d e q u a t e l y c l a r i f i e d . " '
I n s t e a d he p r e f e r r e d
z s s p e a k s f F a t h e r , Son a n d H o l y S p i r i t a s t h r e e "modes o f existence" ( S e i n s w e i s e n ) o f the o n e God.
Y e t B a r t h was n o t t h e
o n l y on2 t o e x p e r i e n c e d i f f i c u l t i e s b e c a u s e t h e c o n c e p t o f person
same t o b e u n d e r s t o o d p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y . D u r i n g t h e iasc t h r e e d e c a d e s a n i n c r e a s i n g number o f v o i c e s have f o u n d t h e psyzbological u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f p e r s o n u n a c c e p t a b l e
and a d v o c a t e d a l t e r n a t i v e s o l u t i o n s . t h e responses
LO
These s o l u t i o n s depend on
q u e s t i o n s r e l a t e d t o t h e human v e g e t a b l e i s s u e .
Some o f t h e s e q u e s t i o n s a r e :
Is t h e human v e g e t a b l e i d e n t i c a l
w i t h t h e o n e you were b e f o r e o r i s he s o m e o n e e l s e ?
In other
w o r d s , c o u l d I e x i s t a t a n o t h e r t i m e i f a n d o n l y i f I now s t a n d i n some p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n t o m y s e l f a s I was, o r s h a l l be,
'Cf. Karl E a r t h , C h u r c h D o a m a t i c s , t r . G. W . B r o r n i l e y ( E d i n b u r g h : T & T C l a r k , 1 9 5 6 - 1 9 7 5 ) , I . 1, 355; I V . 1, 205; I V . 2 , 44.
'Church D o u r n a t i c s 1.1, 3 5 5 .
then?
Could I survive if my nind were lost?
Advocates of the
Psychological Approach argue chat any past or future being that has my mind is me.
A philosophical opponent of the Psychological
Approach has convincingly argued that the Psychological Approach does not work in many particular instances." Therefore, to the
questions raised above he would respond "Yes, the human vegetable is myself," whereas proponents of the Psychological Approach would say "No, t h 2 nxman vegecable is no longer myself."
Theological ethics has addressed the issue of personhood b y proposing the recovery of ore-Cartesian concepts of person rooted in the Judeo-Chrisilan tradition.
Sarah Coakley has offered a
Vlson, The Hurnan Animal, passsim.
Other proponents of
c h e same ideas, known as the Biological Approach, are the
following: Michaei A y e r s , iocke, vol. 2 (London: Routledge, i990); Peter van Inwagen, "The Possibility of Resurrection," International Journal for the Philoso~hvof Reliaion 9 (1978): 114-121; idem, "PhiLosophers and the Words 'Human Bodyt" in Time and Cause, ed P. van Inwagen (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1980); idem, "Plantinga on Trans-world Identity" in Alvin Plantinqa, ed. J. Tomberlin and P. *4ra2Inwacjm ! Dordrecht: Reidel, 1 9 8 5 ) ; idem, "And Yet They Are Not Three Gods but One Godttin Philosophv and the Christian F a i c h , ed. Thomas Morris (Notre Dame, 1N: University of Not re lame P r e s s , 1 9 8 8 ) ; idem, "Four-Dimensional ObjecCs," NoGs 24 i 1 9 9 0 ) : 245-255; idem, Material Beinas (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990); P. F. Snowdon, "Personal Identity and Brain Transplants, " in Human B e i n a s , ed. D. Cockburn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 111; Judith Jarvis Thomson, " Parthood and Identity Across Time," Journal of Philoso~hv80 (1983): 201-220; idem, "Ruminations On an Account of Personal Identity, " in On Beino and Savina: Essavs for Richard Cartwriaht, ed. J. J. Thomson (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987) ; Bernard Williams, "Are Persons Bodies?" in The Philoso~hvof the Body, ed. S. S p i c k e r (Chicago: Quadrant Books, 1970; reprinted in Williams, Problems of the Self [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1 9 7 3 1 ) .
c o g e n t summary of o n e s u c h alternate t h e o l o g i c a l view w h i c h i s b a s e d o n w h a t i s kncwn a s t h e C a p p a d o c i a n c o n c e p t o f p e r s o n a n d l a t e r Greek Orthodcu i h o u q h t .
She h a s s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h i s v i e w
r e s t s on a n u n d e r s i a n d i r i g o f t h e C h r i s t i a n T r i n i t y a s p r o t o t y p e of p e r s o n s - i n - r e i a i l o n .
According t o t h e proponents of t h i s
n e w , t h e d o c t r i n e sf the T r i n i ~ yc a n b e u s e d a s a b l u e p r i n t f o r
numan sociality a n d s t h i c s .
T h e y a r g u e t h a t t h e c o n c e p t o f human
p e r s o n , w h i c h i s z e n t r a i t o human s o c i a l i t y a n d e t h i c s , h a s i t s a n t e c e d e n t i n a t h e o l o g i c a l d e b a t e o v e r d i v i n e p e r s o n s , most c l e a r l y a r t i c u l a t e d b y a g r o u p of t h r e e Greek t h e o l o g i a n s known
a s t h e "Cappadocizn 'athers"
o f the f o u r t h c e n t u r y .
Although
many p r o m i n e n t t h ? o h g i a n s h a v e w r i t t e n w i t h e n t h u s i a s m a b o u t
this t o p i c , ' t h i s c h e o l o q i < a l view i s f a r f r o m b e i n g u n i f o r m o r c o h e r e n t , l e t alcne i n c o n t e s t z d .
the t h e o l o g i e s o f :he
M o r e o v s r , my own research i n t c
above-mentioned contemporary a u t h o r s , a s
S a r a h C o a k l e y , "Why Three? Scme F u r t h e r t h e O r i g i n s of t h e D o c t r i n e o f t h e T r i n i t y , " i n Rernakinq o f C h r i s t i a n D o c t r i n e , e d s . S . C o a k l e y (Oxford: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1993) , 35-36. Rudman, C o n c e p t s of Person and C h r i s t i a n E t h i c s C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 9 7 ) , 1 7 1 - 1 8 9 .
R e f l e c t i o n s on T h e Makinq a n d a n d D. A. P a i l i n Cf. a l s o Stanley ( C a m b r i d g e , MA:
' ~ e o n a r d o B o f f , T r i n i c v a n d Societv ( M a r y k n o l l , N Y : O r b i s Books, 1 9 8 8 ) ; P a c r i c i a W i l s o n - K a s t n e r , F a i t h , Feminism a n d t h e C h r i s t ( P h i l a d e l p h i a , PA: F o r t r e s s Press, 1 9 8 3 ) ; C o l i n E . G u n t o n , T h e P r o m i s e o f T r l n x a r i a n T h e o l o g v , 2d ed. ( E d i n b u r g h : T&T C l a r k , 1 9 9 7 ) ; J o h n D. Z i z i o u l a s , B e i n q a s Communion ( C r e s t w o o d , N Y : S t . V l a d i m i r ' s S e m i n a r y Press, 1 9 8 5 ) ; C h r i s t o s Y a n n a r a s , The Freedom o f M o r a l i r v ( C r e s t w o o d , N Y : S t . V l a d i m i r ' s S e m i n a r y Press, 1 9 8 4 ) ; C a ~ h e r i n eMowry LaCugna, God f o r U s : The T r i n i t v a n d C h r i s t i a n Life (San F r a n c i s c o , CA: Harper, 1 9 9 1 ) . -
many t o a c c e p t the p a r a d o x o f t h r e e i n c n e o r o n e i n t h r e e ; t o a c c e p t t h a t o n e p e r s o n i s the c a u s e o f t h e two o t h e r s i n t h e Holy T r i n i t y , b u t that a l l a r e God; t h a t tie t h r e e a r e e q u a l a n d o f t h e same s u b s t a n c e w i t h o n e a n o t h e r ;
c h a t t h e a f f i r m a t i o n of
t h r e e p e r s o n s does n c c i m p l y t h r e e g o d s ; t h a t the t h r e e p e r s o n s
a r e r e a l , n o t mere masks o f t h e u n i q u e God. I n t h e p r e s e c c scudy I propose t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n o n e sf c h e C a p p a d o c i a n F z t h e r s , n a m e l y G r e g o r y o f
Nyssa, made t o tnc c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f
he t r i n i t a r i a n dogma.
e x a c t l y , I shall a c a l y z e h i s z o n c e p t ~f d i v i n e p e r s o n s .
More
Since he
i s t h e C a p p a d o c i a n r h o r e l i e d on p h i l ~ s c p h i c a ls k i l l s t h e m o s t , a n a n a l y s i s o f h l s w c r k s will p r o v i d e m e w i t h t h e m o s t
i n t e r e s t i n g rnaterlal a b o u t t h e c o n c e p c o f d i v i n e p e r s o n s .
As
some o f G r e g o r y ' s c c p h n a c i o n s w e r e l s a r n e d f r o m h i s o l d e r b r o t h e r , Basil, o r p e r h a p s f r o m t h e i r ccrnmon f r i e n d , G r e g o r y of N a z i a n z u s , o c c a s i o n a i l y I s h a l l a l s o r e f e r t o t h e t e a c h i n g s of the l a t t e r t w o .
N e 7 ~ c r t h e l e s s ,because of c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f t i m e
a n d s p a c e , the b u l k sf t h e d i s s e r t a t i o n d e a l s w i t h d i v i n e p e r s o n s l n G r e g o r y of N y s s a . I w o u l d Like t o nake i t c l e a r from t h e o u t s e t t h a t I i n t e n d t o d e a i x i t h t h e c c n c e p t of human p e r s o n a n d
human a n a l o g i e s Gregory u s e s o n l y i n a s m u c h a s t h e y h e l p me t o c l a r i f y t h e d i v i n e persons.
Conversely,
in this dissertation I
do n o t i n t e n d t o p u r s u e t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s t h e c o n c e p t of divine
F e r s o n s h a s on t h e c o n c e p t o f human p e r s o n .
D i s c u s s i o n of the
human p e r s o n p e r se would certainly require considering such i s s u e s as free wrll, human f r e e d o m , g e n d e r , t h e image of God i n humans, a n d t h e body-soul
problem.
Some o f t h e s e i s s u e s h a v e
a l r e a d y b e e n dealc w i t h , ' " others n e c e s s i t a t e a t l e a s t a n o t h e r
dissertatmn.
: S e e David 6. a a l a s , METOYEIA OEOI': M a n ' s P a r t i c i ~ a t i o ni n God's Perfections a c c o r d i n a t o S t . Greaorv o f Nvssa (Rome: " I B C " L i b r e r i a H e r d e r , 1 3 6 6 ) ; J o h n P . C a v a r n o s , " Gregory of Nyssa o n t h e N a t u r e o f t h s S O U L , " Greek O r t h o d o x T h e o l o a i c a l Review 1, no. 2 ( 1 9 5 5 ) : 133-141; X a u d i a D e s a l v o , L f " o l t r e " n e l presente. La f i l o s o f i a d e l l f ucmc :n G r e g o r F o d i Nissa ( M i l a n : V i t a e P e n s i e r o , 1 9 9 6 ) ; A l b r e c h t 3rhle, T h e T h e o r v o f W i l l i n C l a s s i c a l A n t i q u i t v ( B e r k e l e y , CA: Ur.l.:-trsity of " a l i f o r n i a Press, 1 9 8 2 ) ; J+rorne Salth, L a c o n c e o t l s n d e l a liberr* c h e z G r e q o i r e d e N v s s e ( P a r i s : 3. V r i n , 1 9 5 3 ) ; V e r m E . F. H a r r i s o n , G r a c e a n d Human Freedom a c c o r d i n q t o S t . G r w o r v of Nvssa ( L e w i n s t o n , N Y : E . M e l l e n Press, 1 9 9 2 ) ; eadem, " G e n d e r , G e n e r a t i o n , a n d V i r g i n i t y in C a p p a d o c i a n T h e o i o g y * , " The J o u r n a l o f T h e o l o a i c a l S t u d i e s n.s. 4 7 ( 1 9 9 6 ) : 38-68; eadem, "Male a n d Female i n t h e C a p p a d o c i a n T h e o l o g y , " T h e J o u r n a l of T h e o l o ~ i c a lS t u d i e s , n . s . 4 1 ( 1 9 9 0 ) : 441-471; S a l v a t o r e L i l l a , " P l a t o n i s m a n d t h e F a t h e r s " i n E n c v c l o ~ e d i aof t h e E a r l v C h u r c h , sd. A n g e l o d i B e r a r d i n o , tr. A. W a l f o r d , v o l . 2 ( O x f o r d : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 3 9 2 ) , 689-698; E k k e h a r d Muhlenberg, " S y n e r g i s m i n G r e g o r y of Nyssa, " Z e i t s c h r i f t fur n e u t e s t a m e n t l i c h e W i s s e n s c h a f t 68 ( 1 9 7 7 ) : 93-122; L. G . P a t t e r s o n , M e t h o d i u s of O l v r n ~ u s : D i v i n e S o v e r e i a n t v , Human Freedom, and Life IR Christ ( W a s h i n g t o n , DC: The C a t h o l i c U n i v e r s i t y of A m e r x a Press, 1997); E n r i c o P e r o l i , I1 ~ l a t o n i s m o e l ' a n t r o p o l o a i a f i l o s o f i c a d i G r e a o r i o d i Nisa: c o n p a r t i c o l a r e r i f e r i m e n t o asli i n f l u s s i d i P l a t o n e , P l o t i n o e Porfirio ( M i l a n o : Vita e p e n s i e r o , 1 9 9 3 ) ; M a r i a - B a r b a r a von S t r i t z k y , Zurn Problem d e r Erkenntnis b e i Sreaor von Nvssa ( M u n s t e r : A s c h e n d o r f f , 1 9 7 3 ) .
CXAPTER
I
STATUS Q U A E S T I O N I S AND METHODOLOGY
I n t h i s c h a p t e r I shall e s t a b l i s h t h e s c a t e o f t h e q u e s t i o n i n c h e area of p r o p o s e d r e s e a r c h a n d t h e n p r e s e n t t h e m e t h o d o l o g y o f S t u d i e s d e a l i n g w i t h t h e c o n c e p t of d i v i n e
t h i s dissercation.
p e r s o n s o r t h e Gr3e.k words used t o e x p r e s s i t
( 2 .g .
npoawtrov.
ivroo~aoig)c a n b e ; r a p e d i n t o trhree c a t e g o r i e s : a ) s t u d i e s w h i c h e i t h e r b r i e f l y r n e n z b n t h e C a p p a d o c i a n F a t h e r s r works in a l a r g e r -.
c o n t e x t o r a r e ccn-rned LO one o r t w o o f their w o r k s p r e s e n t e d cursorily.;
b ) sczc;Fes t h a t d e a l w i t h e i ~ h e rrrpdawarrov o r u.rro~~acns,
'The m o s t i m p o r t a n t s u c h s t u d i e s a r e t h e f o l l o w i n g : e n san S e v e r i n o G o n z a l e z , La f o r m u l a tMI.4'O'CCIATPEIC'Y~O~T~EI~ G r e ~ o r i od e N i s a iRome: G r e g o r i a n u m , 1 9 3 9 ) ; G . L . P r e s t i g e , God i n P a t r i s t i c T h o u u k , 2d e d . [London: SPCK, 1 9 5 2 ) ; C a r l A n d r e s e n , "Zur Encstehung ~ n G d zschichce d e r t r i n i t a r i s c h e n Personbegriffes," Z 2 i t s c h r i f t f u r neutestamentliche Wissenschaft u n d d i e Kunde d e r a i t e r e n K i r c h e 5 2 ( 1 9 6 1 ) : 1-39; G . W . H . Lampe, a n d "Q~oowrrov" e d . A P a t r i s t i c G r e e k Lexicon, s . v . "'~'riocsraa~~~' (Oxford: Oxford V r x - ~ e r s i t yP r e s s , 1 9 6 1 ) ; B a s i l S t u d e r , " H y p o s t a s e " in H i s t x i s c h e s W o r t e r b u c h der P h i l o s o p h i e , r e v . e d . Joachim R i t t e r , v o l . 3 (Basei: Schwabe, 1 9 7 4 ) ; M a n l i o S i r n o n e t t i , La c r i s i a r i a n a ne: IV s e c o l o (Rome: A u g u s t i n i a n u m , 1 9 7 5 ) ; L u i s e .Abramowski, " T r i n i t a r i s c h e und ~ h r i s t o l o g i s c h e H y p o s t a s e n f o r m e l n , " T h e o l o a i e und P h i l o s o ~ h i e54 ( 1 9 7 9 ) : 38-49; J o h n Lynch, " P r o s b p c n i n G r e g o r y o f N y s s a : A T h e o l o g i c a l Word i n T r a n s i t i o n , " T h e o i o a i c a l S t u d i e s 40 (1979): 728-38; B a s i l S t u d e r , "Der P e r s o n - B e g r i f f i n der f r u h e n k i r c h e n a m t l i c h e n T r i n i t a t s L e h r e , " T h e o l o a i e und P h i l o s o ~ h i e5 7 ( 1 9 8 2 ) : 161-77; A n d r e a Milano, Persona i n t e o l o a i a . A l l e o r i a i n i d e l s i a n i f i c a t o d i p e r s o n a nel c r i s t i a n e s i r n o a n t i c o (Naples: D e h o n i a n e , 1 9 8 4 ) ; A n d r e de Halleux, " P e r s o n a l i s m e ou e s s e n t i a l i s m e t r i n i t a i r e c h e z l e s Peres c a p p a d o c i e n s ? Une m a u v a i s e c o n t r o v e r s e , " Revue t h e o l o a i a u e d e L o u v a i n 1 7 ( 8 6 : 129-55, 265-92; M a r i a S i l v i a T r o i a n o , "I1
b u t do n o t c o n s i d e r the C a p p a d o c i a n s ' ;
c ) s t u d i e s that deal with
npocrwrrov and u r o a ~ u o ~i sn t h e C a p p a d o c i a n s , t h e t r i n i t a r i a n nczion o f p e r s o n s . '
s h o w i n g how they shaped
A l t h o u g h I refer t o s t u d i e s
from a l l t h r e e g r c c p s throughout t h e d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
it i s m a i n l y
s t u d i e s i n t h e t n l r i q o u p i h a t d e f i n e t h e status q u a e s t i o n i s for
aoncetco d i numerazlone d e l l ? i p o s t a s i i n B a s i l i o d i Cesarea," V e t e r a C h r i s t i a n o r u r n 2 4 (19873: 337-52; J. I b a d e t a n d F . Mendoza, " E l v a l o r d e l t e r m i n c ' h y p o s t a s i s ' e n e l l i b r o I C o n t r a Eunomium 3e G r e g o r i o d e N i s a " i n E l " C s n t r a Eunornium I " e n l a ~ r o d u c c i o n l i t e r a r i a d e G r e q o r i o de N i s a . S i x t h I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o l l o q u i u m o n G r e a o r v o f Nvssa, e d s - Lucas F . Mateo-Seco a n d J u a n L . B a s t e r o (Parnplona: U n i v e r s i d a d d e N a v a r r a , 1 9 8 8 1 , 329-37; J a r o s l a v Pel i k a n , C h r i s r i a n : t v a n d C l a s s i c a l C u l t u r e : The M e t a m o r ~ h o s i s o f N a t u r a l T h e o l o a v iz m e C h r i s t i a n E n c o u n t e r w i t h H e l l e n i s m ( N e w Haven, CT: Yale 3n:-:ersity Press, 1993); G . C h r i s t o p h e r S t e a d , Philosophv i n C h r i x i z n Ant~ouitv (Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1394) ; Jean P e p i n , ""Trrap& e t Qrrcia~aaise n Cappadoce" i n H v p a r x i s e H v ~ o s t a s i snel N e o ~ l a t o n i s m o . Atti d e l 1 C o l l o a u i o I n t e x z z i o n a l e del C s n t r o d i R i c e r c a sul Neoplatonisrno LJr.i-:srsita deal: S t u d i d i C a t a n i a , 1 - 3 o t t o b r e L g W ) , e d s . F . Rornanc a n d D . ? . Taormina ( F l o r e n c e : Leo S . O l s c h k i , 1994), 5 5 - 5 . - F o r example: R . E . H i t t , " H y p o s t a s i s , " i n A m i c i t i a e C o r o l l a : A Volume s f E s s a v s P r e s e n t e d t o James R e n d e l H a r r i s , e d . H. G. Wood (London: University o f London Press, l933), 319-43; Maurice N e d o n c e l l e , " P r o s d p o n a n d p e r s o n a d a n s l ' a n t i q u i t e c l a s s i q u e , " Revue d e s s c i e n c e s r e l i s i e u s e s 22 ( 1 9 4 8 ) : 277-99; H e i n r i c h D o r r i e , " ' 1 8 ~ o o i a o i $ :Wort- und B e d e u t u n g s g e s c h i c h t e " o r i g i n a l l y p u b l i s h a d i n N a c h r i c n t e n der Akademie der W i s s e n s c h a f t e n i n Gotrinoen, p h i l . - h i s t . K l a s s e J a h r g . 1955 ( N o . 3 ) : 35-92 ( r e p r i n t e d in i d e m , P l a t o n i c a Minora [Munchen: W . F i n k , 19761, 1 2 - 6 9 ) . 'A. M i c h e l , " R y p o s t a s e t f i n D i c t i o n n a i r e d e t h e o l o s i e c a t h o l i a u e (Paris: p r i n t e d for Letouzey e t Ane, 1 9 2 2 ) , 369-437; Jiirgen Hammerstaeaz, " H y p o s i l a s i s [ ' U T ~ ~ T U "~ Li Sn ) R e a l l e x i k o n fiir A n t i k e und C h r i s t e n c u m v o l . 1 6 ( S t u t t g a r t : A. H i e r s e m a n n , 1 9 9 4 ) : 986-1035; Andre de S a l l e u x , " ' H y p o s t a s e ' e t ' p e r s o n n e ' d a n s l a f o r m a t i o n d u dogme t r i n i t a i r e ( c a . 375-381),11 Revue d'histoire ecclesiastiaue 7 9 : i W 4 ) : 3 1 3 - 3 6 9 , 625-670.
me,
A s I shail ercieavor t o snow, however, t h e l a t t e r a r e e i t h e r
coo s h o r t o r s e r i m s l y d e f i c l a t .
B u t before t h i s ,
I would l i k e
t o a n s w e r t h e quescion w h e t h s r a c o n c e p t o f p e r s o n e x i s t e d b e f o r e t h e Cappadocians.
1. Did a N o t i o n of 3 e r s o n E x i s t i n A n t i q u i t v ?
There i s a whole c c n c 2 m p o r a r y d e b a t e on w h e t h e r t h e a n c i e n t s had a notion of p e r s x .
Tn o r d c t o u n d e r s t a n d t h i s d e b a t e a n d why I
t h i n k t h a t t h e a n c i a x s bid w t have a n o t i o n of p e r s o n b e f o r e
the Cappadocians I n e e d t o i n d i c a t e what I mean by a p e r s o n . Such a d e f i n i t i c n i s no e a s y -.ask, a s p r o v e d by t o d a y ' s numerous,
and many times contradictory, d e f i n i t i o n s of a p e r s o n . attempting t o do s o , I wanc :J
.'
In
i n d i c a t e as b a s i c a d e f i n i t i o n a s
p o s s i b l e , s o t h a ~2 ran b e x c e p t e d a s a x i o m a t i c f o r p o s s i b l e t h e o r i e s of p e r s c c 2); b o i h s l l e s o f
d e f i n i t i o n t h a t wxid
he d e b a t e .
A working
s a t i s f , a i l t h e s e c r i t e r i a i s probably t h e
. .. following: a perscc i s "an : x u v i s i b l e ,
u n i q u e and t h e r e f o r e non-
r e p l i c a b l e u n i t y ir. hcman existence. "' T h e i s s u e of ;he
person i n c l a s s i c a l a n t i q u i t y i s e s p e c i a l l y
'For a b r i e f overview, see E n c v c l o o e d i a o f P s v c h o l o q v , eds. H. J. Eysenck, W. A r n o l d , and R . Meili ( N e w Y o r k : H e r d e r , l 9 7 2 ) , 777 f .
'W. A r n o l d , " P e r s o n , " i n E n c v c l o ~ e d i aof Psvcholoay, eds . H. J. Eysenck, W . A r n o l d , a n d R . Meili ( N e w York: Herder, l972), 778.
important for my thesis.
If the ancients were aware of, or
interested in, the notion of p e r s o n o r individual, t h e n the Cappadocians could nave drawn on a p r e v i o u s development.
such a notion exist?
But did
There are some s c h o l a r s of antiquity who
believe that the ancients did have s u c h a notion.
They contend
that ancient writers' interest in the various traits of human personality--such as courage, rationality, love, even
consciousness--is a pertinent proof that the ancients were aware of a notion of person.
As I shall exemplify a little later when
analyzing such an irgurnent extensivelyfW these scholars either confuse "person" ~ ~ i "personality," i h or "person" with "soul."
As
m y definition of a person makes it clear, a person is a unique
human existence, wi-.ile personality is perhaps best understood as "the relatively stabie organization of a person's motivational dispositions, arising from the interaction between biological' drives and the s o c i a l and physical environment."'
child, a
"Cornelia J. de Vogel, "The Concept of Personality in Greek and Christian Thought," in Studies in Philoso~hvand the Historv of Philoso~hv,ed. john K. i3yan (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1963), 2 0 - 6 0 . Daniel F. Stramara, jr., "Unmasking t h c Meaning of ~ p o o w r r o v : Prosdpon as Person in the Works of Gregory of Nyssa" (Ph.D. dissertation, St. Louis University, St. Louis, MO, 1996). '1n the definition of personality, I would replace the word "biological" with "natural1' so as not to exclude the soul.
'T. Takuma, "Personality," in Encvclo~ediaof Psvcholoq~, eds. H. J. Eysenck, W. Arnold, and R. Meili (New York: Herder,
mentally deranged !urnan, or a human vegetable can be considered persons; they should be acknowledged as existential units, sven if they do not have a personality or are not "ego-conscious."
I
do acknowledge char the ancients were preoccupied with the soul and its traits.
But they did not connect soul with the
~ndividual,because bdore che Cappadocians they only had
rudiments of a c n e c r y of the individual.
I shall examine these
rudiments short iy . Another nuance x h i c h some of these scholars are willing ro
concede is that "there is probably not a (post-Cartesian) concept of 'personf in Grzek philosophy.
But there is a concept of
rational animal, at least in Aristotle and the Stoics."' What the author of this statement means is that the ancients did not have the modern, post-Cartesian concept of person, but they did have a certain c o n e p t of person, even if underdeveloped.
I
think that the k i n d sf arguments zhese scholars use to ccntend that there was a notion of person in Greek philosophy (even if different from the nodern notion, they concede!) prove only that the ancients were i n t e r e s t e d in distinguishing between the human
species and various animal species. The ancients, I should reemphasize, were hardly interested in distinguishing two human individuals from on2 another or a human individual from an
'Christopher Gill, "Is There a Concept of Person in Greek Philosophy?" in P s v c h o l o ~ v , ea. Steven Everson (Cambridge: Cambridge University P r e s s , 1 9 9 1 ) , 1 9 3 .
individual animal. Another series of studies has actually demonstrated that for various reasons the ancients did not identify, nor were they interested to elaborate on, che human individual?
Although
Plotinus came closest to recognizing a distinctive human individuality, he actually did not achieve this.
Another step
forward was made by Plotinus' best known disciple, Porphyry, who gave a definition of an individual as a unique collection of properties.
In a first arciclt on "Forms of Individuals in Plotinus," John Rist remarks = h a t one of the major contributions Plotinus made to thought was his recognition of the role of individuality.
For Aristotle, the individual could not be defined."
Philosophy
should therefore be concerned with the individual only inasmuch as he is a member of a class.
As for a Platonic philosopher's
"John M. Rist, Human Value: A Studv in Ancient Philosophical Ethics (ieiden: Brill, 1982), 145-52; idem, "Forms of Individuals in Plotinus," Classical Ouarterlv n o s . , 13 (1963): 223-31; "Ideas of Individuais in Plotinus: A Reply to Dr. Blumenthal," Revue internationale de hil lo sop hie 24 (1970): 298303; "Prohairesis: Proclus, Plotinus et alii" in Oe Jamblique a Proclus, ed. 8. D. Larsen (Vandoeuvres-Geneva: Fondation Hardt, 1975), 103-117. Cf. also H. J. Blumenthal, "Did Plotinus Believe in Ideas of Individuals?," Phronesis 11 (1966): 61-80; A. H. Armstrong, "Form, Individual and Person in Plotinus," Dion~sius1 (1977): 49-68; Charles H. Kahn, "Discovering the Will: From Aristotle to Augustine" in The Question of 'Eclecticism' in Later Greek Philosoohv, eds. John M. Dillon and A. A. Long (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, l988), 234-59.
view on the issue of individuality, Rist quotes a good summary of lt
by Grube: We must rernemb2r that from first to last the aim of the Platonic philosopher is to live on the universal plane, to lose himself more and more in the contemplation of truth, so that the perfect psyche would, it seems, lose itself completely in he universal mind, the world-psyche. Hence it remains individual only in so far as it is imperfect, and personal imrnorcality is not something to aim at, but s o m e t h i n c j ro w r j r o w . : -
Plato and Aristotle spoke cf F o r m (or Ideas) as corresponding to ,one set of things :hat have 3 common name,-' that is, Forms are
of universals.
Mcrmver, '
bcth ;f
them agr2ed that there is a
,
Form of Human,-'* bur c h e y di5 not accept that there could also be a Form of the indi- dual known as Socrates.
Although not
rejecting Forms of miversals, Plotinus raised the question of the possibility of existence of Forms of individual humans and believed in the existence of such Forms. speak of a Form of S o c r a t e s :
In his view, one can
This strange view of Plotinus led
Rist to state: "I b d i e v e is may now be assumed
...
that Plotinus
was one of those Flatonists who subscribed to a heretical version
of Platonism according to which =here are not only forms of
.-
--GeorgeM. A. Grube, Plato's T h o u a h t (London: Methuen, 1935; several reprints until 1980), 148. -
7
-'Platof Republic 596a5-7.
-
1
-'E.g. 1096bl.
Plato, 3hilebus, i 5 a ; Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics
s p e c i e s b u t a l s o f o r m s o f i n d i v i d u a l s , a t l e a s t i n t h e c a s e of i n d i v i d u a l men.
"lC
P l o t i n u s d i s c u s s e s Forms o f i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h e f o l l o w i n g t r e a t i s e s : Ennead ; i . 9 [ 5 ] 1 2 ; Enn. V . 7 4 2 ; Enn.
IV.3
VI.7.8.1-5;
Enn. V I . 3
[27! 5.8-11 a n d IV.3.6.15-17; Enn. V I . 7
VI.'.
[44]
9 . 3 - 4 6 ; VI.7.11.14-15; Enn. V I . 2 .-
9.2-3.-
[23] 8.21[ 3 8 ] 3.13;
[ 4 3 ] 22.11-17;
T h e s e x i o n s t h a t o f f e r much o n t h e
subject are t h e f l r x chree.
Enn. V.9 -
[18]; Enn. VI.5
,
-
A s R i s t h a s r i g h t l y noted, - ' i n
[ 5 ] 1 2 P l x i n u s i s somewhat h e s i t a n t a b o u t Forms o f
i n d i v i d u a l s , but here f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e h e r a i s e s t h e q u e s t i o n
'9. R i s t , %man V a l u e : A Study i n A n c i e n t P h i l o s o ~ h i c a l . . E t h i c s ( L e i d e n : Brr-it 19821, 101. .,
- F o r G r e e k ; s : x a n d English t r a n s l a t i o n see P l o t i n u s , E n n e a d s , 7 v o l s . , z r . A . H . Armstrong ( C a m b r i d g e , MA: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1365-1988). I n s q u a r e b r a c k e t s I m a r k t h e c h r o n o l o g i c a l order i n which t h e Enneads were w r i t t e n , a s i n d i c a t e d b y Porphyry i n h i s e d i t i o n o f t h e E n n e a d s .
I ~ l c i i v i d u a l s in P l o t i n u s , " 2 2 4 . H e ree m p h a s i z e s t h e sams p o s i t i o n s e v e n y e a r s l a t e r i n "Ideas o f I n d i v i d u a l s i n P l o c i n u s : A R e p l y to D r . B l u r n e n t h a l , " Revue i n t e r n a t i o n a l e de o h i l o s o ~ h i e24 (1970): 2 9 8 - 3 0 3 a g a i n s t a r e j o i n d e r t o h i s first article p u b l i s h e d b y H . J. B l u r n e n t h a l , "Did P l o t i n u s B e l i e v e i n I d e a s o f I n d i v i d u a l s ? , " P h r o n e s i s 11 ( 1 9 6 6 ) : 61-80. B l u m e n t h a l ( p . 7 6 ) a r g u e d t h a t i n b o t h Enn. V. 9 [ 5 ] 1 2 a n d V I . 5 [ 2 3 j P l o t i n u s d e n i e d t h e e x i s t e n c e o f Forms of i n d i v i d u a l s . After R i s t ' s c r i t i q u e , B l u m e n t h a l r e c o g n i z e d t h a t i n t h e e a r l i e r a r t i c l e "I probably adduced VI.5.8 a s n e g a t i v e e v i d e n c e [for the s x i s t e n c e of Forms of i n d i v i d u a l s ] t o o c o n f i d e n t l y " ( B l u r n e n t n a l , P l o t i n u s ' Psvcholoav: H i s D o c t r i n e of t h e Embodied S o u l :The Hague: W a r t i n u s N i j h o f f , 19711, 1 2 2 f , n . 2 4 ) . Later, t w o o r h e r P l o t i n i a n s c h o l a r s agreed with R i s t : A . H . - - R i s t , "Forms ~f
A r m s t r o n g , "Form, Individual a n d P e r s o n i n P l o t i n u s , " D i o n v s i u s 1 ( 1 9 7 7 ) : 49-68, ana L l o y d P . G e r s o n , P l o t i n u s ( N e w York: R o u t l e d g e , l W Q , "7 f .
J?
o f t h e p o s s i b i l i t y ~f t h e i r e . x i s c e n c e :
But i f t h e F o r 3 of man i s i h ? r e . . . t h e n o n e m u s t s a y t h a t t h e Forms o f a n i v e r s a l s ( ~ a 0 o X o u ~ h ~ i Gaqr e ) t h e r e , n o t of S o c r a t e s b u t ~f man. But m u s t e n q u i r e a b o u t man w h e t h e r t h e form o f :his i n d i v i d u a l ( u ~ a & ~ a t s - r ai)s there; t h e r e i s i n d i v i d u a l i t y , b e c a u s e t h e same [ i n d i v i d u a l f e a t u r e ] i s d i f f e r e n t i n d i f f e r e n t people.:' The t r e a t i s e w h e r e ? l o r i n u s nos;
c l e a r l y a f f i r m s the e x i s t e n c e o f
Forms of i n d i v i d u a l s and h i s b2iief i n t h e m i s Enn. V . 7
[181.
The q u e s t i o n openi.,; his t r e a ~ i s ti s " I s there a n idea o f e a c h particular thing?" b a s e s h i s argurnenr: "If Sccrates,
And t h e a n s w e r t o i t i s "Yes." 3.".
Plotinus
che i m m o r z a l i t y of t h e s o u l , s a y i n g t h a t
t h a c i s r;he s o u l - f S o c r a t e s , a l w a y s e x i s t s ,
there
will be an absolui? Socraces i n c h e sense t h a t , i n s o f a r a s t h e y a r e s o u l , individuaLs a r e a l s o s a i d t o e x i s t i n t h i s way i n t h e i n ~ e l l i g i b l eworld. "" Yet Plotinus d o e s b e l i e v e i n r e i n c a r n a t i o n , a s ~ n o c h e rt r e a t i s e c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s w i t h Enn. V . 7 s u c h a s Enn. 3 . 4
* - - .
I.:;
shows.
T%xefore,
when r e a l i z i n g t h a t s u c h
a d o c t r i n e c o u l d ,;:*ie a d e a ~ hblow t o t h e t h e o r y of Forms of individuals i f
he l a i r z e r is b a s a d on t h e i m m o r t a l i t y o f the
s o u l , h e i m m e d i a t e l y t r i e s t o a d d r e s s t h i s i s s u e a n d accommodate i t t o h i s new t h e c r l i .
And h e does seem t o accommodate t h e two
t h e o r i e s by c o n s i d e r i n g i n Enn. V . 7 . 3 . 7 - 1 0
that e v e n a c r a f t s m a n
who makes two i d e n t i c a l t h i n g s i s a w a r e o f their
logical
difference."
By " l o g i c a l d i f f e r e n c e " h e means " n u m e r i c a l
difference."
I n g i s t ' s words, " a l t h o u g h X is r e i n c a r n a t e d a s Y,
h e c a n n e v e r blot 3uc t h a t f o r m e r X-nsss
Once e x i s t e n c e h a s x c u r r e d ,
e l i m i n a t e d . ""
Thersfore,
so
LO
t h a t d i d i n fact e x i s t .
speak, i t cannot be
the Form o f X w i l l c o n t i n u e t o e x i s t
i n t h e i n t e l l i g i b l e world, even i f X i s r 3 i n c a r n a t e d a s Y . The reason why ? l o t i n u s f o c n d i t n e c e s s a r y t o p o s t u l a t e a Form f o r each h u m a n , a s w e l l a s a Form o f Human,
is t h u s s t a t e d :
No, t h e r e c a n n o t be t h e same f o r m i n g p r i n c i p l e (,\6yos) for d i f f e r e n t F n a i T : i d u a l s , a n d o n e man w i l l n o t serve a s a model f o r s e v e r a l men d i f f e r i n g from e a c h o t h e r n o t o n l y b y r e a s o n o f t h e i r m a t t e r b u t with 3 v a s t number of s p e c i a l Men s r e n o t r e l a t e d t o t h e i r f o r m a s d i f f e r e n c e s cf f o r m . p o r t r a i t s o f S s c r a t e s a r e z o their o r i g i n a l , b u t t h e i r d i f f e r e n t s c. .r x t u r e s m u s t r e s u l t f r o m d i f f e r e n t f o r m i n g p r i n c i p k s . -Compared w i t h Enn. Y.3.12, E n n . V. 7 r e p r e s e n t s a p r o g r e s s i n t h e
sense t h a t t h e t s e
2f
such
s o u l to a c c o u n t fcr :he i n d i v i d u a l s s h o w s :hat
a R
srprnent a s t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e
d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e Forms o f v a r i o u s
P l o t i n u s has r e a l i z e d t h e i m p o r t a n c e " o f
d i f f e r e n c e s of c h a r a c t e r ,
a s a c a i n s t t h o s e o f b o d i l y features. " - '
E l s e w h e r e P l o i i n u s i n q u i r e s about t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e Forms o f i n d i v i d u a l a n i m a l s 2 ' o r i n d i v i d u a l
-. --Rist, "Forms s f I n d i v i d u a l s i n P l o t i n u s , " 2 2 8 . --Enn. - V.7 +.
-'Rist,
8
1.19-23.
"Forms 3f I n b i v i d u a i s , " 2 2 7 .
-'Erin. V.7.3.2-3. I
-
--
fires."
Nevertheless, he finds the hypothesis of Forms of
animals less attrac~ivethan that of Forms of human individuals and completely rejects the F o r m of individual fires because in his view Fire is a zontinuum.
Hzving turned his attention twice
t o t h e relevant passages where Plotinus discusses the Forms of
individuals, gist zoncludes t k x : [Flrorn the tiae he wrote 5.7, Plotinus accepted certain Ideas of individuals, and . . . his conviction was strongest in the cass cf individual men. Ir is possible that he positively resffirms his sosition in 4 . 3 . 5 , but at least we must rnaintsin z h a r he nowhere withdraws or rejects it, explicitly or implicitly.- "
Who could kav+ possibly influenced Plotinus' theory of Forms
of individuals?
4ist suggests that it might be Aristotle who
alludes to this in FIet. 990514 and the Stoics through their distinction betwem
KOLVI;)STTOLOP and i S i w l ; ~ o i o v . - -
.
.
.
present the A r i s t z x ~ a nr x x a c e . -
7
I shall first
In the above-mentioned
passage Aristotle ~ r c c s :
For accordin9 : c the 5rgKrnents from the existence of the sciences there will be F c r z s of all things of which there are s c i e n c e s , and according to the argument that there is one a t t r i b u r r e ccmmon L O mar+- things there will be Forms even of negations, and according to the argument that t h e r e is an object for thought even when the thing has perished, there will be Forms of perishable things; for we can have an image
VI. 5
-. -"Rist, "Ideas af Individuals," 303. Cf. also J. M. Rist, Plotinus: The Road tc R e a i i t v (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1 9 6 7 1 , ill. .- Rist, "Forms of Indi-iiduais in Plotinus," 229 f .
In his recent book an Plotinus, Gerson has paid close attention to Aristotle's influence.
Yet, besides alluding to Met. 990b14,
Gerson adduces ~ h testimony e cf the Peripatetic Alexander of
nphrodisias (fl. ca. 200 passage in Arisrocls.
?.D)
who attempts to explicate the
I now quste Alexander:
The argumenc r h a c tries c s establish that there a r e Ideas O is z s follows. If whenever we think from thoughr - o 6 L of man or f o c x d or animal, we ars thinking of something that is b c ~ hz r o n g tt? c t i x ~ s;hat exist y t t is not one of the p a r t i c x l a r s &v lia8'i~ua;ov) (fcr when c h e latter have perished the same chs~;q.h.c remains), clearly there is something besides p a r ~ i c u l a r sand perceptibles, which we think of wherhsr the l a ~ ~ exist 2 r or not; for we are certainly noi = h e n thinking of something non-existent. And this is the " a r m and a n Idea. Now he [Aristotle] says that this argument also es~ablishesIdeas of things that are perishing and have p s r i s t x i , and in general of things that are both particulars and p x i s h a b l e - - e . g . , of Socrates, of Plato; for we think of t h e s e men and preserve some image of chem even when t h e y no i c q e r exist. And indeed we also think of th.in9.s that do R o c exist at all, like a hippocentaur, 3 chimaera; zonsequently neither does this argument si-.ci..i 13.3: t 5 . c ~313 Ideas.-'
Alexander explains r k a i , Aristotle says z i a :
. , . 1. nrs
(critique of the Platonic Forms,
ih? "argomezt from thought" would lead the
Platonists to c o n c h d e that there are Forms of particulars, a conclusion which :hey
may u a n i zo avoid.
Gerson contends that
"Plotinus certainly knew the argument as it appears in the
--
-'Alexander of Aphrodisias, In Aristotelis Meta~hvsica Commentaria 81.25-82.7, ed. M. Sayduck, Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca I (Berlin: Rsimer, 1891). ET by L. Gerson, Plotinus (New Y o r k : Routledge, l994), 7 3 .
Metaphvsics and quire p o s s i b l y knew of the longer version" as it
appears in Alexander's
commentary.
"
What is surprising,
however, is that 2lxinus accepced the conclusion envisaged by -qrlscotle, c h u s beesrning :he
represent~civeof a heretical
version of Platonism.
I shall now r u n to the s3cond influence on Plotinus' theory of Forms of individuals, F A . , K O L V Grroiov ~ and ibiws ;roiJv, :he .
-.
category, the qua-:r:ed
the S t o i c distinction between
cvc components of the second Stoic ..
f 5 ) m ) i o i f ; .' -
Thesaurus Linauae Zraecae CD-ilorn, mi-
never occurs
I.-.
A search t h r o u g h the
r e v e a l s t h a t t h e phrase
-~nneads,2nd neither do its two
KOLV&S
components
within four l i n s ~f eac?. t h e r , while i 6 i w ~ - r o t uo c c u r s once at E n n . VI.1 never
[ 4 2 ] 30.6, rhough its t w o components (i6iws and mi-)
occur elsewkre in :he
ocher.
E n n s a d s wlthin four lines of each
Yet Enn. Y . 1 . 3 0 is a later treatise, number 42 in
Porphyry's c h r o n o l m y of r h e f n n e a d s , and the passage concerned is nothing but ? l c z F ~ . u s ' famous critique of the Stoic categories. So, it is normal t:
find a r 2 f e r e n c e
qualified" in Enn. -2. i. 30.
LJ
the "individually
I therefore conclude t h a t i t is n o t
i n this treatise =?.at one should look for Stoic influences on
."Gerson, P l o t i n u s , 74. -.
'-It is probably worth mentioning t h a t G e r s o n (Plotinus, 7 2 7 8 ) is t o t a l l y uninterested in t h i s influence on Plotinus, a l t h o u g h Rist mentions it explicitly in his "Forms of Individuals," 226 f.
P l o t i n u s ' Forms of i n d i v i d u z l s .
N e i t h e r i t s date n o r i t s c o n t e n c
make i t r e l e v a n t far o u r p u r p o s e s .
Rather, one should look f o r a
~ r e a t i s ewhich p r e z s d e s o r a c c h e l a t e s t i s c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s with
Enn. V . 7
[ I 8 3 and :his
can
%?
c o u n t e d a s a s e c o n d method o f
detecting a n i n f l c e n c e o f c h s s e c o n d S t o i c c a t e g o r y o n P l o t i n u s . R i s t p o i n t s o u t t%c
Chronologically, Ern.
Enn. 11.4 [ 1 2 ] 4 c a n b e s u c h a r e f e r e n c e . ' 11.4 [12] 4 was w r i t t e n a f t e r E n n . V.9 [ 5 ] ,
w h e r e P l o t i n u s i s s c i l l h e s x a n t a b o u t Forms o f i n d i v i d u a l s , b u ~ b e f o r e Enn. V . 7
[I;], where ne a f f i r m s h i s b e l i e f i n s u c h Forms.
T h u s , i n Enn. 11.4 . ? 2 - 4 h e x r i t e s : " I f ,
hen, t h e Forms a r e
many, t h e r e musc b 2 somethinu in them common t o them a l l ; a n d a l s o s o m e t h i n g ~ n a l - ~ i d u a ;b,:; T h i s i d e a , ?As:
w h i c h one d i f f e r s f r o m a n o t h e r . "
s ~ ; j 5 s t s , xay be o f S t o i c o r i g i n .
The s u g g e s t i o n
should be taken s e r r o u s l y , ? s p e c i a l l y s i n c e a l a t e r Neoplatonist -.
s u c h a s S h p l i c i u s sertizres that the P l o t i n i a n n o t i o n o f Forms o f i n d i v i d u a l s was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e S t o i c " i n d i v i d u a l i y
qualified. "" By s p e c i f i c a l l y i n q u i r m g into t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of t h e e x i s t e n c e of Form sf i n d i v i d u a l s , o t h e r ancient this;:?r
P l o t i n u s went f a r t h e r t h a n a n y
b e f o r e h i m in e l a b o r a t i n g a f o r m a l t h e o r y
o f t h e human i n d i v i d u a l .
One w o u l d expect t o f i n d i n t h e E n n e a d s
a deeper reflection o n t h i s x o p i c .
U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h i s was n o t
--
'-Rist, ''Forms o f I n d i v i d u a l s , " 226. -'3~implicius3 , n A r i s t o t l e ' s On S o u l 217,
36.
t h e case a n d w e h a v e c o be satisfied w i t h what i s l e f t w h i c h t e s t i f i e s t o a n u n d e r d e v e l o p e d u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e c o n c e p t o f
individual. A l t h o u g h g e n e r a l l y agreeing w i t h R i s t a b o u t t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of t h e Enneads p a s s a g e s where P l o t i n u s deals w i t h Form of i n d i v i d u a l s , Armscrong a r g u e s t h a t P l o t i n u s h a d a more
e l a b o r a t e t h e o r y of i n d i v i d u a l humans."
Yet, h e b a s e s h i s
a r g u m e n t o n t h e c o n f u s i o n b e ~ w e e np e r s o n a n d p e r s o n a l i t y w h i c h I mentioned e a r l i e r .
2 . The S t a t u s O u a e s t i o n i s i n Paqan a n d C h r i s t i a n T h o u a h t
Next I s h a l l disccss s e v e r a l s t u d i e s d e a l i n g w i t h t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e concept o f person i n a n t i q u i t y and l a t e a n t i q u i t y and t h e
h i s t o r y o f two ma jar ~ e c h n i c 8 1terms (~rpommov.urroo~aois) u s e d b y t h e Cappadocians cs indicate t h e d i v i n e p e r s o n s .
First, I shall consider a n a r t i c l e b y the Dutch scholar C o r n e l i a J. de V o g e l , " T h e C o n c e p t o f P e r s o n a l i t y i n G r e e k a n d C h r i s t i a n Thought.""
De Vcgel w a n t s t o show t h a t a word f o r
e i t h e r " p e r s o n " o r " p e r s o n a l i t y " i s by n o means l a c k i n g , either
"Armstrong, --
"
Form, I n d i v i d u a l a n d P e r s o n i n P l o t i n u s , " 5 9
J. d e V q e l , "The C o n c e p t o f P e r s o n a l i t y i n Greek a n d C h r i s t i a n Thought," i n S t u d i e s i n P h i l o s o o h v and t h e H i s t o r v of P h i l o s o a h v , e d . John K . Ryan ( W a s h i n g t o n , DC: T h e C a t h o l i c U n i v e r s i t y o f America Press, 1963), 20-60. "C.
in Greek or in Latin, and that "the first metaphysics of man as a moral person is found in Greek philosophy, and of man in his individuality as well" (p. 22).
Initially, the author defines
"person1'and "personality" as distinct: "Person is man as a rational and moral subiect, free and self-determining in his actions, responsible for his deeds," whereas "lolersonalitv is manrs individual character, his uniaueness" (p. 23) .
In the
notion of "person," then, she emphasizes rationality and morality.
These two elements make humans superior to both
inanimate things and animals, since self-determination and responsibility depend on the faculty of reason.
De Vogel
contends that in this general sense "there is a great deal of reflection on che 'person' in Greek phiiosophy" ( p . 23).
To support her claim, de Vogel resorts to some seventeenthand eighteenth-century philosophers such as John Locke and Christian Wolff, or Neo-Kantians such as Georg Windelband, who define the person in terms of self-reflection and self-consciousness.'b Having set this theoretical framework, de Vogel then goes back to Homer and the lyric poets, trying to show that their world appears to us " a s a very personal world: the Homeric heroes appear to us as personalities" (p. 57). Other Greek poets
%Tohn Locke, An Essav Concerning Human Understandinq (first published in 1 6 9 0 1 , 11. xxvii, § 9; Christian Wolff, Psvcholooia rationalis (n. p. : 1734), 660; Georg Windelband, Einleitunq (Engl. transl. 1921), 281. Apud C. J. de Vogel, "The Concept of Personality," 24 n. 11.
also are eager to portray scrcng characters or what we would call today "strong personalities."
One of the charac~eristicsof the
Homeric heroes is their self-determination, which is respected
In referring to these characteristics of the
even by the gods.
Homeric heroes, de Vogel concludes: " [t]hat is what we called person" ( p . 2 6 ) .
Next, she moves from poetry to philosophy,
considering both Greek and Latin philosophers: Heraclitus, Pythagoras, Anaximenes, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Marcus Aurelius and Plotinus, to mention but the most important. to
All of them are
various degrees preoccupied with issues related to the human
being and his soul.
Again she concludes that their preoccupation
with these aspects of the human life b e c r a y s their interest in persons. Only Plotinus leads her to conclusions more relevant to my
present study.
De Vogel considers Enneads V . 7 and VI.5.8.21-42
which, are important for his theory of Forms of Individuals, as I pointed out earlier.
After introducing the arguments of Enn.
V.7.1, de Vogel concludes: "I do not hesitate to say: here we have a full-grown metaphysics of the personality" ( p . 54). Indeed, it might have been better if she had hesitated, because the passages in question only point to Plotinus' attempts to grasp a notion of individual, not personality, and these attempts constitute only a beginning, not a full-grown theory.
De Vogel's article is only partially faithful to its title.
A l t h o u g h d e a l i n g r a t h e r s a t i s f a c t o r i l y w i t h the c o n c e p t o f p e r s o n a l i t y i n Greek thought,
the a r t i c l e a l l o t s n o more t h a n
t h r e e p a g e s , m a i n l y i n c h e c o n c l u s i o n s , t o the c o n c e p t o f personality i n Christian thought.
Nor d o e s s h e jive a p r o p e r
t r e a t m e n t t o the c o n c e p t o f p e r s o n , which i s conscantly c c n f o u n d e d wich t h e c o n c e p c 3f p e r s o n a l i t y , despite their being r e c o g n i z e d a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f r h e article a s f o r m a l l y distinct. M o r e o v e r , d e V o g e l u s e s a p s y c h o l o g i c a l definition of c h e p e r s o n , i n s p i r e d by m o d e r n p h i l o s o p h y , e s p e c i a l l y J o h n Locke's.
Yet, a s
A . Michei s h o w e d i n a n a r t i c l e a b o u t t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e word
" h y p o s t a s i s , " t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l v i e w o f c h e p e r s o n i s wrong, s i n c e i t c o n f u s e s t h e self w i t h t h e perception of c h e self s r , p u t i n a more g e n e r a l way, :he i t s e l .
o b j e c t known w i t h the k n o w l e d g e
, 3 y s s s e r c i n g tke s e l r-- m c x l e d g e cf the s e l f , modern
p h i l o s o p h e r s s u c n a s chose n e n i i m e d a b o v e and many o t h e r s i n t h e i r t r a d i t i c n p r o v e o n l y chat t h e s e l f can know i t s e l f , n o t what t h e self
is
nor that the s e l f e x i s t s .
As I d e m o n s t r a t e e s p e c i a l l y i n C h a p t e r s One a n d Two, p r i o r t o t h e C a p p a d o c i a n s t h e r e s c a r c e l y w a s a c o n c e p t of p e r s o n i n ancient philosophy.
Moreover, i t was t h e C a p p a d o c i a n s who were
t h e first rc p r o v i d e a r a t h e r complex c o n c e p t cf p e r s o n . T h e r e f o r e , w h a t de V o g e l does in h e r s t u d y i s t o j u d g e a n e p o c h --
' A . M i c h e l , "Hypostase" in D i c t i o n n a i r e de T h e o l o q i e C a t h o l i a u e , ed. E . Amann e t a l . , v o l . 7 / 1 ( P a r i s : p r i n t e d f o r L e t o u z e y e t Ane, 1 9 2 7 ) , c o l . 433-34,
b y t h e c a t e g o r i e s o f a l a t e r e p o c h ; t h i s i s known as
" a n a c h r o n i s m " and u s u a l l y leads t o m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s .
De Vogel
d e p i c t s h e r e not t h e n o t i o n a f " p e r s o n " w h i c h we f i n d i n t h e
Church F a t h e r s a n d w h i c h was v a g u e l y s u g g e s ~ e d , f o r example, b y Plato i n Theaetetxs and f u r t h e r elaborated by P l o t i n u s and P o r p h y r y , but r a c h e r a n o t i o n o f p e r s o n in agr3ernent w i t h a modern, p s y c h o l o g i c a l def i n i ~ i o n . Yzt, a n e v e n n o r 2 i n ~ e r 2 s t i n g a n d f o r me a f a r more c h a l l e n g i ~ g-as? o f psychological
u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e p e r s o n i s Stramara's d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n which I s h a l l p r e s m t n e x t . W h i l e I was w r i t i n g m y d i s s e r ~ a ~ i o n ,t h e American s c h o l a r
Daniel F. S t r a m a r a , fr., w r o t e and d e f e n d e d a d i s s e r t a t i o n on t h e concept o f d i v i n e p e r s o n s i n G r t g o r y of Nyssa, e n t i t l e d "Unmasking t h s Meaning of n p h m o v : P r o s d p o n a s P e r s o n i n t h e
Works o f G r e g o r y cf Nyssa.""
Stramara p r o p o s e s t o demonstrate
t h a t d he term r r p d o w ~ ~ion~ ~G r e a o r y sf N y s s a f s r o r k s : l ) dces n o t mean mask but 2 ) i t i s u s e d a s a p s y c h o l o g i c a l term referring t o p e r s o n , a n d t h i s a s a s e l f - a w a r e psychological a g e n t ( p . 1) .
To
be more a c c u r a t e a b o u t t h e s e c o n d p o i n t , S t r a m a r a p r o p o s e s t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t G r e g o r y d i d u n d e r s t a n d s p e r s o n i n t h e modern sense o f a c e n t e r of c o n s c i o u s n e s s .
To s u b s t a n t i a t e the meaning o f ~~poawrrovi n G r e g o r y ' s works W a n i e l F. Stramara, jr , 0 S . . , "Unmasking t h e Meaning o f ~ ~ O O W T I O V : Prosapon a s P e r s o n i n t h e Works o f Gregory o f Nyssa" ( P h . D. diss., S t . L o u i s U n i v e r s i t y , S t . L o u i s , MO, 1996) . A
A
3 1 3 instances are analyzed.
Strarnara considers only those works
which a r e u n a n i m o u s l y accepted a s w r i t t e n b y G r e g o r y o f N y s s a .
G r e q u r y applies the term to d e n o t e
he d i v i n e p e r s o n s 2 8 9
of the
time, exegetical personage 16.7% of the time, human face 15.6% of the time, and human person 12.3'5; r r p o ~ w a o ~oj ~ l ymeans m a s k 0 . 7 % of the time.
Including prepositional p h r a s e s and the connotation of
rpdowrrov as person, the term refers to a p e r s o n (whether divine or
human) 7 1 . 4 % of the time. I n C h a p t e r s T h r e e ~ h r o u g hS i x :he
psy:hclcgical
meaning is
studied by way of i) a philological analysis cf psychclogical
terms used i n connection w i t h p e r s o n , and 2 ) contextualizing Gregory's t h o u g h t with Stoic and Meoplatonic psychology.
Stramara concludes ~ h a cG r e g o r y o f hlyssa u n d e r s t o o d npbowmw as a
psychological being, cperating out o f
i
zenrrer = f self-awaraness,
being b o t h s u b j e c t and objecc to sneself.
I a g r e e w i t h S t r a r n a r a ' s f i r s t point, n a m e l y t h a t most of the time t h e term rrpoowrrov in Gregory of Nyssa's works d o e s not mcan mask.
Stramara's comprehensive a n a l y s i s of t h e 313 instances of
t h e term rrpo~wrrov i n G r e g o r y ' s works i s most wdcome and brings an
important contribution to patristic scholarship.
~ p o m t r o vis
shown to nave a wide spectrum of meanings in G r e g o r y ' s works,
ranging from a n a t o m i c a l f a c e , surface, f a c e to face, gaze, a n d mask t o p e r s o n , s u b j e c t , f a c e o f God, exagetical personage, and
incarnate Logos ( p p . 29-110). To e x p r e s s t h e i d e a o f mask, most
of t h e t i m e G r e g o r y p r e f e r s the more t e c h n i c a l t e r m ~ p o a o m i o vt o -rrpoawnov.
He was
wzli acquainted with the theat?r, a s one o f h i s
b r o t h e r s , Naucratius, was a n a c ~ o r ...
I n EJ.
9.1,
Gregory
p r o v i d e s a d e t a i k d accounc o f s ~ a q sQ Z G P S a n d d r a m a t i c
paraphernalia.
only difficulty with Strarnara's f i r s t p a r t is that n o n e
My
of th2 a u t h o r s he c i ~ e sr e f e r s
KO
Gregory whom S c r a m a r a c l a i m s to
h a v e s a i d that G r e g o r y means n a s k b y ~ i p o o w a o v . S a r c h , f o r
example, w r i t e s " B u t did n o c p a r s o n a ,
Mighc n o t che term give new s u p p o r E
LO
TT~~)OWTTOLJ, a l s o
rnean " m a s k ' ?
c h e Sabellian i d e a o f
t h r e e mere r n a n i f e s ~ a ~ i c nbse h i n d w h i c h s r o o d a h i d d e n fourth?""
I am sur? c h a t when h e w r o m c h i s 3 a r c h was ~ h i n k i n gof Basil sf Caesarea a n d his attempts to b a n i s h :he rrerm ; ~ p d o w m v from *.
trinitarian v o c a b u l a r y because of i t s Modalisr overtones.'* A l t h o u g h simplifying t h e issues, B a r t h disapproves of the use of p e r s o n b o t h i n the modern s e n s e ( t h e z o n c e p t cf p e r s o n a s a
c e n t e r o f c o n s c i o u s n e s s that S t r a m a r a cries to promote) and in
.-
"See
G r e g o r y of Myssa, V i t a s . M a c r i n a e 8, GNO 8.1.378,
9-15.
" ~ a r l B a r t h , Church Doomatics I . 1 ( E d i n b u r g h : T & T C l a r k , T h i s is the text Stramara summarizes on p. 4 of his dissertation. l 9 7 5 ) , 355.
my " P r o s d ~ o n and Hv~ostasisin Basil of Caesarea's Aoainst Eunomius and the Epistles," Viailiae C h r i s t i a n a e 51, no. 4 (1997): 3 7 4 - 3 9 5 . "See
the p a t r i s t i c and medieval sense.'' use "mode of existence," because
d a n g e r s of :he
I n s t e a d h e p r o p o s e s that w e his phrase a v o i d s all the
overused word "person.""
Neither does Karl
Rahner, the s e c o n d d e f e n d a n t on Stramara's list, envisage G r e g o r y o f Nyssa when saying t h a t irpoawrov meanE m a s k .
Like Barth,
Rahner
p r o b a b l y h a s i n m i n d Sasil's l e c t e r s where nphw.rrov i s s a i d to be
Medalist.
Even less dces Waiter Kasper, c h s third defendant on
S t r a m a r a ' s l i s t , " s i m p l y e q u a t e the t e r m rrpoamov with mask."" For c o n f o r m i t y , I quote K a s p e r ' s text:
Tertullian's d i s c 7 n c c i c r - i becwsen n a t u r a and o e r s o n a was difficult for i h e E a s i , becszse p e r s o n a was translated a s p r o s d o o n ; prosdpon, h o w e v a r , meant a m a s k , c h a t i s a mere a p p e a r a n c e , and t h u s suggested modalism. For this reason B a s i l " i s s u e d a warning t h a t , a s u n d e r s t o o d i n the c o n f e s s i o n of f a i t h , t h e p e r s o n s ( p r o s 8 ~ a )of God txist as hypostases.''
If m e reads K a s p e r ' s cext w i t h more care t h a n Stramara, o n e discovers c h a t Kasper i s a w a r e t h a t rrpcjowrro~ scunded Modalis t ic,
""what i s callsd 'personality' in the conceptuai v o c a b u l a r y of t h e 19th century is distinguished f r o m the p a t r i s t i c a n d m e d i e v a l persona b y t h e addition o f t h e attribute o f s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s " ( B a r t h , C h u r c h Dosmatics I. 1, 3 5 7 ) . Church Doumatics
"Stramara,
"Unmasking,"
5.
" ~ a s i l of C a e s a r e a , Q. 210, 5; &. 214, 4; Q. 2 3 6 , 6 . Because analyzing extensively these e p i s t l e s i n my " P r o s W o n and Hvpostasis i n Basil," 3 8 7 - 3 9 4 , I c a n c o n f i r m K a s p e r ' s statement. '"alter K a s p e r , The God o f Jesus Christ, tr. Matthew J. OIConnell ( N e w York: Crossroad, 1989), 2 5 9 . 1 would like t o add t h a t I a l s o c o n s u l t e d t h e German o r i g i n a l f o r c o n f o r m i t y .
and could have meant mask to Basil, but t h a t even Basil accepted it if understood in the sense of hypostasis.
To conclude my ccmmentaries on Strarnara's first p a r t of the dissertation, I should say hat
he problem does not r e s i d e in
the fact t h a t B a r ~ hor R a h n e r or Kasper say in a qualified way that rrpdowrrov means m a s k a t o n e point in ihe history of
Christiani~y. The problem is thac Basil of Caesarea believed t h e same thing and in his disseriation Stramara ignores Basil's contention. Next I shall c o n s l d e r Strarnara's second p o i n c of the
dissertation, namely t h a t irp6owirov a s F e r s o n in Gregory means a
self-aware psychclogical a g e n t . ,
Ti
is worth noring from t h e
.
outset thac throughout h i s x s s e r t a t i c n S t r a r n a r a h a s an unwarranted tendency io s p r i n k l ? words such as "~sycho?ogical," "personality," and "consciousness." instances 3f
T T P ~ ) ~ T O L ' ,Strarnara
When he c o n s i d e r s the 313
has to sckncwledge chat in ai
l e a s t several c a s e s Gregcry uses irpdaw~iov wich the sense of mask.
But he contends t h a c "'mask' does not denote a false reality, a fapde.
It is a psychological disposition" ( p . 54).
i argue
that a "mask" is not limited to psychological disposition and can be used to denote a r e a l i c y o t h e r than t h e true, i . e . natural,
reality.
For example, at the beginning of the twentieth century,
white actors who played Othello had to paint their faces black;
this is an example of a mask that is neither a psychological
I a g r e e w i t h S t r a m a r a that a
d i s p o s i t i o n n o r a true r e a l i t y .
mask can be a p s y c h o l o g i c a l d i s p o s i t i o n a s w e l l , b u t I d i s a g r e e w i t h h i m t h a t s u c h a d i s p o s i t i o n c a n n o 1 s i g n i f y a f a l s s reality. If i c is a d i s p o s i t i o n a g a i n s t nature,
i t s o m e ~ i m e shas a n a u r a
.-
of false r e a l i t y . -
When d i s c u s s i n g t h e m e a n i n g o f ~ p o o w n t i w , Strarnara quotes a t z ~ from t L u c i a n o f Szmcsara:
Ncticing c h a t t h e d a n c e r had f i v e rnas:ks i;rpcjawira) r e a d y - - t i . ? drama h a d t h a t number sf a c t s - - s i n e h e [ a c a r b a r i a n ] saw b u r o n e d a n c e r , h e e n q u i r s d who were t o dancs a n d act t h e o c h e r r 6 k s (rrpoowmia) , a n d when h e l e a r n e d hat t h e d a n c e r himself was t o a c t a n d d a n c e them all, h e s a i d : I d i d n o t r e a l i z s , m y f r i e n d , chat ihough y o u h a v e o n l y t h i s o n e body, you h a v e many s o u l s
.
($VXUS) :-
S t r a r n a r a ' s comment i m e d i a t d y follcvinq t h i s t e x t i s : "The apocrwrreio~~i s c o n n e c t &
wirh personality"
q . 561
.
1 believe chat
t h e t e x t c l a a r l y ccnneccs npoowrr~iov wich s o u l , not w i c h
personality.
S t r a m a r a f a i l s ~o see these n u a n c e s .
"See C i c e r o , De c f f i c i i s I, 3 2 , 1 1 5 : "The r o l e ( p e r s o n a ) w e c h o o s e i n l i f e , h o w e v e r , depends e n t i r e l y o n o u r own w i s h e s . Thus some a p p l y t h e m s e l v e s t o p h i l o s o p h y , o t h e r s t o j u r i s p r u d e n c e , o t h e r s to o r a t o r y " ( " i p s i a u t e m g e r e r e quam p e r s o n a m v e l i m u s , a n o s t r a v o l u n t a t e p r o f i c i s c i t u r . I t a q u e se a l i i ad p h i l o s o p h i a m , a l i i a d i u s c i v i l e , a l i i a d e l o q u e n t i a m a p p l i c a n t , " i n Marcus T u l l i u s Cicero, D e o f f i c i i s , e d . M . W i n t e r b o t t o m [ N e w Y o r k : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 13941. ET i n C i c e r o , On M o r a l O b l i q a t i o n , t r . J o h n H i g g i n b o t h a m [ B e r k e l e y , CA: U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1 9 6 7 1 , 80) . F o r more o n r o l e p l a y i n g see C i c e r o , De o f f i c i i s I, 31-33.
' % u c i a n o f S a m o s a t a , De s a l c t a t i o n e 6 6 , Loeb 5 2 6 8 ; Harmon 2 6 9 . Apud Strsrnara, " U n m a s k i n g , " 5 7 .
a s " p e r s o n a l i t y o r p s y c h o l o g i c a l persor." ( p p . 67-69) g i v e s two e x a m p l e s from G r e g o r y of Nyssa's w o r k s .
, Stramara
I n both cases,
t h e r e f e r e n c e i s actually ~s ~ p c j o w l r o v a s t h e image of God i n
I t i s w e i n t h e m o d e r n e r a who c o n s i d e r the s o u l o r the
humans.
image o f God i n humans
LO b e
p a r t o f the p e r s o n a l i t y .
Stramara
a g a i n t r i e s t o f o i s t a p s y c h o l c g i c a l m e a n i n g o n Gregory rsrmrnology . E v e r s i n c e I d i s c o v e r e d t h i s dissertation I h a v e a s k e d
myself, What c o u l d h a v e influenced S t r a m a r a t o r a k e c h i s psychological x r n ?
1 b e l i e v e sne answer can be f o u n d i n :he
f o l l o w i n g s t a t a n e n t h e makes i n a n endnoce a t r h e ~ e g i n n i n go f
Chapter Three: "With r e g a r d co t h e whcle q u e s t i o n o f t h e o r i g i n of t h e idea s f s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s ,
t h e P l o t i n i a n a n d Stoic
s c h o l a r s u g g e s t s c h a t D e s c a r t e s i s indebted t o Auguscine who i s i n t u r n i n d e b i e d t o Plotinus; see A n d r e a s C r a e s e r , Piocinus and t h e S t o i c s ( L e i d e n : E. 3. 3 r i l l , 19721, 1 2 6 . " "
Strarnara t h u s
has i n f e r r e d t h a t i f Descartes i s indebted t o P l c c i n u s ( v i a A u g u s t i n e ) , t h e n s o s h o u l d G r e g o r y o f Xyssa be a s well. Moreover,
i f D e s c a r t e s had a p s y c h o i o g i c a l n o t i o n o f p e r s o n
( a f t e r a l l , s c h o l a r l y agreement f a v o r s D e s c a r t e s ' i n f l u e n c e on
L o c k e ) , t h e n s o does Gregory o f Nyssa; and t h a t i s why Stramara attempted t o demonstrate t h e l a t t e r point. become e v e n m o r e evident o n p p .
"Stramara,
Stramara's intentions
193-194, where h e q u o t e s Wallis'
"Unmasking, " 2 7 0 n. 6 .
34
-.
"Basil's 'Necplatonisrn'. "'- This a r c i c i e demonscrates that Plotinus' influence on both Basil sf Caesarsa and Gregory of
Nyssa is extremely limited.
If Srramara had used this article in
his dissertation, he could not have assumed Plotinus' unproved influence on Gregory of Nyssa.
Second, even if P l o ~ i n u smade
such an important zcntributicn to
ih?
notion of s e l f -
c m s c i o u s n ~ s s ,he did not connect i t with the n o ~ i o nof person for the sirnpie reason chat he did not have a notion of person beyond the very primitive sne r ~ ~ r e s e n ~b ys di h i~h s ~ r l /of F o r m s of Individuals.
The definition of a person as a x n t e r of
consciousness implies at k a s t ~ w oc2rms: person and consciousness.
If the ancisnts spoke of consciousness, ic does
not follcw that t h s y necessarily :onnected moderns do).
F r o m c h e sxamplss
it w i z h p e r s o n (as we
alrtady presented and the ones I
shall present, it appears that the ancients connected consciousness with soul.
To avoid condemning thecrics before
presenting them, 1 shall now turn my attention ta Stramara's p r e s e n t a t i o n of the center ~f consti~usness in Plotinus.
Stramara says that t h e notion and imagery of a center of consciousness can be traced back to t h e Stoics ( p . 2 1 9 ) .
He uses
V o h n M. Rist, "Basii's 'Neoplatonism': Its Background and Nature" in Basil of Caesarea: Christian, Humanist, Ascetic. A Sixteenth-Hundredth Anniversary Svm~osium,ed. Paul J. Fedwick, vol. 1 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 19811, 137-220. One cannot maintain that Stramara did not know the two volumes edited by Fedwick, because in the bibliography he mentions another a r t i c l e c o ~ t a i n e din one of the volumes.
a n e x a m p l e p r o v i d e d i n Rist's Sroic P h i l o s o o h v : C h r y s i p p u s d e p i c t s t h e h e o e m o n i k o n a s a s p i d e r i n t h ? c e n t e r o f a web i t h a s spun, c a u s i n g c h e f i l a m e n r s co v i b r x e .
Hence R i s t a r g u e s t h a t
f o r Chrysippus t h e governing principle f u n c t i o n s as " t h 2 c e n t r s of c o n s c i o u s n e s s " w i t h i n t h e human b e i n g . - -
Toward r h e e n d o f
h i s b o o k , h o w e v e r , Rist w a r n s that, a l t h o u g h t h e t e n d e n c y o f t h e O l d Stca c a n c h u s be s e e n a s e x p l a i n i n g human a c t i v i t y a s psychosomatic accivicy, it did n o t b r i n g t h e m much n e a r e r t o a n e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e n a t u r e o f the human p e r s o n i t s d f , a s d i s t i n c t frorr! its activities . . . . T h e f a c c is chat Chrysippus did n c c go f a r e n o u g h for h i s own p u r p o s e s i n e x o r c i z i n g t h e t a l k o f s c u l
and body which he h a d inherited from earlier philosophers. t h e same p a g e 219 o f h i s disserraiion Stranara q u o r s s
u m e n t h a l a s f i n d i n g r e n a r k a b l t P l c r i n l ~ 's " c c n c e p t zf ' h e 'we'
a m o b i k c e n t r e o f consciausness."
'
.. ~ e St c r a m a r a E a i i s t o
n o t i c e t h a t B l u r n e n t h a l , a few pages p r e v i o u s l y ,
confirms Ristls
fears a b o u t t h e Stoics i n t h e c a s e of Plctinus: i n r e g a r d t c t h e d o c t r i n e of t h e S o u l , " P l m i n u s follswed i n the d i r e m i o n o f
The s o u l was a s e p a r a w 3ubsiance, a n d a t l e a s t i n
Plato.
i n t e n t i o n , i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e b o d y with w h i s h i t was merely
associated.
-
On t h i s b a s i s Plorinus c o n s t r u c t e d h i s
.
'-J. M . Rist, S t o i c P h i l o s o ~ h v ( C a m b r i d g e : Cambridg? University Press, l 9 6 9 ) , 87. Stoic P h i l o s o ~ h v , "H. J. B l u m e n t n a l , P l o t i n u s ' P s v c h o l o c r v : t h e Embodied Soul ( T h e Hague: M a r t i n u s N i j h o f f ,
H i s D o c t r i n e s of
1971), 1 4 0 .
'
--
psychology. ""
The examples Stramara gives from Plotinus (pp. 2 2 0 - 3 )
refer
to
che soul as possessing consciousness, not to a person as
a center of consciousness.
Stramara himself avers that "Plotinus
nowhere explicitly refers to a 'center of consciousness"'
-7 -7 2 ) .
all
B u t he is ready to forgive F l c ~ i n u slor chis I
ao noi fault h m for
his," p . 2 2 2 )
ip* '
, however,
and a l s o ready to p a r a p h r a s e
PLocinus in order io make hin s p e a k in f a v o r cf a sencer of
Then, as if he had demcnstra~ed i h e idea of
3
center of
consci~usness in Plotinus, Stramara proceeds to demonstrate ir in Gregory of Nyssa, of course, Laking f o r g r a n t e d :hat Plotinus v e r y well.
Gregory knew
Scrarnara Goes sc far as to zoin he Greek
expected, is not evident in any sf the ancient a u ~ h n r she studies.
I quote one example
f r c m Stramara
and then Stramara's intsrpretacion. commentaries ( p p . 2 2 3 - 7 )
siczs f r c m Sregorl;
C t h e r sxamples and
a r e s i m i l a r a n d can be easily checked
for con£o r m i t y :
Let w h a t has been said be demonstrated by what happens in your soul when you think about God. Look u p t o the s k y a n d consider with your imagination ( i o y ~ o p $ the depths b e n e a t h , reach o u t w i t h y o u r mind ( 6 i a v o ~ a v= conscious understanding) to the sides and corners of the subsistinq universe. and consider what is the power which h o l d s these thingsvt o g e t h e r like a sort of bond of everything, and you will see how -
"Blumenthal, Plotinus ' F s y c h o l o a v , 1 3 5 .
<
i n v o l u n t a r i l y the s h a p e of ~ h ec r o s s i s e n g r a v e d upon y o u r mind (Stavota) by the c h o u g h t o f t h e d i v i n e power, a s h a p e w h i c h goes from t h e h e i g h t s E O t h e d e p c h s and s c r e t s h e s a c r o s s transversely L O the f c r t h e s t c c ~ r n ~ r s . - ' I r e p r o d u c e d z x a c t l y S t r a m a r a ' s t r a n s l a t i o n and p a r e n t h e t i c
variants.
we n o t o n l y i n s i s ~ st h a t G t d v o i a means c c n s c i o u s n e s s i n
by p a r a p h r a s i n g it t o Gregory, ' h e i n t e r p r e t s G r e g o r y ' s t s : ~
read " s t r e t c h y o u r c o n s c i o u s n e s s t o che h o r i z o n ~ a lp o l e s and
f a r t h e s t v e r t i c a l p o i n c s o f che s u b s i s t i n g universe
...
[thus]
t h e g e o m e t r i c a l f i g u r e cf t h e c r o s s i s a u t o m a t i c a l l y engraved upon y o u r consciousness" ! p . 2 2 3 1 examples, Stramara i s f o r z e d
-2
.
A f t e r s s v e r a l zddlcicnal
rec3gnizs :ha:
"che rnsncal
imagery of G r t g o r y o f N y s s a i s n o t g r a p h i c a l l y z q l i s i t " ( p . 226).
But t h i s d o e s n o t prevent him f r o m immediately a s s e r t i n g
that "While rhe t e r m s KC~TPOP .
a n d 6 t a m a a r e noc j u x t a p o s e d ,
:he
.
c o n c e p t r6 L ~ P T P O L:fir; ' 6 ~ u t m i a1s ~ n a r d 1 y a u t s i d e t h e a m b i t of G r e g o r y ' s thought" ( p . 2 2 7 ) .
"Gregory of N y s s a , Hall 47.
De ~ r i a u is ~ a t i o ,GMO 9. 301, 1-13;
S t r a m a r a , "'inmaskir.g, " 131-135, w h e r e he sroues u n c o n v i n c i n g l y i n f a v o r of 6taltoia = c o n s c i o u s n e s s . O n p p . i87201, S t r a m a r a a l s o argues t h a t Gregory u s e d two other words t o . d e s i g n a t e c o n s c i o u s n e s s : mwi6qo~sa n d S t a v o f i ~ t ~ o v . If a u v ~ i b ~ ais ~s i n d e e d a Greek word for c o n s c i o u s n e s s ( u s e d e v e n i n t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t , L a t i n c o n s c i e n t i a ) , t h e case f o r t h e o t h e r two i s h a r d l y c o n v i n c i n g . The d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n Plotinus ' ovvaio8qm~ and G r e g o r y ' s o u t ~ ~ i S r ( mis s m o s t p r o b a b l y d u e t o the f o r m e r ' s c o n n e c t i o n with s e n s e - p e r c e p t i o n , i n S t r a m a r a ' s v i e w . Otherwise, he h a s no problem i n stating w i t h c e r t a i n t y t h a t t h e P l o t i n u s i n f l u e n c e d Gregory o f N y s s a . Cf.
To these arguments w h i c h do not support a view of person as a center of consciousness in Gregory of N y s s a , o n e c a n add che
following.
In one insranes, whsn x-anslating from G r ? z k into
English, Stramara adds words in order to m a k e cne w:it speak in favor of a self-aware a g e n t : speaking c ~ f the? Yoly Spirit, Basil i
SC 305:160).
In Strarnara's translation the text becomes: "an
authentically inde~endentand s e i f - g o v a x i n g
authority" ( p . 377).
The underlined words n a v e been added by Scramara. After this analysis, I conclude c h a t Stramara's c a s e for a
vi3w of the person as a center a f consciocsness in Gregory of N y s s a i s unconvincing.
I now turn my sttsntion
LO
fcur studies
of the Greek Lzrrns used by che Z a p p a d o c i a r s tc designate d i v i x persons. *
r n m the r ~ ~ t o and r y meanings a f
An inportant F m e s c i g a t : w
t
the word urriw~ams was published by the German scholar Heinrich -
Corrie in 1 9 5 5 . : '
>
Two thirds of it deal exceliently with the
philosophical use of the term.
'
Yet, as he enters the final
- .
'7"'Y.noo~aols: Wort- und Bedeutungsgeschichte" in idem, Platonica Minora (Munich: W. Fink, l976), 12-69 ( o r i g i n a l l y published in Nachrichten der Akademie d e r Wissenschaften in Gottinaen, phi1.-hist. Klasse Jahrg. 1955, N o . 3: 3 5 - 9 2 ) . Cf also Christopher Stead, Dhilosoohv in Christian Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 173-186. -
-
'Tlorrie's interpretation of the Stoic Lise of imap& a s form o f existence subordinate to baoo~au~p has been challenged meanwhile: see A. A. Long, "Language and Thought in Stoicism" Problems in Stoicism, ed. A. A. Long (London: Athleton, 1971)
third of his effort with considera~ior-of he Christian use of hoa~acris, Dorrie exaggerates the influence of Athanasius of Alexandria, basing himself on some pseudo-Athanasian fragments. Dorrie says that Dsoo~alrir (=subs~antia)was one of the strongest technical terms of late antique philosophy ( p . 13). Nevertheless, as the Church historian Socrat2s r e l a w s in h i s Ecclesiastical Historv, the term was n c t used by earlier Greek philosophers.
Dorrie c i ~ e sthe passage:
[ I ] t appears to us t h a ~.he Greek philosophers have given us various definitions a f ousia, but have n o r c a k e ? c k - . slightest natic2 21 nv~cscasis. 1 r ~ n a e u . s he Grammarian indeed, in his A l p h a b e c l c a l [Lexicon entir led] At ticistes, even declares ic c o be a barbarous t3rrn; for it is not to be found in a n y of the ancients, except occasionally in a sense. quite different from c h a t which i s attached t o i t in the presenc day. Thus S o p h o c l e s , i n his tragedy axitled Phoenix, uses it to signify " ~ r e a c h e r y " : in Msnander i~ implies "sauces"; as if o m should cail the "sedinenc" at the botrorn of a hcgsnsad ~f wine hv~ostasis. 3uc although the ancient ~hilosophicaivriiers s c a r c e l y noticed this word, the m c r e rnodcrn snes have f r q u e n t l y used iz instead of ousia.'.
Dorrie himself notes thai P l a ~ c ,fcr example, did zct s e the
89-90; Victor Goldschmidt, " ' T a a p x ~ ~et v uchoravai d a m la philosophie stoicienne," Revue des etudes arecaues 8 5 (1972): 336-340; John Glucker, "The Origin of unapxw and hap[is as Philosophical Terms1' in Hvparxis e H v o o s t a s i s nel Neoplatonismo. Atti del I Colloauio Internazionale del Centro d i Ricerca sul Neoplatonisrno (Universita deali Studi di Catania, 1-3 ottobre 1 9 9 2 1 , eds. F. Romano and D. P . Taormina (Florence: Leo S Olschki, l994), 21. "socrates Scholasticus, The Ecclesiastical Historv 3, 7, 17-20, tr. A. C. Zenos, NPNF 2:2 (New York: The Christian Literature Company, l89O), 81.
t e r m u-rroa~aa~s ac a l l .
''
N e v e r t h e l e s s , h e adds t h a t P l a ~ oused the
v e r b uc$io~apai (of which imoo~acrt~ i s the v e r b a l s u b s t a n t i v e ) twice
i n Philebus 19A and t h e L a w s 6 , 7 5 L E i n t h e sense o f " z o assert c h a t one c a n do s c r n e t h i n g . " " -
D o r r i s s c a n s c h e a n a l y s i s of t h e Christian x s e o f ir-rrda~acns by a f f i r m i n g t h a t ,
prior t o A t h a n a s i u s ,
Fcs u s e did not differ at
all from i t s use by n o n - C h r i s t i a n authors ( p . 5 2 ) . New Testament
UTTOOTUOLSo c c u r s
T h u s , in the
o n l y f i v e times: in 2 Cor 9:1 a n d
L1:17 ic neans "state, condition" i p p . 17, 52); in Heb 1:3 and 3:14,
"reality" o r e v e n "being" 1 9 . 5 2 ) ; in Heb 11:1, something
between " r e a l i z a t i o n " 62).
(Realisierunq) a n d " r e a l i t y "
R
a
t
;p.
T h e Epistle to D i o c n e t 2, 1 discusses the "reality"
(urioo~aois)o f pagan g o d s , and T a c i a r ! ( a c G r a e c o s 5 ) z a i h God c h e
"basis" or "foundation" ;ilmjo~uo~.;) 3f a v e r y t h i n g ( p . 5 2 ) .
According t o D o r r i a , i m 6 o ~ a owas ~ ~ n c t a central concept for Clement, whereas f o r O r i g e n i t was almcst i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m ousia ( F . 5 3 .
N e v e r t h e l s s s , E o r r i e xentions Origen's CCeis
VIII,12 w h e r e t h e g r e a t A l e x a n d r i a n s a y s :
"...we worship t h e
F a t h e r of the T r u t h a n d che Son who i s the Truth: they a r e ~ w o
r e a l i t i e s i n h y p o s t a s i s ( 6 v ~ bifo a
~ brrocs~aoe~r r p a y p a ~ a ) , b u t
-.
one
in
"&I checked i t w i t h the T h e s a u r u s Linauae Graecae CD-Rom
( I r v i n e , CA: U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , 1 9 9 5 ) .
unanimity, concord and idencity o f the will.""
-
Here, Origen
envisages the Father and the Son as ~ w distinct o realities; Dorrie believes that this text was important for A t h a n a s i u s -d-m-i he
formulated a distinction b e t w e e n oljoia and urroa~acsi~( p . 5 4 ) . In my opinion, CCels VIII,12 is n o t necessarily t h e most
important
Eext
in which Origen s u g g e s t s the distinction between
otoia and i m 6 a ~ a ~ i Other ~. texts make CcrnJn TI, 10,' 5 - 7 E
clear."
Holy S p i r i c .
his distinc~ioneven more
ever. a p p l i e s r_he K e n imjo~ao~.;t o
he
Yet, despite Origen's endeavour ts distinguish
between oucsia and imoo~ao~.;,his opinion d i d n o t carry i n f l u e n c e .
This l a c k sf influence is attested b y fourth-cencury difficulties in f ~ r r n u l a t i n g he irinitarian doctrine.
Dcrrie then observes
hat the Council 3 f Nizaea
i 3 2 5 AD)
explicit1 y condemned those x h o disc inquished b e w e e n ucoia and bnbo~acns with r e s p e c t to the F a c h e r and rrhs Scn
anathema following ~ h confession e of faith of
p. 5 5 ) .
The
his council r e a d s :
"If anyone says that the S o n is of another subsianie o r hypostasis (ic h pas oiloias
-
bnooi-doeus; , rrhe catholic and apostolic
-
"Origen, Contre Celse, vol. 4 (Books 7 - 8 ) , ed. Marcel Borret (Paris: Cerf, 1 9 6 9 ) , SC 1 5 0 : 2 0 0 . Dorrie ( p . 5 4 ) quotes Koetschau's edition of Origen.
"ComJn I,2 4 , 1 5 1 - 1 5 2 ; I I , 1 0 , 75-76; see Origen, Commentaire sur Saint Jean, v o l . 1 (Books 1-51, ed. Cecile Blanc (Paris: C e r f , l 9 6 6 ) , SC 120:1 3 6 - 7 a n d f 5 4 - 7 .
Church anathematizes him.""
Dorrie also notss ( p . 57) that,
despite his support for che Niczne creed, Achanasius of Alexandria ackncwledges in his Tomus ad A n t i o c h e n o s 5 ( w r i c c m i n 362) the nacsssity of distinguishing bstween oiaiu and
UTT~)OTUOLS
and of accepting "three h y p o s t a s e s " in r e g a r d tc the H o l y - .
Trinity. ""
Dorrie a s s e r r s that in his O r x i 3 contra Arianos IV.1
Athanasius "defended with s c r o n g words the unicy of being and hypostasis," thus bringing
"LO
a n end cne h i s t o r y sf t h e m e a n i n g
cf urrborao~s, by es~ablishing its u s e " i p p . 5 7 , 5 %
. In
orher
words, i t was Athanasitis who t s i ~ k l i s h ~ cr hi a c brrtkmm.; m e z n t .
.
"individual or p e r s o n 1 ' and a s s u c h x x a s r o be dis~inguishsd
from substance.
Yet, scholars t o d a y agree that b o t h the Oratio
contra Arianos IV and other works D o r r i ? invokes to buttress his arguments a r s unlikely tc b e b y Athanasius."
Therafore, as
"'Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. N o r m a P. T a n n e r , vol. 1 (London: Shed & Ward, I W O ) , 5 .
.
'"Athanasius, Tonus ad Antiochenos 5 ( P G 26:801 A - D ) For t h e text of the Tornus a d Antiochenos, see J. Stevenson, ed.,
Creeds. Councils and Controversies: Documents Illustra~inathe Historv of the church A. D. 3 3 7 - 4 6 1 , rev. ed. W. H. C. F r m d (London: SPCK, l989), 8 0 - 8 3 . > -
' For the authenticity of Or. c. Ar. IV (PG 2 6 : 4 6 8 - U S ) , see Timothy D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius: Theolosv and Politics in the Constanthian E m ~ i r e (Cambridge, MA: ffarvard University Press, 1 9 9 3 ) , 254 n. 26. For Expositio fidei, see R . P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversv 318-381 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1 9 8 8 ) , 8 6 2 n. 170.
previously stated, it is clear that Dorris exaggerates the
influence cf Athanasius in he s h a p i n g of theological concept.
~~TTOOT~O asL Sa
Moreover, if Athanasius had played such an
important role in this matter, the difficulties encountered b y t h e Cappadocians i n t h e i r fight a g a i n s ~ he Nec-Arians would n o t have e x i s t e d .
But this was not c h e case.
Another important s m d y o f G r 3 e k v c r d s
L I S :2~
designace
divine p e r s o n s is ths c o r n p r z h e n s i v e encyciopedia encry "Hypostase"" w r i t t e n by rhe F r e n c h scholar A. Michel.
The
a r t i c l e in q u e s t i o n c o n t a i n s a n analysis o f the r a m il.rroa~aoi9
beginning from early Christian w r i ~ z r s , in b o t h E a s t a n d West, t o
Modernist soman Cathoiics such as .Alfred Loisy.
U n l i k e Dorrie,
when treating of he Cappadocians, Mishel recognizes their ~~ paramount role in establishing the meaning sf i l r r d o ~ a ofor
trinitarian ~ h s c l o g y . ,
17.
ar. s r t i d e of s u c h a
large scope it is not pcssibl? 1 s aliot acre ~ h a nc v o to four
columns to each historical figure.
Hence, alrhough accurate,
Michel's treatment of the Cappadocians ( c o l u m n s 381-385) is quite brief.
In addition, his article is cccasionally influenced by
the views of the nineteenth-cencury French Jesuit Theodore de
Regnon whose insights have been seriously challenged in recent
"A. Michel, "Hypostase" i n Dictionnaire de T h e o l o q i e Catholique, ad. E. Arnann e t al., vol. 7 / 1 (Paris: printed f o r Letouzey st Ane, N U ) , col. 369-437.
years.
"?
In his expositicn cf ihe history cf i l n b o ~ a o i ~A. , Niche1 mentions Letter 38, a dubious work by Basil.
Letter 38 of the
Basilian corpus, an important piece treating che differences berrween o u d a and
Caesarea.
used to be actribuced c o Basil of
UTIOBTCLCTL~,
Yet, scholarly scudiss
.
. -
have shown char: in reality
this letter belongs to Gregory of Nyssa, a conclusicn which mosE
contemporary scudencs of Basil a c c e p c .
..
-
Regrertably, Michel
.. "'See Andrci de Halleu:.:, "Personna~lsmsGLI sssentialisme trinicaire chez iss Peres ca~padccicns? [Jns mauvaise controverse," Revue ~h8oloaiauede Lsuvain 17 (1386): 1 2 9 - 1 5 5 and 265-292. M i c h e l R. Barnes, "De Regnon Reconsidered," Auaustinian Studies 26 (1995): 51-79. Ic is de Regnon's ~ t u d e sde cheologie positive sur la saints Trinitk, four volumes bound as three (Paris: Victor Retaux, 1892/18981 , that has been v e r y influential throughout the twentieth c e n c u r y . I n zhrcnological order, ~hs1; a r e che followi~g: P.nders Cavallin, Studien zu den Sriefen des h l . Basilius (Lund: G l e e r u p s k a Universitecsbokhandein, 13?:) , 71 f f. R. Hubner, "Gregor von Nyssa als Verfasser aer s o q . Q. 38 des Sasilius. Zum unterschiediichen Verstandnis der ousia bei den kappadozischen Brudern" in E~ektasis.Melanqes oatristiaues offerts au Cardinal Jean Danielou, eds. J. Fontaine and Ch. Kannengiesser (Paris: Beauchesne, lgiZ), 463-490. P. J. Fedwick, "A Commentary of Gregory of Nyssa or t h e 38th Lerter of Basil of Caesarea," Orientalia Christiana Periodica 44 (1978): 31-51. *. -Nonetheless, there is a group of German scholars who do not a c c e p t the Gregorian authorship: Wolfgang-Dieter Hauschild in his German translation of Basil's letters (Basil of Caes,area, Briefe, tr. W. - 3 . Hauschild, vol. 1 [Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1 9 9 0 1 1 8 2 ff n. 181); Jiirgen Hammerstaedt, " Z u r Echtheit von Basiliusbrief 38," Tesserae: Festschrift fur Josef Enoernann. Jahrbuch fur Antike und Christenturn 18 (1991): 416-419 and Volker H. Drecoll, Die Entwicklunq der Trinitatslehre des Basilius von Casarea: Sein Weg vom Homousianer zum Neonizaner (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19961, 297-331.
does n o t quote L e t t e r 38 d i r e c t l y , b u t T i x e r o n t ' s summary o f i t : Ouoia i s t h a t which i s common i n t h e individuals of t h e same species (TO K O L V O V ) and which rrhey possess e q u a l l y . . . . B u t t h i s ouoia could not r e a l l y e x i s t u n l e s s i t i s c o m p l e t e d by individual characteristics which d e r t r r n i n z i t . T h e s e c h a r a c r e r i s t i c s receive v a r i o u s names: ~ ~ L O T ~ ThEi Sp. a x . i 6 ~ u c o v ~oqpeia. a ibta y ~ u p i o ~ a~~aap. a ~ ~ i p popbai c<. . . . . 1f m e a d d s t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a s ~ e r i s t i c sto t h e o i o i a , o n e h a s t h e baoo-oms. T h e hypostasis i s the i n d i v i d u a l d e t e r m i n e d , e x i s t i n g apart, w h i c h c o n t a i n s and p o s s e s s e s t n e oboia, b u t i s o p p o s e d t o i t a s the p r o p e r to t h e common and c h e particular t o the g e n e r a l . 7
-
M i c h e l a l s o a d d s t h a r : B a s i l d i d not ilse Oado~aoi.;
a s s synonym of
rrpdowaov, s i n c e he thought ~ h a r : he l a t w r had Modalist connotations.
U n l i k e B a s i l , h o w e v e r , Gregory o f N a z i a n r u s a n d
Gregory sf N y s s a d i d u s e the cerns a s synonyms.
One s h o u l d
recognize t h a t M i c h e l ' s findings a r s correcc, buc
here a r e many
more nuances w h i c h he was cfiable z o d i s c ~ s sin h i s s h o x creatnent.
Ncr d i d h e n a v e :he
n e c e s s a r y spaze
:3
show w h e t h e r
t h e r e was a n e v o l u t i o n o f t h e C a p p a d o c i a n v i e w o n p e r s o n .
These
a n d similar i s s u e s w i l l be examined i n the p r e s e n t d i s s e r t a t i o n . A more r e c e n t s t u d y o f ilrrbo-iams i s J i i r g e n H a m m e r s t a e d t ' s
e n c y c l o p e d i a e n t r y " H y p o s t a s i s ( i l n d o ~ a a ~ .q") term b e g i n n i n g from n o n - C h r i s t i a n
' -
8e a n a l y z e s t h e
a n c i e n t p h i l o s o p h e r s t o the
s i x t h - c e n t u r y Monophysite John Philoponus.
Although
incorporating t h e r e s u l t s o f more r e c e n t s c h o l a r s h i p ,
--
-Apud A. M i c h e l ,
--
" H y p o s c a s a , " col. 3 8 2 .
" R e a l l e x i k o n fur A n t i k e und C h r i s t e n t u r n v o l . 1 6 ( S t u t t g a r t : A . Hiersernann, 1 9 % ) , 9 8 6 - 1 0 3 5 .
H a r n r n e r s ~ a e d t ' s t r e a t m e n t of t h e C a p p a d o c i a n s i s , l i k e M i c h d ' s , u n d e r s t a n d a b l y b r i s f a n d t h u s noc t o o h e l p f u l . T h e l a s t study I c o n s i d e r is A n d r e d e H a l l e u x ' s "'Hypostase'
et 'personne' 381)
.
dans la formation d u dogme t r i n i t a i r e (a. 375-
T h i s i s ar. i n v a l u a b l e p i e c e o f r e s e a r c h o n t h e t w c
'I-'
terms t h a t c a u s e d s o much t u r m o i l a t t h a t t i m e , e s p e c i a l l y i n the C h u r c h o f A n ~ i o c h . De H a l l e u x a p p r o a c h e s the > . n t i c c h i a n d e b a t e a n t h e trinitarian f o r n u l a e a f cFLe z h r e e h y p o s t a z s 3r.d ~ h r e e p e r s o n s b y q u e s t i o n i n g two
?
31
. . n ? i r w i t n e s s e s : 3 a s i l of C a e s a r e a
a n d J e r o m e both o f whom presented t h e p o i n t s o f v i e w of those whom de H a l l e u x c a l l s " N e o - N i c e n e s "
and "Nd-Nicenes"
r e s p e c ~ i v e l y . A c c o r d i n g to d? Y a l i e m , t h e " O l d - N l e e n e s " u n d e r s c a n d umia~aoi.; a s a s y n o n y x a f oiloia, w h e r e a s c h e "NeoN i c e n e s " d i s t i n g u i s n b e t w e e n them cpp.
7
.
7
r ,I ?
.
:if
analyzes
..
' A n d r k de H z l l a i x , " ' H y p o s t a s e r et ' p e r s o n ~ e ' u a n s l a f o r m a t i o n d u dogme c r i n i c a i r e : c a . 3 7 5 - 3 8 1 1 , " Revue d ' h i s t o i r e e c c l e s i a s t i a u e 7 9 (1984): 3 1 3 - 3 6 5 , 625-670. .,
'The titles " N e o - N i c e n e " and " O l d - N i c e n e " were originally c o i n e d by T h . Zahn a n d " v u l g a r i z e d " b y A . v o n H a r n a c k . According t o Z a h n ' s t h e o r y of J u n s n i z a n i s m u s , t h e F a t h e r s of N i c a e a a l l e g e d l y defined the hornoousion by t h e n u m e r i c a l u n i t y a n d identity o f the divine o u s i a ( W e s e n e i n h e i t ) . The C a p p a d o c i a n F a t h e r s a l l e g e d l y d e p a r t e d from t h i s d e f i n i t i o n : t h e y understood t h e h o r n o o u s i o n i n t h e s e n s e o f t h e h o r n o i o u s i o n , L e . , as t h e mere e q u a l i t y ( W e s e n o l e i c h h e i t ) of t h e f i r s t o u s i a i i n t h e g e n e r i c ( s e e T h e o d o r Z a h n , arce ell us v o n u n i t y o f t h e second ousia Ancvra [ G o t h a , 18671, 87; A. von Harnack, L e h r b u c h der D o q m e n a e s c h i c h t e , 4 t h e d . , v o l . 2 ( T i i b i n g e n : J . C . B . Mohr, 19091, 2 6 2 - 2 6 4 ) . I n t h e meanwhile, p a t r i s t i c s c h o l a r s h a v e d i s c a r d e d the t h e c r y o f J u n o n i z a n i s m u s a s i t a p p e a r s i n the ZahnHarnack f o r m u l a t i o n . A n o t h e r scholar, J e a n G r i b o m o n t ( " I n t r a n s i g e n c e a n d
some r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s cf the " O l d - N i c e n e "
g r o u p , Paulinus o f
A n t i o c h a n d his allies f r o m P a l e s c i n e , t h e E g y p t i a n c o n f e s s i n g b i s h o p s exiled aL D i o c e s a r e a .
F k r h u s atcempts t o t r a c e
the
o r i g i n o f the "Old-Nicene" formula of t h e t h r e e p r o s o o a , w h i c h
was c o n t e s t e d by the " N e o - N i c e n e s . "
He c o m p l e t e s h i s l o n g
a r t i c l s w i t h a s t u d y o f ~ ? . ec o n c l u s i o n of t h e c o n t r o v e r s y a r o u n d
the two f o r m u l a e which turned favourable ta the " N e o - N i c e n e s " who were s u p p o r t e d b y Emperor T h e o d o s i u s I . considers Gregory of Nazianzus'
i n Constantinople.
De H a l l e u x also
failxi a t t e m p a t reconciliation
His m a i n c o n c l u s i o n i s t h a t :
[I]n a s s i i n l l a t i n g the p s r s o n ~3 t h e h y p o s c a s i s , rhe c o u n c i l of C o n s t a n t i n ~ p l ee a r i c c i x d irL c r i a d o l o q y che S r e k m e t a p h y s i c s a t t h e e x p m s e sf :h@ l a c i n phenomenclogy, in the Sam? way as f i f t y y e a r s i x t r the c o u n c i l af h a l c e d o n wouid a s s i m i l a t e i n c h r i s ~ c i o g ythe o e r s c n a o f Pope Leo t o t h e krriro~ao~s of C y r i l o f A i a x a n d r i a ( p p . 667 f ) . De H a l i e u x ' s i s by f a r o n e o f the most c o m p r e h e n s i v e s t u d i e s .
.
co d a t e of the t h e m e sf c r : n x a r i a n
p e r s o n s in t h e C a p p a d o c i a n s .
It is also u n i q u e in starting f r o m t h e p a i r rrptiawrrov-il.;ri,o~aoi~. Irenicism i n Sainc Basil's De S p i r i t u S a n c t o ' , " Word and S o i r i t 1 ( 1 9 7 9 ) : 1161, following M. S i m o n e t t i , s a i d t h a t B a s i l f i r s t a p p e a r e d i n t h e g r o u p o f the "Neo-Micenes" who were b a s i c a l l y of s o u n d f a i t h b u t d i d not a c c e p t t h e $tooila~ovb e c a u s e i t was n o t biblical. De H a l l e u x a s e s the terms "Neo-Nicene" and " O l d - N i c e n e " i n s e n s e s d i f f e r e n t from b o t h Z a h n ' s and G r i b o m o n t ' s . It is i n t h i s t h i r d s e n s e t h a t t h e two l a b e i s a r e b e i n g i n c r e a s i n g l y u s e d t o d a y e s p e c i a l l y i n German circles ( c f . H . C . B r e n n e c k e , " E r w a g u n g e n zu den A n f a n g e n des N e u n i z a n i s r n u s " i n Oecumenica e t o a t r i s t i c a . F e s t s c h r i f t f u r Wilhelm S c h n e e m e l c h e r rum 7 5 . G e b u r t s t a a , eds. D . P a p a n d r e o u e t a 1 . , [Chambesy: M e t r o p o l i e d e r Schweiz, 1 9 8 9 1 , 2 4 1 a n d V. K. D r e c o l l , Die E n t w i c k l u n a der T r i n i t a t s l e h r e des B a s i l i u s von C a s a r e a , 1 7 ff )
.
Nevertheless, the study does not consider Grsgory of Nyssa b u t
Basil.
Nor does it mention che development in Basil's theology
wich r e g a r d to the u s 2 of i m b - r a o ~ ~w,h i c h I h a v e a l r e a d y suggested.
To conclude the sratus a u a e s c i o n i s , I should s a y c h a t it is indeed necessary to study c h e Cappadocian z o n c s p c of person, s i n c e no on? before the C a p p a d c c i a n F a r h e r s proceeded a s far as t h e y did in elaborating
3n
chis concept.
T h e a n c i e n t s did n o E
h a v e such a eoncept because of the s c r o n g Platonic i n t e r e s t i n u n i v e r s a l s a n d t h e A r i s c o c e l i a n Fni?r?st i n z n individual only
inasmuch as he is a member 2 f a c i a s s .
T h e only s i g n i f i c a n t
c o n t r i b u c i a n m t h i s concept b e t w e e 3 ?htincs and b he C a p p a d o c i m s is P o r p h y r y ' s .
I shall ccnsid2r
it
in d e t a i l in
C h a p t s r Two when dealing w i ~ hphilosophical influences on Gregory
o f Nyssa.
Moreover,
. ~s d a i ? s s a t x r a s m r y
s t ~ d yof
L ~ E concept
and c e m n l n o l o g y of the " ? e m o n " in S r e g c r y o f Nyssa d o e s noc exist .
I shall proceed by analyzing the p o s s i b l e p h i l o s o p h i c a l i n f l u e n c e s on Gregory of Nyssa's concept of person.
Thus,
Chapter Two will d e a l with i n d i v i d u a l s in Aristotle a n d the Stoics, relation in Aristotie, the individual as a collection of
properties in Platonism, and the Flotinian will of the One. C h a p t e r s Three and Four will consider c h e c o n c e p t of d i v i r i e
persons in Gr3gory's l e s s e r t r i w t a r i a n r r e c i s e s .
More
specifically, C h a p t e r Three deals w i i h To His Brother F e t e r , On t h e Diffzrence between Ousia and H v ~ o s t a s i s , while Chapter Four
wiih
Tc E u s t a c h i u s . On t h e H o l v Trinitv, To Ablabius. On Not
T h r e e Gods and To The Greeks. Based on the Common Notions.
In
C h a p t e r Five I s h a l l focus n a i r i l y on divine relations I n
Gregory's Aaainst Eunomius and the k f u r a t i o n of r h e Confsssion
of Faith of Eunomiui.
C h z p i e r E'irie will b 2 q i r L w i c k a
presentation sf z h e pacrisri; antexedencs of divine r e l a ~ i c n a i i ~ y
in Tartullian, che Alexandrlin zheolsgians ( O r i g e r i , Dionysius, Alexander, A t h a n a s i u s ) , and 3asil of Caesarea.
Then
Gregory's
own view of divine relations will be analyzed, a s well a s the ways in w h i c h relaticnality is a parr of t h e concept of divine
persons.
Further darificacicns will be brcught when the issue
of the will of God will be invesiigated in the same c h a p t e r .
In this dissertaticn I ccrnbine t h r e e methodological approaches: a ) the integral or synchrcnic model, b ) cextual
analysis and c ! where possible, the analysis of G r e e k trinitarian terms, e .g . rrpocrwrrov. uaoo~aots,obis .
a) The "integral model attempts a s y n c n r o n o c s understanding
-.
of t h e development o f the c e n t r a l i d e a s o f Christianity." '
D e v e l o p e d p r i m a r i l y b y h i s r r o r i a n s o f d o c t r i n e i e . q . , Adolf Harnack a n d R e i n h o l d Seeberg), i t p r c v e s a u s e f u l t o o l for b o t h
systematic t h e o l o g i a n s a n d h i s t o r i a n s .
I n comparison w i t h o t h e r
m e t h o d s , such a s " t h e special h i s t o r y model" c r " r h e g r e a t
thinker rnechod," the " i n t e g r a l nodel" p r o v i d e s a b r o a d s r a n d more complex view of t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f d o c t r i n e .
Wich the s u p p o r t o f
h i s t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m , t h i s method shows that a c e r t a i n doctrins a p p e a r s a s a cansequence sf i n t t r a c z i o n s be+:wa?n r k o l o g i c a l ropics and o t h e r issues, e . g . ,
social c o n c e r n s ,
oolitics, a n d
ecclesiastical confronrations. b) Textual analysis,
dissertation,
t h e most used nethod i n t h e p r e s e n t
p r o v i d e s a n c p p o r c u n i ~ yt c f o l l o w o n e t h i n k e r ' s .
development o f ideas i n a s p x l r l ; -
4
:ex.
This a p p r o a c h m a b l e s
me t o e x a m i n e G r e g o r y ' s treatxent s f t h e c o n c e p t c f person i n
select t e x t s .
A t t e n t i o n w i l l a l s o be p a i d c o how h i s v i e w s o n
p e r s o n i n a p a r t i c u l a r t e x t fit i n m h i s o v e r a l l visicn. N o n e t h e l e s s , a n attempt t o i d e n t i f y a growth of Gregory o f
Nyssa's d o c t r i n e o f divine p e r s o n s s h o u l d be regarded w i t h reservations,
s i n c e there i s L i t t l e agreement among s c h o l a r s
c o n c e r n i n g t h e c h r o n o l o g y of his w o r k s . c ) C o n c e r n i n g t h e a n a l y s i s o f terms used to r e f e r to
--
" F o r what f o l l o w s , see James E . B r a d l e v a n d Richard M u l l e r , Church H i s t o r v : An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o R e s e a r c h , Reference Works. and Methods ( G r a n d R a p i d s , M I : Eercimans, 1 9 % ) , 31 f.
trinitarian p e r s o n s (rrpdowrro~.ivomarn.;) , I c o l l e c t e d d a t a o n t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f t h e s e terms i n che t h r e e C a p p a d o c i a n s , using the T h e result was a l m o s t o n e
T h e s a u r u s L i n q u a e Graecae C D - R c m .
I t h e n s e p a r a t e d the a u t h e n t i c works from t h e
thousand e n t r i e s .
spurious a n d c o n s i a e r 2 d t h e o c c u r r e n c z s i n the a u t n e n c i c w o r k s alone.
My n e x t s c e p was
occur and
LO see i f
Ac t h i s p o i n t , at the context.
LO
examine he places w h e r e r k s e terms
they were r e l e v a n t f o r the c o n c e p t o f p e r s o n .
1 looked n o t m l y
ZE
che c a n s
emsel selves b u t a l s c
Sometimes i r i s x c e s s a r y c s zcnsider the larger
e o n t e x t o r s v m a n m t i r e writing. T h e a d v a n t a g e o f this method i s t h a t it directs m e to most
o f t h e t e x t s where a d i s c u s s i o n Nonetheless, if the c o n t e x t i s
3f
~ h ep e r s o n m k e s p l a c e .
!lQic n c r o u g h l y
considerad, a major
d i s a d v a n t a g e o f this method i s c o r e m a i n a t a merely p h i l o l o g i c a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e cerms i n v o l v e d , w i t h o u t n x i c i n g i h e i r t h e o l o g i c a l o r philosophicai m e a n i n g s .
B e s i d e - . ~ p d o w r r oa~n d
urrdu~acns, G r s g c r y g f ?Jyssa x e d x.*..er r z m s ts
tip-iss
t h e notion
of p e r s o n :
" i n d i v i d u a l o r i n d i v i s i b l e " ( d ~ o p o v,) " p a r t i a l
substance"
( ~ E P L K Touoia) ~
a n d " p a r t i c u l a r s u b s t a n c a " (i611ajouoia) .
A l l o f these w i l l t h e r e f o r e be c o n s i d e r e d ,
a s well.
CHAPTER 2
PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPTS THAT SHAPED GREGORY OF NYSSA'S VIEW OF AN INDIVIDUAL
I n t h i s c h a p t e r I s h a l l present some philosophical c o n c e p t s which
c o n t r l b u t o co a prs-history of rhe zcnczpr of i x i i v i d u a l .
These
c o n c e p t s a r e imp or can^ f o r i h e scope of my s t u d y , as G r q c r y and
the o t h e r c x o Cappadocians used them x v a r i o u s cimes c o promote t h e i r own
concept
N e v e r t h e i e s s , as D o r r i e noted;
s f individual.
it i s n o t p o s s i b l e f o r the modern r 5 s e a r c h e r t o measurs t h e w i d t h
and d e p t h o f G r e g o r y of Nyssa's k n o w k a q e sf phiisscphy from
citations--a
-
method used s o r n f c r t a b l y wirh t - ~ e n e n t s f .&lexandria
and Eusebius sf C a e s a r e a - - s i n c e
3
G r e g o r y i s a master of
"thought-
c i t a t i o n , " whereby an idea i s taken over from somewhere tlse, b u t t h e n c o r n p l e c e l y rernodell2d a n c rewcrded s c c h a t a l i d i r e c t v e r b a l parallelism wiih t h e original disappears.
None~helass, 1 suggest
t h a t h e may h a v e u s e d t h e c o n c e p t s d i s c u s s e d below.
c a s e s t h i s borrowing i s obvious,
Gregory was a c o n v i n c e d " l a t o n i s t ,
i n o t h e r s not.
I n some
S u g g e s t i o n s that
although disguised a s a
'Heinrich Dorrie, "Gregor 111 ( G r e g o r von Nyssa)" i n R e a l l e x i k o n f u r A n t i k e und C h r i s t e n c u m v o l . 1 2 ( S t u t t g a r t : A . Hiersernann, 1 9 8 3 ) , c o l . 8 3 5 .
Christian to avoid accusations of heresy,- have been either generally regarded with reservations or simply discarded.'
Ths
following philosophical conceprs will be dealt with in this chapter: individuals and relations in Arismtle, individuals Stoicism, the individual as a collecticn of properties in Platonism, and c h e P1ctini.x
will of t h e On?.
1. Individuals in A r i s t o c l e
Aristotle's notion of an individual is neither consist en^ nor
clear-cut throughout h i s wrl:ings.
In a n e a r l y work such as che
Cateoories he tries to establish some rules tc be used in logical and linguistic analysis as well as ir! describizg being ( ~ b & a i ) . -.
To describe c h i n g s , he r x s t distingoishes between objects arid properties; then, he also disiinguish~sberw2en jeneral and particular, or between unis-ersals and i z c i v i d u a l s .
He a c t a c h e s
-Harold F. Cherniss, The Platonism of Greqorv of Nvssa (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1930) and more recently Charalarnbos Apostolopoulos, Phaedo Christianus. Studien zur Verbinduna und Abwaauna des VerhAltnisses zwischen dem platonischen Phaidon und dern Dialoa Greaors von Nvssa "Uber die Seele - - - . und die Auferstehuna" (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, A
'E.g., J. C. M. van Winden, review of Phaedo Christianus, Viailiae Christianae 41 ( 1 9 8 7 ) : 191-197; Henriette M. Meissner, Rhetorik und Theoloaie. Der Dialoq Greaors von Nvssa "De anima et resurrectione" (Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang, 1991); Enrico Peroli, "Gregory of Nyssa and che Neoplatonic Doctrine of the Soul," Vigiliae Christianae 51 (1497): 117-134.
general a n d individual r o both objects and properties.
Thus, in
the Caceaories 2 one can read of individual objects, individual . and propertiss, general c b j ~ r s ,and ger2ral p r ~ p e r i i e ~ 3bjects p r o p e r t i e s are s a i d LO b e combinations of " c h i n g s said withouc
any combination" ( 2 a 2 5 ) ; the things said without any combination came to be known as "zategcri2s" (hence r h ? l a i z r titlz of =he work).
In :l-:is wcrk, F-ristotle conceives o f ten such catecpries:
s u b s t a n c e ( u c a i a ) , quantity, q u a l i f is at is^, a relative, where,
when, being-in-a-position, having, doing, o r being-affec~ed ( C a t . ib25-27)
.
In l a m works ? A s c o t l a - a i l s c5.s hu2r nine
categories "accidencs."
In dealing with the category of "subscance," A r i s t c t l e s a y s that there a r e primary and secondary s u b s t a n c e s : the former h e
calls "individuals," c h e latter " s p w i ~ s "and " g e n e r a . " substar-ice (Ouoia! --:hat w h i c h is calied a substance most strictly, primarily ( r r p d ~ w s ) and mcsc of all--is C h a t which is neither said of a subjscc nor i n a subject, 3 . g . the individual man ( 6 .ris a~43pwrrog) cr indiyidual hcrse ((1 is ?no$) . The species in whish the c h i n g s primarily calied s u b s t a n c e s are, are called ' s e c o n d a r y substances ' ( S ~ i l ~ c opuaa~i a ~ ,) a s also are the genera of these species. For example, the individual man belcnqs in a species, man, and animal ((4ov) is a genus o f t h e species; so these--both man and animal-3.22 called secondary substances. (Cat. 2311-18); Nevertheless, f r o m C a t . 2 we learn that Aristotle not only
'For the Greek text I use Aristoteles, Cateooriae et Liber de Interoretatione, ed. L. Minio-Paluello (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959). For English translations of Aristotlels works I use, The Cornolete Works of Aristotle, rev. Oxford tr., ed. Jonathan Barnes, 2 v o l s . (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984).
conceives of individual substances, b u r zlso of non-substantial individuals, 2 . g . individual qualities ("this white"). What
hen is an individual?
Aristotle says t h a c individuals
is that which is "one in number" (&ap~6@,
cf. also 3 b 1 2 ) .
Nevertheless, as the Aristocelia~ scholar Frede noted: -
.
[Bleing one is n a c a crzcriim $1 ~ n d i v i c i u a l s : s p x i e s and gensra, i.e., th? kinds into which a b j e c t s fall, also have a kind of unity. One can, for example, count the species of a given genus. The k i n d of indivisibility characteristic of individuals must, then, be a special kind of u n i t y . ' F r e d e concl~des' r h a r 2 4 r i s r x k ases =he e x p r e s s i c n "on? in
number" mars frsquencly by way of contrast with " m e in kind or speciss" and "one in q e n u s , " and c h u s
~ k e ~ a t e a o r i c s ," g e n e r a
and species, in a c e r t a i n r e s p e c t a r e on? and, hence, indivisible, but in a n c t h e r respec:,
are completely indivisibls.
ir2 n c t m e
a n d , hence,
Yet what kind of d i ~ ~ i s i odoes n
Aristotle have in mind? A t Cat. ?b3-9 A r i s t o t l e says that i n d i v i d u a l s are " n o t said
sf a n y subject"
.
( K ~ T 'O U ~ E L ~krio~e~pivov I ~ ,\€y~rai)
n o t e a s y t o u n d e r s t a n d without examples.
This statement is
Aristotk m e n t i o n s both
'~ichaelFrede, Essavs in Ancient Philosophv (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1987), 51. 'Frede, Essavs, 51-52. Cf. aiso J o h n M. R i s t , The Mind of Aristotle: A S t u d v in Philosoohical G r o w t h (Toronto: University o f Toronto Press, 1989), 258.
individual substances and individual p r o p e r ~ i e s :individual human, i n d i v i d u a l h o r s e , a n d i n d i v i d u a l knowledqe-of-grammar n o t s a i d o f any s u b j e c t . subjects
In o c h e r w o r d s , they h a v e n o f u r t h e r
(~T~OKE~~EV u Qn d) e r n e a t h
predicated.
ars
rhem o f w h i c h
hey c a n b e
T o this can b e a d d e d A r i s t o t k f s s t a t e m e n t t h a t i n
the case o f s e c o n d a r y s u b s t a n c e " t h e s u b j e c t i s n o t , a s c h e p r m a r y s u D s c a n c e i s , o n e , b u t man a n d a n i m a l a r 2 s a i d of many
t h i n g s , " ' a n d a c l e a r e r p i c t u r e e m e r q e s o f whar: h e means by a n individual.
T h e s p e c i e s "human" a n d
i n d i v i d u a l s , b e c a u s e they
he g e n u s " a n i m a i " a r e n o t
sf x a n y rhincs, ,
=. s aI i d=.
have a p l u r a l i t y s f subjects.
[hey
F r e d e n o t e s i h a ~chis strcngly
s u g g e s t s t h a t " a n i n d i v i d u a l d o e s n o r h a v e a n y a c t u a l p a r t s and
i s i n d i v i s i b l e , b e c a u s e ir: h a s no s u b j e c t s . " I t i s not- clear w h a i exaccly A r i s ~ o t l emeans b y non-
substantiz? i n d i v i d u a l s , a n d rnodlrn i o m m 2 n t a i o r . s a r e a t v a r i a n c e . Some m a i n t a i n t h a c i n d i v i d u a l p r o p e r ~ i e s i 2 . g . S o c r a t e s f h e a l t h ) ,
a t l e a s t i n t h e C a t e o o r i e s , a r e i n d i v i d u a t e d by
heir b e a r e r s ,
w h i l e o t h e r s c l a i m t h a c c h t y are individuated i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f
'Frede, Essavs, 52. I d i s a g r e e w i t h Frede when he t h e n t r i e s t o "avail h i m s e l f f 1 o f t h e S c h o l a s t i c terms " i n t e g r a l " and l l s u b j e c t i v e " t o e x p l i c a t e A r i s t o t l e f s notion o f " p a r t . " Devised l a t e r , t h e s e S c h o l a s t i c terms, however e x a c t l y hey o v e r l a p w i t h A r i s t o t l e ' s n o t i o n s , can o b f u s c a t e our understanding of Aristotle.
their b e a r e r s .
'
Gregory of Nyssa, h c w e v e r , d o e s n o t seem t o have
been c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h i s i s s u e a n d c h u s I s h a l l not p u r s u e i t . Nevertheless,
Frede i s c o r r e c t t h a t A r i s t o ~ l e ' snotion o f a n
i n d i v i d u a l i s weak i n t h e C a t e a o r i e s , p r e c i s e l y bscause of t h e .
p r e s e n c e o f non-substantial ~ n c ~ ~ j L d 1 ~ awel s ~; 2 n dt o g r o u n d o u r 3
.
n o t i o n o f a n i n d i v i d u a l i n o b j e c t s r a t h e r ~ h a np r o p e r t i e s . - A s w e c a n see i n h l s a c c o u n r o f p r i m a r y a n d s e c o n d a r y
~ moves b a c k a n d f o r t h s u b s t a n c e s , A r i s t o t l e i n i h Cateaories between o n t o l o g y a n d lcgic.
The o n c d o g i c a i example ("primary"
versus "secondary substance"'
i s 2asiLy cranspos2d i n t o l o g i c t o
i l l u s t r a t e t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e c u e e n " i n d i v i d u a i " m d "species." A r i s c o t l e r e t u r n s c o this c'nere in l a t e r wcrks such a s & i n t e r o r e t a t i o n e 1 7 a 3 9 - 4 0 x h e r e h e r e g a r d s "spesiss" a s "universals. "
B y Mer,achvsics
-. -
n o w e v e r , he has c h a n g e d h i s
I
mind d r a m a t i c a l l y a n d r a i s 5 s d c u b t s a s i c w h e t h e r k i n d s or
universals really e x i s t : [ I ] t seems i m p o s s i b l e : h a t
any u n i v e r s a l ~ r r ms h c u i d be -
A
the
E . L. Owen, " I n h e r e f i c e , " P h r o n e s i s 10 (1965): 97-105 and Michael Frede, Essavs i n A n c i e n ~P h i l o s o p h v , 5 5 - 6 3 a d v o c a t e t h e f o r m e r p o s i t i o n , whereas G . B . Matthews a n d S . M . Cohen, "The One and t h e Many" Review o f M e t a ~ h v s i c s 21 i1467-8): 4 3 0 - 6 5 5 and R. Heinaman, "Non-Substant i a i I n d i v i d u a l s in J.risiotle, " P h r o n e s i s 26 ( 1 9 8 1 ) : 295-307 t h e latter. Rist t h i n k s t h a t "Gwen h a s n o t e s t a b l i s h e d his c a s e , a n d p e r h a p s b o t h h e a n d h i s c r i t i c s are right. T h e r e i s a l s o t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a c A r i s t o t l e did n o t see t h e problem a t this time. If t h a t were t r u e , Heinaman's qood e v i d e n c e f r o m later works does n o t necessarily h e l p " ( T h e ~ i n dof A r i s t o t l e , 327 n . 6 ) . 'G.
* .
--Frede, Essays, 6 3 .
substance. For primary s u b s t a n c e i s t h a t k i n d of s u b s t a n c e w h i c h i s p e c u l i a r t o an i n d i v i d u a l , which does n o t b e l o n g t o anything e l s e ; but t h e u n i v e r s a l i s common, s i n c e t h a t i s called u n i v e r s a l which n a t u r a l l y belongs t o more t h a n one t h i n g . . . . F u r t h e r , s u b s t a n c e means t h a t w h i c h i s n o t p r e d i c a b l e o f a s u b j e c t , but t h e u n i v e r s a l i s . . p r e d i c a b l e o f scme s u b j e c t always" ( M e t . 1 0 3 8 b l G - 1 2 : . - -
name of
3
A f t e r t h e C a t e a o r i e s , t h e p h r a s e "secondary substance" . .
d i s a p p e a r s . - - A s F r e d e n o c e s , A r i s t o t l s ' s d z i m a c i c change o f mind a l s o r e p r s s e n c s a m a j o r c h a n g e i n his n o ~ i o no f i n d i v i d u a l : " i f t h e r e a r e ns g m s r a and s p e c i s s , individcals nc longer can b e
taken t o t e c h e u l t i m a t e ,
i n d i v i s i b l e p a n s of genera.
. . " - '
Moreover, A r i s t o t l e c o n t s n d s t n a c t h e i n d i v i d u a l c a n n o t b e
defined: But when w e come to rhe concrete cnlng, 2 . q . c h i s c i r c l e , i . 2 . o n e of t h e i n d i v i d u a l c i r c l e s , w h e t h e r s e n s i b l e o r inteiligibk ( I mean b y i n x l l i j i b l 2 c i r z k s r h e m a t h e m a t i c a l , a n d b y s e n s i b l e s i r c l e s z h c s e sf b r s n z e and c f wood!, o f t h e s e t h e r e i s no definition, cur- ihel/ a r e knowr. by t h e a i d of i r h o u g h t s r ptrception. 9
.
"
H 2 thus shows c h a t p h i l s s c p h y :an
-
q
m l y b e concerned wich
i n d i v i d u a l s i n a s m u c h a s they a r e members of a ; l a s s . T h a t s a i d , o u r inunediace q u e s t i c i ? i s whether the
..
- - G r e e k t e x t i n A r i s t o t e l e s , Metaonvsica, e d . W . ( O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1957 3 . ..
Jaegcr
- - R i s t , T h e Mind o f A r i s t c t l e , 255 f . , 261. C f . a l s o t h e T h e s a u r u s L i n u u a e G r a e c a e CD-Rom, v e r s i o n D ( I r v i n e , CA: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , 1995).
Essavs,
Cappadocians were familiar w i t h Aristorle.
Recently, Stead
correc~edhis e a r l i e r estimate, p l a c i n g C h r i s t i a n knowledge of Aristotle's Cateaories and its distinctive treatment of substance in the late 3 5 0 s , "when ic p e r h a p s began tc be c o t i c e d by Arian
logicians." "
Xe conrands that i f Christians use t h e language of
primary and secondary substance before 350, they do so in a nontecnnical sense.
'The Cappadoc~ans,who flourish3d since t h e 360s
in their f i g h t with Arian logicians, us? c n e language of "individual" and " u n i v e r s a l " to d i s t i n g u i s h between individuals and cheir common substarice, as I demonstrate? in ihe n a t chapters.
Neverrhelsss, ic is h a r d tc affirm x i t h c e r c a i n c y
whether he Cappadocians x s k zhes? n c t i c c s directly from Ariscocle or from handbooks sf logic or philosophy currently i n circulation:'
T h e e x a m p l e s I am
about to give are instances in
which Gregory 3 f N y s s a s t e m s z o n r n c x an acquaintanze with 9
.
.-
-'Christopher Stead, Philosoonv in Christian Antiauitv (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 153. I n D i v i n e Substance, he thought that until rhe end of the f o u r t h centurv Christian authors w i t h t h e exception of Hippolytus (Refutation of All Heresies V1If16-i8) did not know the doctrine of ~ r i m a r vand secondary substances (Divine Substancs [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1 9 7 7 1 , li4 ff. ) . "The ccnclusion about an Aristotelian influence on the
Cappadocians will probably baffle some Eastern Crthodox theologians. Yet, even Georges Florovsky noted that in eschatology too "it was Aristotle and not Plato who could help Christian philosophers." Aris~otle'sunderstanding of "the unity of human existence" was 3 f great importance, accordino to this Russian Orthodox theologian (see ~ e b r ~ eFsl o r o v s ky, ~ g o e c t sof Church Historv, ed. Richard S. Haugh [Vaduz:
In one example h e e v e n m e n t i o n s c h e
Aristotle's ideas.
Even i n t h i s case, however, ic is not
Cateqories b y name.
possible to claim beyond d o u b t that he had first-hand k n c w l e d g e
Here a r e t h e e x a m p l e s :
of the Cataaories. 1) At
CE
11, 2 3 7 Gregory w r i ~ e s : "our n a c z r e w a s c r e a t 2 d
c a p a b l ? of sciencef1(SEICTLK~)P iiuurt~h n t j p q s T ~ Lb)t h v fipljv
6 ~ p i o ~ p y q o a l - ' ~ 0 ~, )~ . L T
S
1s r e m r x z c m i
of
? . _ r l s i s t l t f TODFCS ~
130b8:
"man is a r a t i c n a l a n i m a l , c a p a o l t s f i n t e l l e c z and s c i e n c e . " 3
2 ) At
.
I, 1 7 2 f f . G r e g c r y does n o t admic c o degrees o f
s u b s t a n c e ( o u a i a ) , either i n che case sf God or i n rhe human case.-
At
CE I, 180
f f G r e q o r y r e t u r n s = c t h e issue r;f c h e
degrees o f s u b s t a n c e a n d a d d s t h a c ~ 5 es u b j e c t i ~ s e l f (airi, TO
u r r o ~ ~ i p ~ v oivs) c h e o n e t o w h i c n ouaiu is properiy applied 182).
(m I ,
From this p o i n t of view, t h e r e is no c i i f f u e n c e o f
substance b e t ~ e s r ,:he
-r a t k c
z n j =he Scn.
Gregory cakes chis ~ p p c r c x i : ; ;
13 XMUE
Eunornizs for n m
knowing " t h e p h i l o s o p h e r s oucside the faith" who n e v e r made "this mad statement" that t h e r e would be degrees of substance within t h e same substance
(E I, 186). "Nor does s u c h a thing agree
wirrh either the divinely inspired texts c r common sense," h e adds
in the same passage.
Is the p h r a s e "philosophers outside t h e
faith" an allusion to Aristotle and the Peripatetics? so, since Aristotle himself says: "Of species
...
--
.- See a l s o G r e g o r y o f N y s s a ,
52
A d P e t r u m 2,
I believe
n o o n e is more
truly substance than another" ( C a t . 2 b 2 3 - 2 4 ) .
then adds t h a t
He
t h e same holds true for izdividuals: " o n e i n d i v i d u a l man is not
more truly substance than an individual ox"
( C a c . 21327).
A t Cat.
3b33, he states quite clearly that "Substance does not admit of
variation of degrce"
(671 o i u i a
ouaias obc im 6i&:a~
TO
pdMov m i ~b
.- -
~TTOLI)
-,
nc
3 \
ac
hn
r - -
U L ,
- n
LU,
Gregory rntnxons A r i s t o t l e t s Catacrories
-1.
zu
and their language as ussd by E u n o r n i u s .
This i s
w h i c h G r e g o r y menricns ihe Catcaori2s b y nzrne.
be passagc in
He wri:?s
in
reference to Eunomius : Re w h ~labori ousiy rzi~sracss A r i s t o t ~ l i a ndivisicn 2f r s a l ' genera, ' and ' s p e c k s , ' a n d 'individuals,' and advanced a i TEX L ~ X yO i a ) o f the Caceaories doctrines. - '
ryment, the h a s slaborat ' and ystema tic treatment injury 3 f our
Mcreschini noiss in commenting or. chis passage,
In realit!;, ir: is Gregor:; x h o , ir. his r.-fura:ior? of Eunomius, ernplsys correctly e he iateaories. He distinguishes -- a s r n a 111, 1 0 , 4 9 - 5 0 -- be tween s u b s t a n c e a n d acciden~s,a n d t h e n in God b e w e e n substance and goodness; the former is inaccessible, zhs l a t t e r a r e shared also by ~ h human c riacure.- '
L .
..
- T h e l a s t reference (Cat. 31333) is also indicated by W.
Jaeger, the editor of the critical edition of Gregory's 1, 8 0 note).
(GNO
slightly modified b y me, in NPNF 2 . 5 2 4 7 . --
"Gregory of Nyssa, T e c l o o i a trinitaria. Contro Eunomio. Confutazione della Professione di fede di Eunomio, tr. Claudio Moreschini (Milano: Rusconi, 1994), 587 n . 5 5 .
Other s c h o l a r s t o d a y a r e even i n c l i n e d t c t h i n k c h a t G r e g o r y o f Nyssa knew t h e C a t e a o r i s s f r o m P o r p h y r y ' s Isaooae. -' T h i s s u g g s s t i o n , o f c o u r s e , i s nor t o b e escluaed, e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e I
m y s e l f t h i n k c h a t G r e g o r y was f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e I s a a o g e , a s I endeavor t o dernonsrrare l x e r i n c h i s chapter. T h e C a p p a d o c i a n s scrnpzred t h e r h r s ? d i T 7 i c e p e r s o n s w i ~ h c h r e e i n a l v r a u a i s having t h e same n a t u r e o r s p e c i e s ,
divine.
a l l equally
T h e r e f o r e , t h e i r s o l u t i o n t o t h e i s s u e of d i v i n e u n i t y
i s c o n s i d e r e d t c b e r a t h e r weak-'
( t h i s weakness w i l l become
z v i d e n t i n G r e g o r y ' s Ad A b i a b i u m ) .
Y s t i t i s a c k n o w i e d g e d chat
t h e C a p p a d o c i a n s managed to p r o v i d e some zuunterbalancing
f e a t u r e s t o express a s c r o n c e r d i v i n e i l n i ~ : i .
'
G r e g o r y o f Nyssa,
fcr i n s t a n c e , a r g u e d i h a ~133 divine n a r u r e is simple, wichout
-'See G. C h r i s t o p h e r t s a d , " I n d i v i d u a l ? e r s c n a l i t y i n O r i g e n a n d t h e C a p p a d o c i a n Fathers" i n A r c h 6 e t e l o s : l ' a n t r o o o l o a i a d i O r i a e n e 2 d i G r e u o r i o di N i s s a . Analisi s t o r i c o - r e l i q i o s a , eds. V. B i a n c h i a n d H . C r o u z e l ( M i l a n : V i t a Pensiero, 1 9 8 1 ) , 1 8 2 ; idem, P h i l o s o ~ h vi n C h r i s t i a n A n t i a u i t v ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , N W ) , 82 ff. ; see a l s o "Die S c h r i f t Ex comrnunibus n o t i o n i b u s d e s G r e g o r von N y s s a , " t r and comrn. Herman Vogt, i n T h e o l o a i s c h e O u a r t a l s c h r i f t 1 7 1 (1391 2 0 4 n . 1. Cf. a l s o David L . 3 a l a s , "Plenitude h u m a n i t a t i s : The U n i t y o f Human N a t u r e i n t h e T h e o l o g y of G r e g o r y o f Nyssa" i n D i s c i p l i n a R o s t r a : Essavs i n Memorv o f Robert F. E v a n s , e d . Donald F. Winslow (Cambridge, MA: T h e P h i l a d e l p h i a P a t r i s t i c Foundation, N U ) , 129.
P h i l o s o o h v i n Christian A n t i a u i t v , .-
-3oachim of thirteenth century, for divine unity. L a t e r a n Council of
F i o r a r e v i v e d t h e Cappadocian t h e o r y i n t h e b u t without t h e necessary supporting f e a t u r e s H i s t e a c h i n g was condemned by t h e F o u r t h 1215.
degrees, t h a t one single a c z i v i r y or s n e r g y is exercised by the
three together, that che p e r s o n s do n o t diffzr i n rank but o n l y
in t h e i r mode of e x i s t e n c e .
2. Relation i n Aristotle
As I shall d e m o n s t r a t e ex~ensively i n Chapcsr F x e , boch G r e q c r y and h i s C h r i s t i a n predecessors drew h e a v i l y 3 n A r i s i o t l e ' s notion
of r e l a t i o n .
One of i h e arqumenrs x e d i n
E%
third and fourth
centuries C X . c o t s c a b 1 i s i - i 3 a c chs Son was Sod was he so-
called argument from r e l a t i o n s :
if the F a t h e r is divine, the
Son, who is a correlative cf :he
'ather, is also divine.
speak about relation G r e g o r y of Yyssa u s e d expressions :
TU ~ p d n. s rrp6.;
~i ;rws
€XELL~,
;
To
he rodowing Greek -
4
a n d o~do~.;. T h e f i r s t p h r a s e
i s t h e Arlstotslian t e c h n i c a l phrase for r e l a ~ i c n , t h e s e c o n d is
.he Stoic technicai c e r m f a r r e l a c l m ( a k h c u q h :c
is us3d
occasionaily by . A r i s ~ o c l e , zoo , a x the rkir3 t e r m is the noun used b y many Greek s p e a k e r s of a n t i q u i t y ( w i t h c n e exception o f A r i s t o t l e h i m s e l f ) -' t o r e f e r co " r e l a t i o n . "
It is worth noting
from the o u t s e t c h a t , although all of the above e x p r e s s i o n s are currently r e n d e r e d in E n g l i s h a s " r e l a t i o n ,
''see .-
"
t h e :a npoq TI
C h a p t e r Five below f o r d e t a i l s .
-'Aristotleis " C a t e o o r i e s " and "De I n t e r o r e t a t i o n e " , tr. J. L. Ackrill (Oxford: C l a r e n d o n Press, 1 9 6 3 1 , 98.
l i t e r a l l y means " t h i n g s [ s a i d ] i n r e l a t i o n t o [something e l s e ] , "
and apos ~i nus ~
X E L Lmeans ~
"relative disposition. "
An examinair ion
o f t h e A r i s t o t e l i a n n o t i o n a f r e l a c i o n i s t h e r e f o r e i n order here.
S i n c e n o t a l l o f the i s s u e s z o n n e c t e d w i t h r e l a t i o n i n
A r i s t o t l e a r e o f i r n p o r t a n c s for m y ciisserza:Fofi,
I shall touch
mostly u p o n those w h i c h r e c a i n e d cP.2 a t t e n t i o n o f p a t r i s t i c
U n l i k e s u b s t a n c e , t h e c a t e g o r y of r e l a t i o n d i d n o t u n d e r g o d r a m a t i c changes i n ? . r i s c x l t ' s z h c u g h c .
I t did, however, f o l i s w
a c e r t a i n develo~mentfrom a n t a r l i e r w o r k s u c h a s Catsaories 7
t o a l a t e r work s u c h a s Meraphvsics 5 . 1 5 a s I s h a l l d e m o n s t r a t s
Aristotle q i v e s in C a t . ': (Dl) We call ~ e l a t i v e s u p ali such t h i n g s a s a r e s a i d t o b e j u s t w h a t t h e y a r e , of o r t h a n o t h e r things, o r i n some o t h e r way i n r s i a t i o n E O s a n e t h i n g e l s e . For e x a m p l e , what i s l a r g e r i s s a i l e d w h a t i~ i s c h a n something e l s e ( i t i s zalied l a r g e r ~ h a nsome~hingl;2nd u h a c i s d o u b l e i s c a l l e d what ii IS something 2 l s e ( i t i s c a l l e d d o u b l e s f s o r n e ~ h i n g ) ; similsrly w i t h a 1 1 o t h e r s u c h c a s e s . -
a
" O f " a n d " t h a n " r e p r e s e n t i n t h i s zranslacion the G r e e k genitive
-?In my p r e s e n t a t i o n o f A r i s ~ o i l e ' sc a t e g o r y of r e l a t i o n I r e l y o n the comments J . L. A c k r i l l made i n Arisrctle's " C a t e a o r i e s " a n d "De I n t e r o r e t a t i o n e " , 38-103 ( r e f e r r e d t o a s A c k r i l l h e r e a f t e r ) , a s well a s a recent a r ~ i c l et h a t tries t o bring f u r t h e r c l a r i f i c a t i o n s t o t h i s i s s u e , Fabio Morales, " R e l a t i o n a l A t t r i b u t e s i n A r i s t o t l e , " P h r o n e s i s 3 9 , n o . 3 (1994): 55-274 (Morales h e r e a f t e r ) . .- Cat.
6a36-40.
even used some of A r i s t o t l e ' s e x a m p l e s , s u c h a s m a s t e r - s l a v e and father-son.
-
-
Aris~otle,hcwever, a d d s a necsssary
qualification, namely t h a c "all r e l ~ i i v e s... ire spoken of in r e l a t i o n t o c o r r e l a t i v e s t h a ~r e c i p r c c a t e , ~ r o v i d e d hey a r e
a r e improperly g i v e n a n d t h u s do n c t r e c i p r c c a t e i s : "wing o f a
b ~ r d "a n J "bird cf a wing", f o r it is n o r as being a bird chat a
wing is said to be o f it, b u c a s b 3 i n j a winged ( C a t . 6b38 f f . S e l a t i v e s a r e also g e n e r a l l y simul:ineous
by
)
.
nature:
R e l a t i v e s seem L O b e s i r n u l t a n e s u s b y n a t u r e ; d p a r j buoa j ; and in most c a s e s c h i s is c r x . F o r c h e r e is at the same - time a d o u b k a n d a hair, anti m ? n che13 is a h a l f c h e r e is a d o u b k , a n d when there is a s l a v e .here is i m a s t e r ; and s i m i l a r l y v i i h t h e o t h e r s . J-lsc, one s a r r k s the other tc . d e s t r u c t i o n (ouvava~pci! ; for I: :here i s not a double t h e r e is n o c a h a l f , and if t h e r e is n o t a half there is not a double. So Coo w i t h x h e r suck c a s e s . ( C a c . 7 b 1 5 - 2 1 )
To p r o v e t h a t God the F a t k r and
Z12-j
c h e Son a r e b o c h divine and
coeternal, Chrisiian x r i t s r s ilso x e d c h i s p r o p e r t y of simultanei~yb y n a t u ? . They also x p r o p r i a t e d Aristotls's s x a s r : .
.
l a n g u a g e : apa. ov~~avaip6. '. N o n e t h e k s s , Aristotie d r a w s a t t e n t i o n
to some exceptions from this rule cf simultaneity: knowable would seem t o be p r i o r b y n a t u r e tc knowlodge,
things to be known and then comes :he
f o r -k,ere a r e first t h e
knowledue of them.
Also,
the destruction of knowledge does n o t e n t a i l the destruction of
-
7
"See Chapter F i v e for examples. -.
'-See
Chapter Five for cxamplzs. 68
"The perceptible" and " t h e measurable" a l s o
the things knowable.
qualify as exceptions from the rule sf simultaneity of the correlatives (Cat. 7 b 2 2 - 8 a 1 2 ) .
Aristotle then raises i h qu?~iion ~ of whether substances can be spoken of as relatives.
H s says that primary substances
surely cannot be spoken 2f as relaiive, b s z a u s e "an individual man is n o t called
samson& s individual n a n " (the z a s s for
wholes), nor is an individual hand zzlled someone's individual nand but someonefs hand (the c a s e f x p a n s ) . t h a t Aristotle probably
A s k r i l l thinks
means ~s s x g e s t that i t is
linguisiically improper co a m a c h csssessive g m i t i v e s to designations of primary substances: sne eannct say t n a c something is "Callias's
his ox," chcuqn x e z a n ,
ox is Callias' s 'ox!.
'
ci T s u r s e , s a y t h a t r h i s
3ui in the c a s e of seccndary substances,
Ariscotle admits t b . a t t h e r e is room f o r d i s p u ~ e :~ h u s , a nead is cailed someone's h e a d and a hand scrnecne's hand, and thsse seem
to be relatives.
To a v o i d t h e necessity of classifying p a r c s of
secondary substance (such as heads z r hands) as relatives--that
is, t h e necessity of calling a subscance an accident--Aristotle provides a second definition of relation: ( 0 2 ) Now if the definition of relatives which was given above was adequate, it is either exceedingly difficult or
impossible to reach the solution chat no substance is spoken of as relative. But if it was not adequate, and if those things are relative for which beino is the same as beinq
somehow r e l a t e d t o s o m e t h i n o (01s~ i &vat , T U ~ I T O LPan J 74 rpos ri T ~ W S E X E L V ) t h e n p e r h a p s some answer may be f o u n d . The p r e v i o u s d e f i n i t i o n does, indeed, a p p l y co a l l r e l a t i v e s , y e t t h i s t h e i r b e i n g c a l l e d w h a t they a r e , o f o t h e r t h i n g s - i s not whac their b e i n g r e l a t i v e s i s . I t is c l e a r f r o m t h i s that i f someone knows a n y r e l a t i v e d e f i n i t e l y h e w i l l a l s o know d e f i n i t e l y t h a t i n r e l a t i o n t o w h i c h i t i s spoken o f . (Cat. 8a28-35) A t t h e end of C a t .
7 , A r i s t o c l e c l a r i f i e s that a h e a d o r a h a n d
o r a n y s u c h s u b s t a n c e can b e knowo definit3ly w i t h o u t n e c e s s a r i l y
knowing dsfinicely chat i n r e i a t i c n ~c v h i c h i t i s s p o k e n o f . T h e r e f o r e , heads a n d h a n d s a n d a n y p a r c s sf secondary s u b s t a n c e s x o u l d noc be relatives, 2r.d zsnsequtncly, . c s c b s c a n c e s c a n b e
r e l a t i v e s (Cat. 9b15-2) . S i n c e a n t i q u i t y t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e second d e f i n i t i o n s f r e l a t i o n i D 2 ) and r h e d i f f e r e n c e b e ~ w e mi t a n d c h e f i r s t
d e f i n i t i o n (Dl) has e n g e n d e r e d much d i s c u s s i o n . only briefly
I sna?? mention
he iwc different F n t e r p r e t a t i c n s . A . c k r i i l and
Morales p r o v i d e .
F i r s t , however, I w o u l d l i k e t o Roc? z h a ~w h i k
A r i s t o t l e is o p p o s e d c o chs i d e a s f c a l i i n g i n y k i n d cf substances r e l a t i v e s , G r e g c r y ~f N y s s a is n o t of the same m i n d .
G r e g o r y s a y s t h a t by a t t a c h i n g p o s s e s s i v e a d j e c t i v e s t o "God" o n e o b t a i n s a r e l a t i o n a l name such a s " c u r God.""
..
Morales t o o
a r g u e s that Aristotle is c o r r e c t : the p h r a s e " Z o h n ' s cow" d o e s n o t t r a n s f o r m cow i n t o a c o r r e l a t i v e . " - -.
''CE I,
572-573.
" ~ o r a l e s , 258 n. 1 0 .
A c k r i l l a n d Morales b o t h
u s e l a t e r works b y A r i s t o t l e
and D2,
LO
interpret t h 2 r e l a t i o n between Dl
two d e f i n i t i o t l s tnaiz o c c u r , a s w e saw, i n a n e a r l y work
s u c h a s t h e Cateqories.
A c k r i l l , cn the one h a n d ,
m a i n t a i n s that
t h e new c r i t e r i c n i s a l s o f o u n d e l s e w h e r e , 2 . q . T o o i c s 6 ( 1 4 2 3 2 9
and 146b3) . "
He f i n d s the s e c c n d criterion ( D ? ) "too s t r o n g , "
i f i t i s m e a n t t o imply t h a ~a n e cculd know c h a t A ( a g i v e n subject) i s R ( a relational predicate) only if o n e knew w h a t it was R of.
Ye s a y s t h a c
he c r i t 2 r i o n i s n o t s a t i s f i e d b y
relaticnal wrms l i k e " h a l f " c r "slave": m e can know t h a c 37 is h a l f some s c h e r n u m b e r w i t h o ~ ik n c w i n g d e f i n i r d y w h a t ~ h a c
n u m b e r i s , and c h a t C a L l i a s i s a s l a v e w i c h c u t kr.owing d e f i n i t e l l ; who his master i s .
''.
M o r a l s s , c n ihe other hand, a r g u e s
hat
Aristotle's second z r i t e r i c n for rctopnizing r e l a t i o n a l attributes 1 D 2 i is b a s e d w. :heir
p c u l i a r indefiniteness.
This
indefiniceness may be eliminated b y a d e f i n i ~ eknowledge o f t h e correlate.
The indefiniceness is quii? w i d e x i n r e l a t i o n a l
- I t "tc b e q r e a t e r ~ h a n , " b u i p r e d i c a t e s l i k e " t o b e c h e d c u b h sr,
i r may p a s s u n n o t i c e d i n terms s u c h 3s " f a t h e r " a n d " s l a v e . " " R e l a t i v e s s u c h a s " f a t h e r " a n d " s l a v e " a r e endowed with a
"~ccording L O t h e c h r c n c l o g i c a l chart o f A r i s t o t l e ' s works p r o v i d e d b y R i s t i n h i s T h e Mind o f A r i s t o t l e , C a t . 7 was w r i t t e n c a . 353 ( p . 2 8 3 ) , w h e r e a s Topics 6 c a . 3 4 3 ( p . 2 8 5 ) , M e t . 7 ca. 3 2 7 , and Politics 1 sa. 3 2 4 ( p . 2 8 7 ) . --
' Morales, 261.
For his whole a r g u m e n t , see pp. 259-266.
c o m p a r a t i v e l y c o r n p l e t s sense a n d t h e y s a t i s f y the f i r s t
definition (Dl) o f relatives, t o o .
T o e x p l a i n why A r i s t o t l e
c o n t e n d s that p a n s of s u b s t a n c e d o n o t satisfy t h e s e c o n d
criterion ( 0 2 1 , M o r a l e s appsals
LO
Met.
7 where lristotle s a y s
t h a t p a r t s c a r m o t zxisc i f x h e y are severed from a whole, "for i t
i s n o t a finger in a n v s t z t e c h a t i s t h e f i n g e r o f a living
thing, b u c the dead f i n g e r is
1035b23-25).
To z h l s
&
*. r l n g e r c r l y homonymously"
M e r a k s adds 3
(Met.
i h e ~ r e ~ i ~+xplanation il from
Aristocle's Bolitics ! w h e r ? s new d i s c u s s i o n s f w h o l e s and p a r t s (severed feer: and h a n d s ) 1 s i n t r o d u c e d : " c h i n g s a r e d e f i n e d b y t h e i r f u n c t i o n and p o w e r ;
and w e sughc n c i
LO
say chat they are
the same when t h s y no l o n g e r h a v e i h e i r p r o p e r q u a l i t y , b u t o n l y c h a t they a r e homonyrncus"
..
.
p x r r i z s 1253320-25)
Yorales
suggests t h a t c h i s latter c r i t e r i c n 3xplains x h y p a r t s of s u b s t a n c e s :ark satisfy
tne i e f i x c i c n 31 ;f
relati7:?s,
but n o t
definition 02: "For since 9r.e n u s c a p p e a l c c ~ h i?i h o l s in c r d e r to d e f i n e them, this refersnz? 1 s 2 3 n t a i ~ . e dw .~ t ? . i n c h e definiticn 7
( a n d t h e meaning!) of t h e respective c e r m s . considered,
They h a v e t o b e
a t l e a s t i n t h i s r e s p e c t , definite enough."'"
A later work s u c h a s Met. 5 . 1 5 b r i n g s additional
clarifications t o Aristotle's v i e w o f r e l a t i o n .
-.
Here he
"Morales, 2 6 4 . T h e r e is a misprint in the reference t o Aristotle's Politics on this page: the q u o t e i s f r o m Politics 1253a20-25, n o t 1253b20-25. T h e examples from Met. 1 0 3 5 b 2 3 - 2 5 and P o l i t i c s 1253a20-25 a r e a c t u a l l y s u g g e s t e d i n Ackrill, 1 0 3 .
d i s t i n g g u i i . s h e s t h r e e main g r c u p s o f r e i a ~ i v e s : 1) t h o s e w h i c h a r e s a i d t o be " a c c o r d i n g t o the n u m b e r "
(KCIT'
upi@ov)
,
2 ) t h o s e which
a r e said r_o be " s c c o r d i n g rro a c a p a z i ~ y " ( K ~ T US c l ~ a p v ) , and 3 ) t h c s e w h i c h a r e s a i d t o be " a s t h e m e a s u r a b k tc che m e a s u r e " H Pe Orhen T O ~ E T ~ ~ T O V I T ~ ~ ) ~ T O ~ ~ T V ) .
c o n s i d e r s e a c h g r o u p separately.
1) R e l a t i v e s s a i d t o b e " a c c o r d i n q ts the n u m b e r " api8p6~).
..
-.
.
,
A r i s t o t l e c < e n p - x x s XLX:
~ r e b l et o r h e c h i r d ,
( d ~
:he
(K~T'
d o u b l e c o -,he h a l f ,
the
"chat which a c e e d s " t o " t h a t w h i c h i s
R e l a t i v e s s u c h a s ~ h tei o u b l 2 and the h a l f a r c i n a
exceeded."
d e f i n i t e numerical r e l a t i o n
LO
1, k u c x h t r s s u c h a s ":hat
which
e x c e e d s " a n d " c h a t w h i c h i s txseeded" are in a n indefinite
numerical r e l a ~ x m .
, n e s ~r a a : s Z r , s
""'
z r s .- 1 1~ x r l , - a l l yexpressed
a n d a r e d e t e r m i n a t i o n s o f n u m b e r , a n d s o , " adds A r i s c m l e ,
"in
..
a n o t h e r way a r e t h e e q u a l a n d - h e ~ l k ea n d t h e same, f o r a l l
-
n -
r e f e r t o unicy" ( M e t . i 0 i i a W .
T h u s scrnechi~:g i s called " e q u a l "
t o s o m e t h i n g b e c a u s e b o t h things h a v e a common auantitv;
s o m e t h i n g i s c a l i e d " s i m i l a r " t o scmeching b e c a u s e b o t h t h i n g s
h a v e a common a u a l i t v ; a n d somechina i s cailed ":he
same" a s
s o m e t h i n g b e c a u s e b o t h things h a v e a common s u b s t a n c e (Met. 1021a10-131
.
I n t h i s r e g a r d M o r a l e s n o t e s ihat a p a r t i c u l a r
q u a n t i t y , q u a l i t y , o r s u b s t a n c e has t o b e t a k e n a s t h e m e a s u r e o f ..
comparison. ''
2 ) Relatives s a i d t o be " a c c o r d i n g t o a c a p a c i t y 1 ' -
-
"Morales,
267.
(K~TU
6irvapiv).
The examples p r o v i d e d for c h i s g r o u p o f r e l a t i v e s a r e :
" c h a t w h i c h c a n hsat" t o "thar w h i c h c a n be heated," "that which
can cut" t o " t h a r w h i c h c a n be c u t , " a n d i n g e n e r a l rhe a c t i v e t o t h e passive.
I n c h i s concext,
" t h a t which has made ( a r w i l l
[or will be
m a k e ) " i s r z l a t i v e t o " t h a t which h a s b e e n made
made) . "
A r i s t o t l e i n c l u d e s che r e l a ~ i v c sfacher-son in t h i s
second g r o u p .
Mcrziies' . ~ ~ b s e r ~ 1s ~ ~Z iZ YF~ ~? Zr C
r e l a t i v e s i n c l u d e s a cause-5ffect
the relatives r n a s t s r - s l a v s
c
of
L e i a t C ~ I Sk i n d
r e l a c i o n ; h? a i s c includes h e r e
f r o m Cat. 6 b 3 0 , 'a34
f f ) "as a
s p e c i f i c a t i o n c f t h e r e l a r - i v e s ' c h e owner and ihe proi;ercyl' --
since f c r ~ h el a ~ t 2 rr e l a c i o n c o e x s t scme 3veni justifying pmperty
a i q ~ i s i ~ i a nwar, ,
i h ~
irhericance, e c z ) n u s r have t a k s n
place, an w e n t which i m p l i e s a c a u s e e f f e c t r & a c i o n . " '
The
C h u r c h F a t h e r s o f t h e first z e n t u r x s x e r e nosi interested i n :he
relatives father-scn becauss 2 5 the b i b L l t a l r s s o n a r c e s 3 f t h i s example. G r q c r y
3,
Yyssa
:r zerza:ni:;
irncnq :hose nhc ccnsidered
c h e f a t h e r - s o n r e l a t i o n a s =he r e l a c i o n bet wee^ "cause a n d t h a t which i s c z u s e d .
":'
3) Relatives said io be "as the n e a s u r a b l e to t h e measure" ( ~ ~ r o ~ c r p ~ ~ o v r r p o ~ ~ o p The i r p oe xv a) m . p l e s p r o v i d e d f o r t h i s group
"At
C a t . 8a24 " p r c p e r t y "
(h-pa)
is t r e a t e d a s a
relaticnal attribute.
%regory
of Nyssa, Ad Ablabium 5 5 , 2 4 ff.
a r e : the m e a s u r a b l e t o t h e m e a s u r e , c h e knowabie to knowledge,
and the p e r c e p t i b l e to p e r c e p r i o n .
Unlike the r e l a t i v e s i n t h e
p r e v i o u s two g r c u p s whose " v e r y s u b s t a n c e i n c l u d e s i n its n a t u r e
a r e f e r e n c e t o something e l s e , " r e l a r i v e s in he c h i r d group a r e c a l l e d r e l a t i v e s b e c a u s e s o m e t h i n g else i s r e l a t e d
LO
them (Met.
1021~26-30). "For the c h i n k a b l e i m p l i z s that i h e r e i s thought o f lt,
but the c h o u g h t i s n o t r e l a c i v e t o chat of which it is the
thought; for we should then h a v e s a i d t h e same thing twice" !021a?l-32).
And s i m i l a r l y f o r che s t h e r e x a m p l e s .
(Met.
Now let us
remember that t h e sxamples sf r d a t i v e s i n ~ i i s~ h i r qi r o u p a r e r h o s e r e l a c i x s which
.
.-
l u n l x e a l l x h 2 r r t l a ~ i ? ~ e in s) Cat. 7 h a v e <
been s a i d not t c be " s i m u i ~ a n e c u sb y n a i u r e " and i n e d e s t r u c t i o n of o n e r e l a t i v e from t h e p a i r does n o t c a r r y t h e other c o d e s c r u c t i o n ( e . g . , t h e destruction
3f
knowledge does c o produce
th2 d e s t r u c t i o n a f t h e k n o w a b l e ) . . . S t a r t i n g f r c m chis x x z i ;zccp
3:
r e l a ~ i ~ i e s>,l o r a l e s
b e l i e v e s h e c a n p r o v i d e a n a d d i t i o n a l argument a s t o why A r i s t o t l e d i d n c t c o n s i d s r p a r t s o f s u b s t a n c e a s c r u l y belonging
t o t h e c a t e g c r y 3f r e l a t i o n .
fie s i a t e s that i n t h i s t h i r d group,
t h e two terms of a relation n a v e a n a s y m m e t r i c a l way of r s f e r r i n g
t o each o t h e r : "the part is defined by reference to t h e w h o l e ( a s f u l f i l l i n g a particular f u n c t i o n in it), b u t the whole i s not
defined by reference to the part.
Since r e l a t i v e s of the t h i r d
g r o u p m a y cease t o be s u c h once their d e t e r m i n a t i o n h a s taken
place, the parts of substances (like hand, head, etc.) do not really belong tc the category of the relative.""
He also
considers, for similar reasons, that "wing" and "rudder" are not relatives, and their inappropriate inclusion in the C a t e a o r i e s as exampies of relatives has been
3
conscant s o u r c e of confusion in
.,
~ommentaries.'~Morales also d r a w s attention
ia
the fact that
for Ariscocle c n e predicatisn of any relational attribute a l w a y s
presupposes an underlying nature: Aristotle "rhus repudiates the idea t h a c relations be posxlaced as p r i n c i p l t s of B e i n g (Mec. 1088a20ff) . ""
3 . Individuals in S t o i c i s m
L i k e Aristocle, the Stoics ; s t d c a r + q c r L e s
,-r ~ 2 r h a p s" g e r i s r a ,
"
y i v q ) for logical, linguistic and r n e t a p h y s i c a i analysis. Unlike
Arisiotle, who originally c a u g h t L e n categories, the Stoics conceived of only four which are significantly different from the Aristotelian ones.
The various testimonies that we have about
the Stoic categories (chiefly Plotinus and Simplicius) suggest
"~orales, 2 7 0 . 4 % o r a l e s , 270 n. 30.
"Morales, 2 7 1 .
t h a t the fourfold Stoic d i v i s i o r i originates with Chrysippus."
,
T h e s e four categories a r e substance or s u b s t r a r r u m
(UTTOKE~~VOV)
q u a l i t y (rrotbv) , disposition (1~6s i ~ o v )ar.d relative disposition -
(npbs ~i rrws € ~ o r ' ). ' I
At this point 1 should like to give an account
of t h ? first two Stoic categories, as Basil of Caesarea a n d
Gregory of N y s s a seem
LO hav2 b e e n
a w a r e of hen when
distinguishing between s u b s t a n c e and individuals? According to the Scciss, "subscracurn" corresponds to "matter," being an 3:iiscinj i h i ~ oa
.
Zcno r-irnself is 9
9
credited with h a v i n g s a i d c h a t "substance i s c h e prime matrer of all existing things.
This substance the Stoics chcught to be
"*"
eternal; moreover, in its t o c a l i ~ yic could neither grow nor diminish.
It
was viewed as "qcalic>Aess," z h a ~is, as zhe
"substratum" of everythirq ~ n a tw i s t s .
The Stgics zlso
''A. A. Long, .-.eAeniscizPhilasoohv: s ' t o k s , Eoicureans, Sce~tics,? d ed. : L o n d o n : 3uc%wsrrh, 13861, 160; see also Long & - 7
7
Sedley, iiellenistic Philosoohers, 1: 166. Where p s s i b l e for Greek original and English cranslatisns of Stoic cexts, I use A. A. Long and D. N. Sedley, Ths Hellenistic Phiioso~hers,2 vols (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1487). I-J. M. Rist, Stoic Phiiosoohv (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 154. Other scholars r e n d e r t h e m as substrate, qualified, disposed and relatively disposed (Long Sedley, Hellenistic Philosoghers 1:167).
&
'% what follows, I rely in part on explanations p r o v i d e d by Rist, Stoic Philoso~hv, 152-172; A. A. Long, Hellenistic Philoso~hy, 2d ed., 160-163; Long & Sedley, Hellenistic Philoso~hers, 1:162-166, 1 7 2 - 1 7 7 . "~ccording to Stobaeus, Ecl. 1 a 6 i 6 v a f~l u T&V o v m v rravmv n p G q v iAqv ( SVF 1 . 8 7 )
.
p. 132, 26 w: ouoiav
conceived of particulars as bits of substance.
The p a r t i c u l a r s
can undergo qualitative c h a n g e s which the Stsics viewed as reconfigurations, but not changes, of the very substance.
The
qualitative changes a r e caussd by c h e second ccnstitucive element
of c h e Stoic reality, the r r v c i ~ ~ (a " s u r r m t of a i r " o r " b r e a t h " ) . T h i s oneurna is what Chrysippus called "qualities" and, like
us n o t forget that the subsmnce, it is a corpcreal e n u t y ( l e ~ gua corporeal, these currer-xs sf
Stoic universe is rnat?rial!).
air are capable of r u n n i n g chrough a body and infsrming it.
can mix w i t h
m e
They
a n o ~ h e rand w i t h he "subsranc&' (SVF I, 85) .
Therefore, in a n y particular e n c i t y
here is b o t h "substance" and
"quality."
I m w ;urn r o :ne s e s m d c a i l e g o r y .
- . c- second Siois
n'L
category is not strictly s p e a k i n g "quality" ( r r o i d q s ) b u t the
"qualified entity" (rroitiv! , that i s , u s u a l l y a substance having c e r t a i r . qualities.
Justice is a q u a.l. x y , b u r rhe corresponding .
q u a l i f i e d e n t i t y i s a jusc x a i v i d u a ! . 9
On c h e m e hand, this
situation is due to the Stcic metaphysics' concern with
particulars and its use of many human examples; on the other hand, it i s due to the impossibility to separate in reality the
first two Stoic categorias.
;'
Sometimes, however, t h e Stoics
--Sirnpliciusof Cilicia, In Aristotelis Cateoorias Commentarium 214, 24-37 ( = S W 2. H I ) , ed. Carol Kalbfleisch, Commentaria in Aristotelern Graeca 8 (Berlin: Reirner, 1907).
-.
themselves neglected this distinction.'- The Stoics f u r ~ h e r divided their second cacegory into the "commonly qualified" ( K O L V ~ rSr o ~ o v )
and the "peculiarly qualified" ( i G i w s notovi
.
Ir, is
n a t really easy to understand what they meant by the "commonly
qualified," since they g r s a t l y emphasized r h e "peculiarly (or individually) qualified."
However, scme help car. be found in
Diogenes Laerrius who claims that the S x i c Diogenes cf B a k y l o n ( t h e head o f the S t o i c school i n e a r l y co mid-second century B C )
said t h a t "an appelia~ivei s a part of language which signifies a
common qualiiy ( ~ o i v j v r r o ~ 6 ~ q e~ .ag)., 'man', 'horse'; a name is a .. part of language which indizates a p e c u l i a r q u x x l i (ibiav a
,
.
' Disgenes ', ' S o c r a ~ 3 's . "
.
-
Thus, t h s Stoics used
t h e "commonly qualified" a a d the "individually qualifiedr1co
distinguish between what the Aristo~eliansand wc ioday c a l l species and individuals r e s p e c t i v e l y . used t h e i r second cacqcr:;,
Z?E
In s t h s r words, the S t o i c s
- . -.
.
--
" q ~ a i ~ : :U, v " ,, x k e a
distinction f o r which Arisrotle used his f i r s t category, "substance . " 'I -
-
The testimonies we have about the Scoics shed more l i g h t -.
'-Long & Sediey, Hellenistic Philoso~hers 1 : 1 7 2 . ..
'-Diogenes Laertius 7 . 5 8 (SVF 3 Diogenes 22; ET in Long Sedley, Hellenistic Philoso~hers 1: 1 9 8 ) . --Steadseems to confirm my observation: " . .. Stoic theory could accommodate the o b v i o u s distinction between the species and t h e i n d i v i d u a l ( s e e p . 49) - but in terms of 'quality' (poion), not o u s i a . " (Philosoohv in Christian Antiauitv, 1 8 2 ) .
what they meant by "individually qualified."
M o s ~i 2 x t - S make it
clear that an nindividually qualified" entity is a c t m l l y an
individual. We thus l e a r n 3f
"a peculiarly q u a l i f i e d thing like
Plato,"'br of "peculiarly qualified entities such as Dion and -
-
T h e m . ""
It is also worth mentioning a reference to the Stoics
made by c h e sixth-cen~uryNeoplamnist Simplicius, because he c o n n e c c s the S t o i c "peculiarly qualified" wich the Plotinian
Forms cf individuals: "in the ease of compcund sntitiss there esists mdividual form ( ~ i u, - o p w 0 i ~ d i o s )--with reference
LO
which
the Stoics speak of ssrnerhi?.g peculiarly qiia-11 ied (i6iwg ~ o t c i .~"i 7
.
-
This passage from Sirnplicius helps us c o c3mpr&end
'
chat
Neoplatonisrs did indeed associate the PLc~inianForms of individuals with the Stoic "peculiarly qualified."
As Rist
noted, Plotinus might h a v 2 bezn influenced i n his view of the Fcrms of individuals b y t h e Stoic n c t i m of "peculiarly
qualified."
In returning to ths r s l a r i o n between rne first two Stoic c a t e g o r i e s , I would l i k e to quote a t e x t which will shed
additional light on the topic and will help me
LO
demonstrate
''~n Anonvmous Academic Treatise : rrotov o'iov n h a ~ w v (Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 3008, in Long & Sedley, Hellenistic Philosophers 1 : 1 6 7 ) . -
-.
&
--StobaeusI . U 7 , 2 1 : ini TGL) i6iws irouiv o'iov Aiwvos ~ aOiwvos i (Long Sedley, Hellenistic Philoso~hers, 1:168).
'%implicius, On Aristotle's On Soul 2 1 7 , 3 6 (=SVF 2.395; ET in Long & Sedley, Hellenistic Philosoohers 1:169).
t h a t B a s i l and G r e g o r y u s e d S t o i c c a c q o r i e s .
T h e t e x t comes
f r o m two d i f f ~ r e r i ts o u r c e s , D e x i p p u s and S i m p l i c i u s , b u t i s
a l m o s t identical i n both a s c o u n c s .
F c r p h y r y thus s a y s , a c c o r d i n g
Simplicius : The substratum h a s two s e n s e s , b o t h with t h e S t o i c s a n d w i t h r-he o l d e r ' : t h e f i r s t m e a n i n g o f s u b s t r a t u m i s ',he q u a l i t y l e s s r n a c x r , w h i c h . % r i s c o t l e c a l l s ' p o t w i t i a l ' -';i n i t s s e c o n d m e s r L i n g , substratum i s t k q c a l i f i e d e n c i t y ,
subsisting e i t h e r c o m m m l y or p x x l i a r l y ; f o r b o t h b r o n z e and S o c r a t e s a r e s u b s t r a t a i n t h o s e things c h a t come t o b e i n them o r a r e p r e d i c a t e d o f them." I n o t h e r w o r d s t h e S c o i c s a c m a l l y b e l i w e d t h x their f i r s t c a c s g o r y , substratum, means b o t h " q u a l i ~ y l e s sm a t t e r " and
"qualified entity"
( e i c h e r commonly o r p s c u l i a r l y ) .
This
i n f o r m a t i o n accords w i t h m y earlier p r z s s n c a t i c n o f ihe first two
.. D e x i p p u s ' a s c c m r x a a s " s l j ~ rc h ~ s s c @ - e r s "a n d c 3 e E n g l i s h t r a n s l a t o r e x p k r n s i n a f o x n a c z that h e means t h e P e r i p a t e t i c s a n d c h e o l d Asaden!; (De:iipptis, In . k i s t o c e l i s -C a t e a o r i a s Commentarium 2 3 , ,, 7 - 3 2 : = S V F ,. 2 141, ?d. >.doif B u s s e , C o m m e n t a r i a i n A r i s t o t e i e m Sraeca ? : Z [ S e r l i n : k i m e r , 18881 ; ET b y J o h n Dillon i n D e x i p p u s , On Aristotle Cateaories [ L o n d o n : Duckworth, i99C], 50 n. 7 3 ) .
--
'-Again, Dexippus ' account reads " p o t e n t i a l body", a n d D i l l o n comments c h a t " A r i s t o t l e does not a c t u a l l y s a y t h i s , t h o u g h h e i m p l i e s i t ( e . g . M e t a o h . 9.6, 1050a15; 1 4 . 1 , 1088b1, 1 4 . 4 , 1 0 9 2 a 3 ) b u t h e was g e n e r a l l y h e l d i n l a t e r times t o h a v e done s o , a s was P l a t o ( A l b i n u s D i d . 1 6 3 , 6 ff .; A p u l e i u s de P l a t . 1 9 2 ; Diels, Dox. G r . 5 6 7 , 1 6 ) " ( D e x i p p u s , On A r i s t o t l e t s Cateaories, 5 1 n . 7 4 ) . C L ~ i m p l i c i u sI,n A r i s t o t . Cateq. 4 8 , 11-15 (ed. Kalbf leisch) : ~ L T T O V .4qoiv [6 ~ O P @ U ~ L O S i] . r i v 70 U T ~ O K E [ ~ E V O Vou . ~ O V O VKUTU r o i i g aao fls T r o h ~ &\a , ~ aTU i TOUS i i p e o p v ~ i p o u gij- TE yap arroios c X ~ l .ijv 6 v v a ~ e ~ ~ a koi 'Apicrm~PXqs.n p w ~ o v€ 0 ~ ~ 1 ' UTTOKELp k ~ o u~ ~ ( I L L J ~ ~ E VKOU V~~.C U T E ~ O Vfi, K ~ L V TTOLOV 4 i b i u ~ i l + i ( ~ ~ a~~' a~ ~ K+ E ~ ~ yap E L ~~ o aL6 ~i~ X K ~~O T S L V~ a6 iL I K ~~U o i~ s S k y i v o p ~ v o i sfi ~ a q y o p o u p ~ v o KU?' ~ c aur6v ( E T m i n e ) . S e e also t h e p a r a l l e l i n D e x i p p u s , I n A r i s t . Cateq. 2 3 , 25-30 (ed. Busse).
~ S
Stoic c a t e g o r i e s . Now, t u r n i n g my attention cc rrhs Cappadocians, I should say that Hubner has convincingly shown that Basil of C a e s a r e a f s c o n c e p t of substance is predominantly Stoic."
Basil describes
the substance of the c r e a t e d world a s t h e r n a t z r i a l s u b s t r a c u r n
.''
(U~KOU ST O K E ~ ~ E V O S )
G r e g o r y of N y s s a rejects his brother' s Stoic
definition of c h e sabstance ("by ausia I do nor nean ihe material .-
substratum""-), while embracing more decidedly c h e Aristorelian
definition.''
Moreover, u n l i k e B a s i l a n d the S c o i c s , Gregory
thinks t h a c c h e r e a r s v a r i s u s crtared ousiai, noc o n l y o n e : "one is t h e o u s i a of the fire, a n d a n c c h e r c h a ~o f ihe water, and t h e i r m e a n i n g s a r e different . ""
D e s p i t e these examples, h o w e v e r , I think that Gregory found
the second definicicc of r h ? Scsic substince from Simplicius'
account -- substance is a peculiarly o r commonly qualified e n t i t y
':I present his argument in C h a p t z r Tnree.
3einhard
Hiibner, "Gregor ? i o n ?lyssa zls Verfacser d e r s c g . 3 . 38 des Basilius. Zum u n t e r s c h l e c i l i z h e n Vsrsidndris der ousia bei den kappadozischen B r u d e r n " in Epektasis. X e l a n q e s patristiques offerts au Cardinal J e a n D a n i k l o u , e d s . J . Fontaine and Ch.
Kannengiesser (Paris: Beauchesne, 1972), 463-490.
"-E.g.,Basil, .
m.
2,4,11; 5 7 7 C .
-
'-CE - 111, 5 (GMO 2 , 168, 2-31 : oircsiavbi M y w v O v o u ~ oOXi~bv UITOKE i pevov . "see t h e examples I p r o v i d e at the end of the section d e a l i n g with t h e i n d i v i d u a l in Aristotle (2.1).
%regory of Nyssa, Adv. A~olinariurn (GNO 3.1: 165, 9-12): BMq mpos ouoia ~ a u6a.ro~ i aX\q mi ai rrpoqyopiai TGV Giro 6 t d ~ o p o i .
-- in
agreement wich Ariscotle's
own notion of substance; a
qualified entity is a substance a f t x all.
In Ad Graecos,
Gregory writes:
If somebody s a y s t h a c we call Peter a ~ Paul d and Barnabas three partial substances (owoias p ~ p l ~ a s(it ) i s clear that this means particular ( ~ S L K U S ! [subsca~ces! -- for this i s more accurate to say -- he shcxlu r e c q n i z ~that [by that] we do noc mean anything e l s ? buc :he indiy~idual, which is t h e p e r s o n ( a r o ~ o viirrep . i m i ~rp6ow;io~) ." A s these examples s h o w , G r e g o r y s e e m t o h a v e deliberately
amalgamated Stoic and Arisiocelian caisgori~shere: 2xpression.s such as "partial substsnce" (peplmj oiloia) and "particular
with the Stoic i 6 i w ~ . r r o i 0 v , ~alchouqh *t h e y n a y a s well D e ~ r a ya Porphyrian inf h e n c e a n Gregorl;.'
'V d
b
s ~ u r s s ,this a r n a l g a r n a ~ i o n
is not unprecedented b y he cime sf G r e g o r y .
As s h s w n a b o v e ,
Diogenes o f a a b y l o n , a n o ~ dS t o x z i m s z l f , u s m "man" and I
"Ad Graecos 23, 4-8. '"Immediately after d l s c u s s i ~ qSasil's S i a i c notion of the substance, S t e a d s a y s that G r e g o r y of Nyssa's notion of substance is harder c o interpret and warns that " p h r a s e s l i k e rnerike or i d i k i 3 ousia - 'partitive' or 'individual s u b s t a n c e ' - used to designate the individual are misleading; Ariststle's ' ~ r i m a r y substance' is I think ignored. " (Stead, Philosophv in Christian Antiauitv, 182-3) " ~ o r p h y r y uses prpimj o i u i a s e v e r a l times in h i s In Aristctelis cateaorias 7 1 . 3 3 - 3 5 ; 72.8; 7 2 . 1 5 - 1 6 ; 73.16-17; 74.1921, ed. A. Busse, Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 4.1 (Berlin: Reimer, 1 8 8 7 ) . For a good discussion of the Neoplatonic interpretation of Aristotle see Steven K. Strange, "Plotinus, Porphyry, and the N e o p l a t o n i c Interpretation of t h e 'Categories'" in Aufstieg und Niederoano der RBrnischen Welt, ed. Wolfgang Haase (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1 9 8 7 ) , 955-74.
"horse" t o e x e m p l i f y w h a t a zommonly q u a l i f i e c e n t i t y i s , w h e r e a s
A r i s t o t l e uses t h e same e x a m p l e s for h i s s e c o n d a r y o u s i a .
At the
same t i m e , my argurnenir i s also s u p p o r t e d b y what P o r p h y r y c e l l s u s i n S i m p l i c i u s t a m o u n t quoted above.
Therefore,
I conclude
t h a t Gregory d i d use t h e Stoic c a t e g o r y o f q u a l i t y t o s h a p e h i s
view o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l .
To b e more s p e c i f i c , 1 s h o u l d s a y c h a t
boch o r o c h e r s u s e b o t h S m i c a n d A r i s t o t e l i a n categorizs i n t h e i r
treatrnenc o f t h e i n d i v i d u a i .
Yet, x h e r 2 a s 'asil's
v i e w i s more
Stoic, Gregory's is more >.riscateLian.
T h e I n d i v i d u a l a s a CslLsctic~o f P r o o e r r i c s i n P l a t o n i s m
The d e f i n i t i o n of a s e n s i b l e p a r t i c u i a r a s a c o l l e c t i o n of
properties
(depotopa) - some s c h o l a r s e v e n i r a n s l a ~ si t a s " b u n d l s
o f p r o p e r t i s s " - car-, be : r a c e d
3 s f a r bask is ? l a m ' s Theaetetus
157b-c w h e r e h e suggests c h i s i d e a in p a s s i n g . s i n i l a r u s e s f aepotopa is
i n C D u F . L e r ~ d in
( 2 n d - 1 s t c . BC1 a n d A1cinous.'-
After F l a t o a
.ncisshus o f A s c a i o n
Llcyd c l a i m s t o have i d e n t i f i e d
the passage f r o m A n t i o c h u s i n a q u o t a t i o n b y Sextus E m p i r i c u s : For j u s t a s hand b y i t s e l f i s n o t a man, n o r i s a h e a d , n o r a foot, n o r a n y o t h e r s u c h p a r t , b u t t h e compound made up of them i s c o n c e i v e d a s a w h o l e , s o a l s o 'Mant i s n o t barely a n i m a l , n o r solely r a t i o n a l , r i o t mortal alone, but the a g g r e g a t e of all t h e s e ( T O €5 a a a v ~ w va8po~opa)- - t h a t is t o say,
.-
"'A. C . L l o y d , " N e o - P l a t o n i c L o g i c and A r i s t o t e l i a n L o g i c 11," P h r o n e s i s 1 (1956): 159-159.
a t o n c e a n i m a l a n d m o r t a l and r a t i o n a l . " A P l a t o n i s t h i m s e l f , A l c i n o u s a l s o a p p l i e s ~ h term e a e p o i o ~ at c a
s e n s i b l e s u b s t a n c e , a s i n t h e follcwing exampl?: [ S ] i n c e o f sensz-objects some a r e p r i m a r y , s u c h a s q u a l i t i e s , e . g . color, sr w h i t m e s s , a n d o t h e r s accidental, s u c h a s ' w h i t s ' o r ' c o l o r e d ' , a n d f o l l o w i n g on these t h e c o m p o s i t e e n t i t y (a8poiopa), s u c h a s f i r e o r h o n e y , e v e n s o c h e r e w i l l b e o n e s o r t cf s e n s e - p e r c e p t i o n c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e p r i m a r y o b j e c t s , c a l l e d '?rlmauy1, and a n o t h e r concerned w i t h secondary, c a l l e d ' s e c o n d a r y ' . . . . T h e p r i m a r y a n d secondary sensibles are j u d g e d b y s m s e - p e r c e p t i o n n o t w i t h c u c t h e aid sf opicicn-based r e a s o n , w h i l e the c o m p o s i t e (d0po~opu) i s judged b y c p.i- n i o n - b a s e d reasor., n o t wichsut t h e a i d of s e n s e - p e r c e p t i o n . -
Yet, i t was P l o t i n u s who icok h i s p r e d e c e s s a r s ' s u g g e s t i o n l i t t l e f u r t h e r a n d P o r p h y r y who presented ic in form.
3
3
more a c c e s s i b l e
I t i s cnese l a s t two ;.icws -.?,at 1 wish c o p r s s e n i n s x i .
.
I t s h o u l d b e k e p t i n mind f r ~ mt h e sutset thai, a s a P l a t m i s t
himself,
P l o t i n u s a l s o e l a b o r a t e s c h e theory o f an i n d i v i d u a l a s
a co?lecticn o f p r o p e r t i e s i n r e g a r d ~c a s e n s i b l e s u b s t a n c e .
He
does n o t s a y a n y t h i n g i n c h i s sense a b o c t i n t e l l i g i b l e s c r the
"Sextus E r n p i r i c u s , A d v e r s u s m a t h e m a t i c o s 7 . 2 7 6 - 2 7 7 . Greek t e x t and E.T. i n S e x t u s Srnpiricus, A a a i n s t the L o a i c i a n s , t r . R . G . B u r y (Cambridge, MA: H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1935), 146-147. --
- , A l c i n o u s , T h e Handbook cf P l a t o n i s m i 5 6 . 2 - 1 0 , t r . and comrn. J. D i l l o n , ( O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n , l993), 7 f . For c h e G r e e k t e x t see A l c i n o o s , E n s e i o n e m e n t des d o c t r i n e s de P l a t o n , i n t r o d u c t i o n , t e x t e s t a b l i s h e d and commented upon b y J o h n W h i t t a k e r a n d t r . Pierre L o u i s ( P a r i s : L e s Belles L e t t r e s , I W O ) . -
- F o r w h a t f o l l o w s a b o u t P l o t i n u s I r e i y i n p a r t o n Sean M u l r o o n e y , "Boethius o n ' P e r s o n ' " ( Ph. E. d i s s . , U n i v e r s i t y of T o r o n t o , l994), e s p . 47-51.
divinity.
M o r e o v e r , h e e x c l u d e s t h e s o u l s of t h o s e s e n s i b l e
s u b s t a n c e s from t h e d i s c u s s i o n : b u t s i n c e h e r e below [ i n P he s e n s i b l e world] also i n t h e m i x t u r e a n d c o r n p o s i ~ i o n o n e e l t r n e n t i s body a n d he o t h e r s o u l . . . a n d t h e n a t c r s o f s o d is i n t h a t intelligible A l l a n d will n o c fii t h e t l a s s i f i . : ~ c i o n g f whac i s callsd s u b s t a n c e h e r e b e l o w , ws m u s t , svsn i f i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o d o s o , a l l t h e same l e a v e s o u l OLL o f- - t h e i n v e s t i g a ~ i o ni n which w e a r e a t p r e s e n t occupied. T h e s o u l i s a r e s i d e n c s l i m i n the s s n s i b l e T . q o r l d .
Mulrooney
w a r n s c h x X o c i n u s ices nsc i w s s c i g a c e a h u n a n b e i n g a u a human, b u t o n l y Qua s e n s i b l e s u b s t a n c e : " H i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s t h u s a
deliberately p a r c i a i exploracion of :he
full r e a l i t y ; a n d a n
exploration 3 5 the Isw9st p a r t s f ~ h a ir e a l i t y . "
p r o c e e d s t o d e s c r i b e a s e n s i b l e substancz a s
and " t h i s
VI. 3 . 1 5 . 2 7
')
VI.3.10.16). t o r e f e r :o
"i
'
Plotinus c h e n
conglomeration of
many
a n d " w h o s e a p p a r e n t e:c:iste.n.ce [ i s ] a c o n g r e s s of
I t s h o u l d be n o t e d here c h a t , i n u s i n g s u c h p h r a s e s t h e " a p p a r e n t e s i s i e n c e " o f sensibie s u b s t a n c e s ,
P l o t i n u s i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h h i s p r e v i o u s i n t e n t i o n of n o t
examining the s o u l o f t h e s e s u b s t a n c e s .
Therefore, the question
-.
- P l o t i n u s , Enneads V I . 3 . 1 . 2 2 - 2 6 .
--
'Mulrooney,
" B o e t h i ~ son
' P e r s o r . ' , " 48f.
" ~ f . P l a t o , Timaeus 49d-50b.
to be a s k e d i s "Nhat k e e p s t h e s e ccllections o f p r o p e r t i e s
together, m a k i n g t h e m human i n d i v i d u a l s for example?"
As
Mulrooney n o t i c e s , no principle o f unity is a p p a r e n t , s i n c e an i n d i v i d u a l s e n s i b l e s u b s t a n c e i s g r a s p e d a s s u c h b y t h e senses a n d nor. by r e a s o n . - '
Lloyd,
N e v e r t h e l e s s Hulrocney
insist^,‘^ aqainsr:
that ihere i s a p r i n c i p l e cf u n i t y for a n individual
s e n s i b l e s u b s ~ a n c e , n a m e l y t h e s o u l , b u t c h i s principla i s jusr: n c t a sensiblz one.
And 2 f z o u r s s ,
Enn.
VI. 3 allaws f o r r k i s
c o n c h s i o n , b u t u n f o r t u n a t s l y P l o t i n u s is n o c i n t e r e s t e d
ifi
f u r t h e r d a b o r a c i n g on an i n d i v i d u a l a s a c o l l ~ c t i o no f properties.
Consequen-,1y,
;es h c ~ l dxrr! zc his d i s c i p l e
P o r p h y r y for f u r t h e r d u c i d a t i s n . P o r p h y r y w r o t e t h e I s a a o a e ( o z Intrcducticn) at cne request o f C h r y s a o r i u s , a 9cman S e n x o r , xr.2 had siudisd Aris~otle's
..
Cateaories with ~ t c l s w c e s s .
In
chis w o r k ? o r p h y r y expands o n
P l o t i n u s ' suggestion, d e s c r i b i n g an i d i c i d u a l as a u n q u e
collection o f p r o p e r ~ i s swhich in themselves a r e n o t u n i q u e . Thus,
- ..
'Nulrooney,
"Boethius on ' P e r s o n ' , " 50.
--
"'In The Anatomv o f N e o p l a t o n i s m (Oxford: C l a r e n d o n , for P l o t i n u s a n d t h e N e o p l a t o n i s t s ' a s e n s i b l e i n d i v i d u a l i s a bundle of qualities without genuine substance. It excludes a core self of form and matter for Socrates or Dion which would have been a s u b s t r a t e f o r their a c c i d e n t s ' ( p . 4 6 ) . B u t L l o y d f a i l s K O acknowledge t h a t S o c r a t e s or Dion does have a core self; it is j u s t not a s e n s i b l e one" (Mulrooney, " B o e t h i u s on ' Persont," 50 n . 7 3 ) . 1 9 9 0 1 , A. C. Lloyd acknowledges t h a t
S c s r a ~ e s , this vhite, and this approaching scn of - 1 Socrates be h i s oniy son, are called Sophroniscus, 1 individual. Such c h i n g s are called individuals because each thing is composed of a collection of properties w h i c h can never be the same f o r a n o t h e r ; for the properties of Socrates could not be the same for any other particular man. F
The properties of man, however, I mean the man in comrncn, will be the same for a greac rr.any, nore . -scrcngly, for all particular men i s men. (Isaa. 7, 20-26)
In this example, Porphyry allows for individual qualities ("this w h i ~ e " ) ,individual r e l a t i o n s re his approaching son of Sophroniscus") and individual substances
(
"Socratesl').
If one
were tc use .Aristotslian l a n p u q e , x e s h o u l d say i h a i Porphyry
allows for individual c a t e g o r i e s , b o t h substances and accidents. However, t h 2 btst example f a r ? c r p h y r y ' s p u r p o s 2 s seems t o be che
individual s u b s t a n c e known a s S c c r a c e s .
IC is S o c r a i e s who qua
animal differs from a horse because of a specific difference such as rationality ( I s a a . 3 , 16f); oua individual human, S o c r a c e s d i f f e r s f r o m other ~ n d i v i d u a lhumacs because sf a n o c h e r specific
difference, the hooked q u a i i c y of his n o s e ( I s a q . 8, 15).
The
differences Porphyry mentions as distinguishing humans from other animals and from one anorher are b o t h subscancial and accidental.
*
-
Porphyry the Phoenician, Isaqoce, tr. Edward W. Warren (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. 1975). 41. Greek text in Porphyry, Isaaoge et In Aristotelis Cateoorias Comentarium 7, 20-26, ed. Adolf Busse, Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 4.1 ( Berlin : Reirner, 1887 ) : a ~ o p o v6 i A i y e ~ a6 ~L ~ p a q ~g a rouri i TO XEVKOV Sai o u ~ o o io ~ p o o k ~Zv o b p o v i o ~ o cios. ~l ci povos air;@ ciq L ~ p a q usi o ~ . a ~ o p ao b h i y c ~ ur a ~ ~ o i a i j ~6.r~ a . €5 i 6 t o ~ ~ j ~o vwvv& q ~ c vi~ao.rov.i v TO aepoic~pa~ U K I
,
av an' a U o u TOT€ TO UUTO ytvoii-o ai yap L ~ p c i ~ o iu6st o q ~ e QUK s av Pa' dUou TLVOS i-Gv ~ a r pQos a y i v o i ~ o(iv ai a u ~ a iai , ~ ~ V T OTOGL avOpDj~~ou, Xiyu 8 ~TOG j KOLVO~, i 6 i o q s ~y i~v o i ~av ' ai ailrai h i rrkiovwv, p d ~ o 6i v ini TTUL~TWV TGLJK ~ T U ~+OS dv0pJmv. ~ a 8 0 av0pwnoi.
T h u s , h e s a y s : "Rational, m o r t a l , a d b e i n g c a p a b l e of k n o w l e d g e b e l o n g t o man p e r se, but h o o k - n c s z d or s n u b - n o s e d b e l o n g a c c i d e n t a l l y a n d n o t p e r s e w ( I s a q . 9 , Ilff) .
Regarded i n
~ h e r n s e l v e s , t h e s e and o t h e r d i f f e r e n c e s a r t noc unique, s i n c e t h e y can b e a s c e r t a i n e d i n many i n d i v i d u a l s , buc chzir c o m i n g t o g e t h e r u n i q u e l y d e s c r i b e an i n d i v i d u a l i n P o r p h y r y ' s view. T h i s Porphyrian d e f i n i t i o n of a n i n d i v i d u a l w a s perhaps t h e
m o s t d a b o r a r e one t o b e f o u n d i n che f o u r t h cencury. -
.
IE is
.
quite l i k e l y chat i 5 C ~ a c p a i c c L a n s xer? r z r n l l ~ xw i ~ hi c , s i n c e in Basil's
2,:
a n d Gregory o f N y s s a ' s Ad >etrum 2 we see c h e
e x a m p l e o f S o c r a t e s i s r e p l a c e d with t h a t o f A p o s t l e s P e t e r o r P a u l w h o a r e d e s c r i b e d a s u n i q u e :oilecrisns
of p r o p t r t i e s .
T h u s , A p o s t l e Peter i s d e s c r i b e d a s c h e son o f J o n a h , b o r n i n
B e t h s a i d a a n d c n e b r o t h e r of Andrew.
Even i f , a s R i s c has
c o n v i n c i n g l y shown, - S a s i l knew v 3 r y l i t i i e ? l c t i r , u s , we h a v e a c c e p t t h a t h e r e a d ? o r p n y r y l s Isaccae
r e p r o d u c e d P o r p h y r y ' s arguments.
of N y s s a .
7
.. '
:G
or a h a r d b o o k c h a t
And s o q u i ~ el i k e i y did G r e g o r y
T h e Isaaoae c a r . be used a s a beqinr.erls guide to
-
' J o h n M . Rist, " B a s i l ' s ' N e o p l a t o n i s m ' : I t s B a c k g r o u n d a n d N a t u r e " i n B a s i l of C a e s a r e a : C h r i s t i a n , H u m a n i s t , Ascetic, A S i x t e e n t h - H u n d r e d t h A n n i v e r s a r v S v m ~ o s i u m , ed. P a u l J. Fedwick, v o l . 1 ( T o r o n t o : P o n t i f i c a l I n s t i t u t e of M e d i e v a l S t u d i e s , 1981), 137-220. --
' I n s p e a k i n g af Gregory o f N y s s a ' s P l a t o n i s m i n a r e c e n t a r t i c l e , R i s t a l l o w s t h a t " f u r t h e r i n v e s c l g a t i o n of t h e i n d i r e c t e f f e c t s of P o r p h y r y m i g h t a l t e r t h i s p i c t u r e i n some d e t a i l s " ( J o h n M. R i s t , " P l o t i n u s a n d C h r i s t i a n P h i l o s o p h y " i n T h e C a m b r i d a e Comaanion t o P l o t i n u s , ed. L l o y d P . Gerson [Cambridge:
Aristotle's Cateaories and, given i ~ sintroductory purpose, Isaaaae's a r g u m e n t s are less scphisticxed ~ h a nche
arguments
Porphyry provides in his other Aristotelian commentaries.
What
is perhaps most important is that the particular doctrine of an individual as a collection cf ~roperticidcss not occur in such a
clear formulacion in any paqan author (still less in Christian
authors!) prior to Porphyry.
Therefcre, the Zappadocians and
later N e o p l a ~ o n i s ~might s have bcen f a s c i n x e d by ic and adopted i ~ uss e in : x l r 9
.
.
.
wrx~r.gs.
5. The PLotinian %ill of the One
In searchirig for a c o n c e p c sf p e r s m in c i a s s i c a l sntiquity, scholars often also look for something that is tssentiai in the constitution of human persms, namely the will, or r a t h e r free willing, as a f a c c m a r
a s p z t dis~inc:
. frzm, ana. ~rr?ducible to,
intellect and d e s i r e or r e a s o n and emotion.
One example is
Dihle's The Theorv of Will in Classical Antisuitv.-" DFhle
claims that there was no t h e o r y of will throughout t h e Greek philosophical tradition, because reason and intellectual knowledge played an e x t r e m e l y important role.
Cambridge University Press, 19961,
I n his view, the
401)
"~lbrecht D i h l e , The Theorv of Will in Classical Antiquitv (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1982) .
concept of will was implicit from the beginning in the biblical notion of obedience to the commands of God, and i~ was Augustine who formulated the first classical t h e c r y of the will.
While
other scholars today agree chat Augustine formulated t h e f i r s t
th2ory o f will, they r e g a r d Dihlets book a s h i g h l y f l a w e d primarily because h e ~ i ~ p 1 i s ~ i c a l il.ayb e l s ch.e Greek ~ r a d i t i o n "intellectualist" and ignor2s historical evidence which speaks
be reduced ~o a discussicn sf E r e 2 will, since ic includes ocher
major components as well, as I show in this dissertation. From c h e point of view of my investiqation into i h e patristic concept of d i v i n ? persons, i t w c u l d be taui~Logiea1L G speak of fres wiii i n God. that God was free.
I t was e v i d e n t LC the C h u r c h
Fathers
In their view, to deliberat2 is to cake time
to think of the disiinctio~Between righ; and w r m g ; t h a t is, n o t
to know this disiinczix i~.~.xi:~~&~;., n l.s s r ~ a l l simperfsciior-. l-"
which cannot be attributed c o God.
Alchough s p e a k i n g in favor cf
free will, Athanasius of Alexandria also wrote that "where there
" - E . g . , J. M. Rist, revisw of The T h e o r v of Will in Classical Antiquity, by A l b r e c h t Dihle, in Phoenix 37 (1983): 275-7. See also Charles H. Kahn, "Discovering the Will: From
Aristotle to Augustine," 258. Cf. also John D. Madden, "The Authenticity of Early Definitions of Will ( T n d i 5 s i s ) " in Maximus Confessor. Actes du svmgosiurn sur Maxime l e Confesseur. Fribouro, 2-5 septernbre 1980, eds. Felix Heinzer a n d Christoph Schonborn (Fribourg Suisse: editions uni-~ersitaires,1 9 8 2 ) , 79: "despite Aristotle's insistence on the rational nature cf the prohairesis, it remained perenially resistant to identification with the intellect or subordination to it."
.
-
i s free c h o i c e , t h e r e i s a b s o l u t e l y w e a k n e s s a l s o . " - -
O r a t i o n s a a a i n s t c h e ArFans
(Q.
1.35,
In his
1.52, 111.62, 111.66)
A t h a n a s i u s a l s o s u g g e s t s t h a t " w i l l l ~ g "o r " d e i i b e r a t i n g " can ..
" t i l t " e i c h e r way, t h a t i s , t o w a r d e i t h e r t h e good or t h e b a d . " -4 l a t e r G r e e k C h u r c h F a t h e r s u c h a s John o f Damascus,
i n summing
u p t h e faith o f t h e f a c h e r s b e f c r e him, a l s o considers c h a t
apoaipcois i s n o t p r o p e r l y p r e d i c a t e d o f God: But i n t h e case o f God, ic i s c o be remembered, w s s p e a k o f w i s h , b u t i c i s n o t correcc c o s p e a k cf c h o i c e . F o r God dces - . noc d e l i b e r a t e , s i n c e t h a t i s a m a r k o r i g n o r a n c e , a n d n o o n e d e l i b e r a c s s s b c x w h a t h e knows. 3ui if ecunsel is a mark of i g n o r a n c e , s u r e l y choice m u s t also b e s o . God, t h e n , s i n c e He has a b s o l u t e knowledge of e v e r y t h i n g , d o e s noL deliberate.':
- T. o r
a good d i s c u s s i o n s f ths i s s u e o f the C h r i s t i a n view of t h e f r e e d o m o f w i l l b e f o r e c h e C a p p a d o c i a n s , see C h r i s t o p h e r S t e a d , " T h e Freedcm z f t h e W i l l a n d t h e A r i a n F e s t s c h r F f t flcir C o n t r o v e r s y " i n Placcnismus 2nd C h r i s r e n t u m . k i n r i c h D o r r i e ( J a i i r b u c h f 3 r .%-xi.& cnd Christxitcrn 1 0 ; Nunster: A s c h e n d o r f f s c h e V e r l a g b u c h h a n a l u n g , 198 3 3 , 2 4 5 - 2 5 7 . See a l s o E . P . M e i j e r i n g , "Die D i s k u s s i o n u b e r d e n W i l l e n und d a s Wesen Gotter, theologiegeschichtlich beleuchtet," i n ~ ' ~ g l i e s te l ' e r n ~ i r ea u 1 V e siecle, e d . A l b r e c h t O i h l e ( G e n e v a : F o n d a t i o n H a r d t , 1989) , 35-65. o f Damascus, 2 e fide o r t h o d c x a 2 . 2 2 . CT b y S.D.F Salmond i n John of Damascus, E x ~ o s i t i o nof t h e O r t h o d o x F a i t h , NPNF 2 : 9 ( G r a n d R a p i d s , M I : Eerdmans, 1 9 8 9 ; o r i g i n a l l y p u b l i s h e d i n 1 8 9 8 1 , 3 8 . G r e e k t e x t in J o h n o f Damascus, E x ~ o s i t i of i d e i 36 (=PG 9 4 : 9 4 5 C ) , ed. B o n i f a t i u s K o t t e r ( B e r l i n : W a l t e r ae G r u y t e r , 1 9 7 3 ) : Xpi 6€ YLLGYKELV, o n i ~ l 8~0il i ~ O V X ~ O I LpPv J Xiyopv, T P O ~ L ~ E O L V bi K U ~ ~ Wou S Xiyopev ou yap p o u X ~ k o~ &os. a~ 'Ayvoias yup i o n TO P o u k i w ~ a- irrepi yap TOG yivwcr~opirtouO&LS PouA~ierai. Ei S i fi p o d 4 a y ~ ) o i a si. r a v ~ w~ ~a fii o p o u i p e c r ~ ~'0 . SP &oq rrav~aE ~ S & Sanhis 06 P o u k l c ~ a ~ .For o t h e r m e a n i n g s o f rrpoaipeois i n t h e F a t h e r s , see A P a t r i s t i c Greek L e x i c o n , e d . G . W . H . Lampe (Oxford: C l a r e n d o n , 1961), 1133-1134. "John
T h e r e f o r e , when d e a l i n g w i t h d i v i n e p e r s o n s I p r o p o s e t o c o n s i d e r a d i f f e r e n r k i c d o f w i l l , such a s was first e x p r e s s e d b y P l o t i n u s i n Ennead VI.3.9.45-16 i n regard t o the One a n d r e p e a t e d a l m o s t word f o r word i n r e g a r d t o i h e C h r i s t i a n God b y Gregory of Nyssa a s "God c o n t i n u a l l y w i l l s c o b? w h a t h e i s a n d i s a d e q u a t e l y u h a c h? wills c,- b s " Erin. VI.9 -
C c x r a E u r . m i u r n 111,
I, 1 2 5 i
.-
i s of m a j o r imporrance for the i n c r l l e c t u a l history o f
w e s t e r n c i v i l i z a t i o n , because i t i n t r o d u c e s a radically new
n o t i o r ! o f t h e d i v i n ? will a s x i l l of of P l o t i n u s have n o r i c e d , "
he s e l f .
As commentators
c h i s n o t i s n 1s c o t a l l : ;
and amazing b y t h e s t a n d a r d s o f a n c i m c p h i l o s o p h y . c r a c e d back co t h e d o c c r i n e s cf d i v m e p r o v i d e n c e ,
d i v i n e w i l l c r i e r x e d x w a r 3 ~ h curside, s :-ward
unprecedented I t c a n n o r be
i.e., t h e
z h ? prcducticn of
being and t h e r e g u l a t i o n of the course s f ~hings.
'-
The novel
n o t i o n w h i c h G r q o r y o f N y s s a a n d some C h r i s t i a n predecesscrs added t o t h i s u n d e r s c a n d i n g o f t h c d i v i n e w i l l i s t h a t i t can be
b o t h t r a n s c e n d e n t and immansnc.
uregory's i n s i g h t i s ihe l o g i c a l
P
"See a l s o Jerome Galth, La c o n c ~ o t i o nde l a l i b e r t e chez GrSaoire de Nvsse ( P 3 r i S : Y r i n , 1553) , 17-39. ..
"Georges Leroux, " I n t r o d u c t i o n " to P l o t i n u s , T r a i t e s u r l a l i b e r t e e t l a v o l o n t e d e 1' Un l E n n e a d e VI, 8 ( 3 9 ) 1 , i n t r o d u c t i o n , t r a n s l a t i o n a n d commentary b y G e o r g e s Leroux ( P a r i s : V r i n , 1990), 31. J . M . Rist, r e v i e w o f T h e T h e o r v o f W i l l in C l a s s i c a l A n t i u u i t v , Phoenix 37 ( 1 9 8 3 ) : 2 7 7 . -
-
' P l o t i n u s ' i a t e r t r 2 a t i s e s On P r o v i d e n c e ( E n n . 1 1 1 . 2 - 3 [ 4 7 - 4 8 1 ) confirm this observation, since they present the
classical v i e w about the d i v i n e will.
consequence of b i b l i c a l r e f l e c t i o n on t h e Incarnation. A t this point I shall focus on P l x i n u s . E n n . VI.8 ( 3 9 1 , e n ~ i t k d"On F r e e W i l l and the W i l l of the
O n e , " i s a f a i r l y l a t e treacise a n d can therefore be r e g a r d e d as a product of Plotinus' m a ~ u r i t y . Bcth R i s c "
and Armstrong"
t h i n k that 6.8 may have b e e n p r o v o k e d b y ;he
reading of a
treacise on the n a t u r t of God, possibly C h r i s t i a n o r paraChristian, now lost c o us;
b u t this o p i n i o n h a s
generally accepted, a c c o r d i n g c c . h - n s ~ r o n g . '
slang w i t h irs irnmeciaw r s d e z e s s x
not been
Em. VIA
[39],
in b ~ i h5 - x o n o l c c i c a l and
thematic o r d e r , Enn. VI.7 (381, contain the profoundest and most powerful expression of the r h o u g h t o f Plocinus about c n e One or Good.
T h e p o s i t i v e l a n g u a g e cf
..
WL;,
.
- o w and i h . o u g i ~ is u s e d
a b o u t t h e One here, buc at the same time Plotinus nakes it clear c h a t he has n o desire t o a b a n d c n the negative (apophatic) way of
approach to che One. Enn. 71.8 -
s t a r c s q c x s relxcaczl;;,
since
2
betre;
scarting
point does not exist, w i t h an a n a l y s i s s f t h e c o n c e p t of human
freedom in order to ascend to the consideration of the freedom of .
A
"John M. Rist, Human Value: A Studv i n Ancient Philosophical Ethics ( L e i d e n : Brill, 1 9 6 2 ) , 99.
%. H. Armstrong, "Two Views of Freedom, " Studia Patristica 18 (1982): 397-406. --
'A. H. Arrnstrcng, "Introductory N m e , " in Plotinus, Enneads VI.6-9, tr. A. H. Armstrong (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1 9 8 8 ) , 2 2 4 .
the One.
Plotinus' entire reaction seems to have been prompted
by "a rash statement starting from a different way of thinking"
which says c h a t sinca he Gocd " b a p p e n s to b? as ir: is ( ~ u ~ o i r o a O U T W ~ ~ ( ~ ~ and V ) ,
does not have the rnasrrery of v h a r ; it is, and is
- -
what Fc is n o r from itse~r,i c wocld not have freedom, and its
doing or nor doing whac it is nscessimczd io d~ or n o r to do is not in its power" (Enn. VI. 8.7.11-15) .
It is not clear whether
Plotinus considers this as a positive statement o f doctrine other
than his o w n or an a c c a c k 3 n h i s d o c i r i n e . seriously,
~ G W ~ V ~a nId , u
Hz c a k e s i c
i ? s z o establish his
One a g a i n s t t h i s s t a t e m e n t .
OWE
view of the
What is interesting is that b o t h his
positive a n d n e g a t i v e ways 3 f s p e a k i n g a b o u t -he Ons have been a v a i l e d o f a n d a d a c t x i b y l z - t r ?.rls=iar. 313ccsiscs s u c h 3s
Gregory of Nyssa, Pseudo-Dionysius c h e Areopagite, and Maxirnus the Confessor.
For the purpose cf showing how Gregory of Nyssa
used Enn. VI.8, i t is not worth presentirq all the arguments that
Plotinus prcduces a q a i n s z his q z p c r c ~ I s h a l l ,herefor? b e q u i t e selective in m y prssentaiion.
Plotinus considers the "rash s t a t e m e n t " c o n t r a r y and a b s u r d , because it would cornpieteLy do away wirh the n a t x ? of free will
and self-determination and our idea of w h a t is in o u r power, and would imply t h a t n o t h i n g is in a n y o n e ' s power ( E n n . VI.8.7.1620). He endeavors to demonstrate t h a t neither Intellect nor the One "happened to be," but they " h a d to b e , " exactly what they
are.
I n o t h e r words, t h e r e is n o c o n t i n g e n c y b u t only n e c e s s i t y
i n the d i v i n e n a t u r e ;
I s h a l l a r r i v e shortly a t t h e i s s u e o f
w h a t exactly n e c e s s i t y P i o t i n u s i s c o n c e ~ n e dw i t h .
I n Enn.
V I . 8 . 9 P l o t i n u s ' a r g u m e n t takes the f o r m of a r e d u c t i o ad
absurdum: if someone ~ a k ts k ' happened O; D E ' ,o~vPPq)a s applying to c h e C n e , t h e n i: s h c c l i be apclizible r s the In~elleccalso w h ~ hi s a f c e r the Cnz. But I c a n show ihai he ' h a p p e n e d t o b e ' d o e s not a p p l y t o t h e Intellect; t h e r e f o r e , s t i l l less can i t be applied to the One.': He shows t h a t the " h a p p e n e d t o be" does n o t a p p l y t o intellect, b y using a s e c o n d r e d c c ~ i sx i atsurdurn:
If t h z "happened c o be"
d o e s not e v e n a p p l y t o r e a l being how could i c a p p l y t o I n t e l l e c t w h i c h is " b e y o n d b e i n g ( i a i ~ r u t ijv;os) a
going t o happen,
"?
i t happens ~o b e i n g ,
'I
" F o r , if a n y t h i n g is
b u r being i ~ s e l fdoes n o t
happen, ncr i s it a s a s u a i sccurrence c h a ~b e i n g is l i k e t h i s , n o r d o e s i t d e r i v s b e i n g like t h i s from s a m e t h ~ r qclse, b e i n g a s i t i s , b u t t h i s i s r e a l l y iis n a t u r e ,
t o be r e a l being.".'
The
F i r s t P r i n c i p l e t h e r e f o r e has t o be i n t h e way i t i s . The First i s a l s o " a l l power, r e a l l y master o f i t s e l f , b e i n g
-.
'-If A, t h e n
9.
a u t i f not B, t h e n n o t A .
" Em . V I A . 9.24-29; see a l s o Enn. V 1 . 8 . 1 6 . 3 4 and 1 9 . 1 3 . T h i s i s a n a l l u s i o n t o P l a t o , R e ~ u b l i cVI.509B9: t h e Good i s beyond i n t e l l e c t a n d b e i n g ( i ; r k w v a ~ o i~, a oiuias) i . For t h e h i s t o r i c a l a s p e c t s o f t h i s p h r a s e , see J o h n W h i t t a k e r , " ' E T T ~ K E L V ~ voC ~ aouoias, i " V i a i l i a e C h r i s ~ i a n a e2 3 (1469;: 91-104.
what it w i l l s to be. ""' The l a t t e r statzment is p e r h a p s cne of the most i m p o r c a n t i n t h e whcle ireatise b e c a u s z ic e x p r e s s e s t h 2
will a s w i l l of self a n d c o n n e c t s i t with b e i n g .
A s I mentioned,
t h e definition o f divine wili as will of s e l f i s u n p r e c e d e n t e d
b e f o r e P l x i n u s , b e c a u s e d i v i n e will was t h o u g h t of o n l y a s T h e c o n n e c ~ i o no f w i l i with being s h i f c s the
providence.
e m p h a s i s f r o m w i l l a s power co deliberace' c o c h e w i l l a s power
t o b e , y e t a n o t h e r d r a m a t i c shift, chis time from g n o s e o l o g y LO
ontology.
I c i s r n s necessity of b e i n g whac i t w i l l s tc b e t h a t
-
P l o r i n u s h a s i n aind f s r ~ h . 2 r i r s i ? r x s ~ p i z , a x i n c c a n e c e s s i t y t
imposed on i~ b y someone e l s e who i s s u p e r i o r t o i t .
Otherwise,
w e would h a v e t o p o s t u l a t e a n o t h e r First P r i n c i p l e on w h i c h n o one e l s e c a n impose anything.
I n h i s c ~ r n m e n t a r yon " Lnn. V I . 8 . 9 ,
L e r o u x n o t i c e s t h e difficulry i n p u ~ c i n gtogether p r o p o s i i i o n s t h a t c o n t r a d i c t s o e x p l i c i t l y the d o c t r i n e s o f t h e c l a s s i c a l
philosophy
LO
w h i c h Msoplatcnisrn i s h e i r :
" f c r txample,
how t a
i n t e g r a t e a p r c p c s i r i o n a f f i r m i n g ~ h a cc k r z i s ~ . ~ c e s s i to yn i y i n t h e i n f e r m r b e i n g s ( E n n . VI. 3 . 9 . 1 1 - L 2 ) ,
when this very
necessity--when o p p o s e d to these beings' c o n t i n g e n c y - - s e e m s r e s e r v e d t o the s u p e r i o r h y p o s t a s e s a l o n e ? "
--
to be
The explanation
"At t h e b e g i n n i n g o f Enn V I . 8 Plotinus comments o n A r i s t o t l e ' s d i s c u s s i o n of t h e freedom o f t h e w i l l i n t h e Nicomachean E t h i c s . The Stagyrite d i s c u s s s s the freedom o f the w i l l i n terms o f c h o i c e t h e r e . For A r i s c o t l e ' s limited influence o n P l o t i n u s ' Enn. VI.8, see Rist, Human Value, 106-108.
Leroux provides is that here Aristotle's heritage is transformed slightly for the sake of refurxion."
Leroux regards as s ~ r a t e g i srhe in~roducriononly as late as E m . VI.8.44 ff. -
of r h e n?w c o n c e p t o f w F 1 1 for 1x0 r e a s o n s :
a)
this concept is the only o n ? x h i c h seems to resist the ordeal of
the negative cheoloqy hat in z h a p ~ e r s8 and 9 removed the majority of t h e predicates o h che dne; o ) c n e pred~caceof power (6ilva~is) , retrieving t h e classical r e l a ~ i o nbetween h e g e m o n y and
will, makes Che concept of will become the only o n e c a p a b l e o f r e f u t i n g i h e " r a s h s r x e r n e n ~ " 3 r d q i v i n g zcnL3n:
~o chs
m e t a p h y s i c s of t h e 3ne.'
T h e First P r i n c i p l e i s noc only beyond being but i t also
generaces b e i n g . ' "
L z r o u s iisclnguishes a r z h i s y i n t cetween <
how ihe Zce g e n e r a c e s ar.3
.
15.2 Ir.reL??s:
r . 2 ~
latter g e n e r a t e s being like a demiurge.
qen2raies being.
The
T h e former g e n e r a t e s
being in the s a m e way in w h i c h the Good cf Plato's R e ~ u b l i cdoes: the One is b e f c r e 311 b e i n g s , 2s c.L.?i= p r i n c l p l s o r scurce," it overflows.-
T h e r e i s n o v o l u n t a r y cr d e l i b t r a t i v e process
"G. Leroux, " C o m m e n r a i r e , " in ? ? o c i n u s , liberte e t l a v o l o n t e de L I U n , 3 0 4 . .
' L ~ T O U X"~C o m m e n t a i r e , "
--
"Enn.
3G8 f.
VI.8.9.29.
"~ n n . 111.8.9.41. -.
- - -E n n . V.2.1.8; V.1.6.7. ,
98
TrzitP sur la
involved in t h i s case.- n e c e s s a r y . '''
This o v e r f l o w i s i n v o l u n t a r y and
As Rist notices when discussing the i s s u e o f the .
--
generation of new b e i n g s b y the C)ne,--'P l m i n u s is l e s s worried by c h e Parrnenidean dictum "nor;hing =an corn2 f r o m nothing" than a r e most of his predecessors. Enn V I . 8 . 1 9 . 1 9
and V . 5 . 1 2 . 5 7 ,
As Plotinus c l e a r l y o u t l i n e s i n a l t h o u g h new beings s r i s ? "frcn chs
One, " c h e y a r e not part cf i b . 5 3 n e a r zra~sf3rmationso f thz On?.
In chis P l o t i n u s diff3rs sisnificancly b o r h f r o m M i l e s i a n s and
early F y t h a g o r e a n s , f o r whcm :his n s c i c r , of new beings a r i s i n g f r o m a F i r s t ?rincipla was m k m w n , a n d from P l a t o , A r i s ~ o t l e ,
and t h e S t o i c s , xho wsre sclll under c h e spell of Parmsnides:
'
In Enn. VI .6.10.6 f f . P l o t i n u s explicitly connects " h a p p e n e d to be" with zorning to be "by chance" t
i
)
6 u r ; hcw, h e
asks, couid a n e atxibuce chance c ; = h e p r i n c i p l ? of a l l r e a s o n
and order and lirnlt, i . e . , to Inttllecc?
"Chance i s c e r i a i n l y
m i s t r e s s o f many chings, " continues ? l o t i n u s , "but is not
. ,.
---Leroux,"Commencaire," 306 f. quoting E n n . 1 . 8 . 7 . 2 1 and Enn. V.5.12.40-49 against Rist's view that the o r o c e s s of g e n e r a t i o n of b e i n g s b y the One is v o l u n t a r y (see Rist, Eros and Psvche: Studies in F l a t o , Plctinus and Criaen (Toronto, 1964), 76 f. and Plotinus: The Road ro R e a l i c -v (Cambridqe: Cambridae University Press, 1 9 5 7 ) , 66-83!. .
-
7
--'Rist, Human Value, 104. .-
-"Rist, Human Value, 104. The generation of beings is important for Gregory of Nyssa whc has similar remarks a b o u t how God the F a t h e r is father (or r a ~ h e ra u t h o r ) of created beings, albeit his nature is d i f f e r e n t from rheirs (Q 111, 10, l o ) .
mistress af i n t e l l e c t a n d r e a s o n a n 3 o r d c them."
Thus,
SG
a s t o generate
h e h a s a n s w e r e d t h e first p a r t of t h e o b j e c t i o n ,
n a m e l y t h a t t h e One h a p p e n s t o be w h a t iz i s .
Piccinus now
e a d d r e s s e s the s e s c n d p a r r - sf chs o b j e c t i o n , n a m e l y t h a t ~ h One d o e s n o t h a v e t h e m a s t e r y of what i t i s . A l t h o u g h h e m e n t i o n e d that Intellect i s master o f itself at Enn, -
VI.8.9.46,
P l o t i n u s r e c u r n s c o c h i s i s s u e 2nd i s more . .
s p e c i f i c : I n t e l l e c t i s rnasr-er s f n l s awn s u b s t a n c e . - - - He w r o t e t h i s perhaps t o r e f m e t h o s e who b e l i e v e d that even t h e gods were s u b j e c t t o face.
For e x a m p l e , A l e x a n d e r of A p h r c d i s i a s wrote
t h a t i t i s n o t in t h e pcwer of ~ h qods e to b e what they are, "for
s u c h a n element i s i n their n a t u e , 2 n d n o t ? . i n g o f t h i n g s w h i c h
e x i s t i n t h i s s e n s e i s i n s c r n e o n e ' s pcwer
(€T'
ai1~6).
' f ' - r
Intellect
i s b e f o r e c h a n c e and m a s t e r o f his own s u b s t a n c e , e m p h a s i z e s Piminus. otherwise.
"He i s what he i s c f n a z s s s i t y , a n d c o u l d n o t be N o w h e i s n o t a s h e i s bscause h 2 c a n n o t b e
o t h e r w i s e , but h c a u s e being w h a t he i s i s t h e b e s t .
" -
T h e idea
t h a t c h e d i v i n e i s x h a t i t i s becaust t h i s i s r h e b e s t i s a
P l a t o n i c i d e a w h i c h makes f r e e d o m b a s i c a l l y r e s i d e i n t h e freedom
.. - - ' A l e x a n d e r o f A p r o d i s i a s , De F a t o , 3 2 , 204, I O - i 4 . ET, s l i g h t l y modified b y m e , and G r e e k t e x t i n A l e x a n d e r of A p h r o d i s i a s , On D e s t i n v , A d d r e s s e d t o the E m p e r o r s , t r . A . F i t z g e r a l d ( L o n d o n : The S c h o l a r t i s P r e s s , 1 9 3 1 ) , 136-13 7 ( G r e e k a l s o i n C o m m e n t a r i a i n A r i s t o t e l e m Graeca s m p l . 2 . 2 , e d . B r u n s ) .
of the good.
W i t h t h e appropriate a d a p t i o n , t h i s idea was a l s o
rather widespread i n patristic r h e o l o g y .
Origen, Athanasius,
B a s i l of C a e s a r e a and Gregory of Nyssa all b e l i e v e d that i t was
good f o r God tc be c h e F a r h e r o f s u c h a Son:-'
.
.
Leroux's comment on the latter P l a t o n i c i d e a i s i m p o r t a x . He s a y s t h a t i n t h e case cf c h e P l o i i n i a n F i r s t P r i n c i p l e t h e
freedom i s a b s o l u t ? becazse ic z a n r . 2 ~ ~ r i e r tits2lf t a ~ z r dwhar
is i n f e r i o r , w h e r e a s in x + r
.
.
ce1nc.s che
m c v e m e x toward th?
i n f e r i o r results precisely f r o m a lack o f freedom.
A similar
i d e a i s e n c o u n t e r e d i n G r e g o r y of Nyssa when h e s p e a k s o f t h e d i v i n e Son who c a n s r i e n c o n l y ' ~ o w a r ar h e qocd,
who c a n o r i 2 n c coward e i t n c r che qosd cr
t h e i r own will:-'
. .
3rd
human s o n s
he bad, a c c c r d i n g t o
U n l i k e L e r o u x , h o w e v e r , G r e q o r y does not s a y
chat c r e a ~ e db e i n g s a r e n a t
fie; ,zri t h e z o n E r a r y ,
hey are fie?
co choose t h e ? good a n d beccrne adopced s n i l d r e n sf God, i n this way f o l l o w i n g the example o f c h e n a c u r a l 3 0 n o f Gcd. T h e i d e a t h a t humans h a v e been c r e a t e d i n G o d ' s i m a g e has p e r h a p s p l z y e d a n i m p o r t a n t p a r t in Chrisiianity's s t r o n g a f f i r m a t i o n o f human f r e e d o m a g a i n s t the advocai3s of fate.
F o r e o v e r , one has t o keep
i n mind t h a t Gregory s p e a k s f r o m w i t h i n a n i n c a r n a t i o n a l s y s t e m .- .
- - ' O r i g e n , De ~ r i n c i ~ i Ii .s? . 3 a n d Ccmmentarv on Genesis (in E u s e b i u s , C o n t r a Marcellurn 1.4, GCS 14, p . 2 2 , 1 1 - 1 8 ) ; A t h a n a s i u s o f A l e x a n d r i a , Contra A r i a n o s 1 . 2 8 a n d 111.59-67; B a s i l of Caesarea, Adversus E m m i u r n 11, p . 5 9 3 A-B; Gregory o f Nyssa, CE I, 5 8 4 .
in which God "emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being
born in human likeness" (Phil 2 : 7 ) .
I should also note, in opposition to Leroux, that in referring to the will of the First Principle, Plotinus uses two G r e e k words interchangeably: poi.lqo~s and %kqai.;.
L e r o u x advocates
a point of view which alieges thac Pioiinus' u s e s prsdoninantly 0 i X q o i ~ i n regard co the divine, a usage allegedly confirned by
the Christian traditicn:-
Th2 same! does noc hold true for
G r e g c r y o f N y s s a wns u s e s pochqois i n rafarencs io Sod in the
passage where he draws h i s i n s p i r a t i o n from Enn. V I . 8 . Yet,
let us nor: forget chat Plocinus prefers the negative
way of approach io the divins.
The final s t e p in t h e negative ...
way is the necessity of neqacing one's negations.---P l o t i n u s t a k e s this s t e p a n d says c h a t we should " r a t h e r throw 'what it
wills to b e ' away io the b e i n g s ,
[because Intellect] itself is . * .
..
greater than 311 willirg, setting w i ~ i i n gafter i c s 2 l f . " - - -
- .-
- - - L e r o u x , "Comrnentaire," 310 following Theodor Gollwitzer, Plotins Lehre von der Willensfreiheit, vol. I (Kempten, 1900) and Carolina W. Zeeman, De Plaats van de Wil in de Philosophie van Plotinus (Arnhem: Van Loghum Slaterus, 1946) . ...
---Armstrong reminds the reader at this point how strong the apophatic way of knowing is stressed by the Athenian Neoplatonists Proclus and Damascius and the Christian PseudoDionysius he Areopagite.
Conclusions
In summary then, I s h c u l d s a y tnar: G r e g o r y o f Nyssa u s e d t h e philosophical c o n c e p r s as presented above.
H e borrowed them
without acknowledgement either directly f r o m t h e i r authors or
frcm t h e works of h i s Christian or p a g a n p r e d e c e s s o r s . concepcs inform h i s t h i n k i n g abouc t h e individual.
These
Nevertheless,
none of these concepts singularly r e p r e s e n t s a sufficiently sophisticated view o f t h e individual, a n d still l e s s sf the
person.
It was the Cappadocian F a c h e r s who provided ihe first
fully developed v e r s i o n o f t h e p e r s o n . about
The C h r i s t i a n d e b a t e
he T r i n i t y f o r z e d =he i e v e k p r n w . ~of t h ? Z a n c e p E of p e r s o n
in the direction in w h i c h Fc m a t u r e d .
THE LESSER TRINITARIAN TREATISES I: TO HIS BROTHER PETER, C I F F E R E N C E BETWEEN OUSIA AND HYPOSTASIS
in thirty-four m a n u s c r i p t s
ON THE
he creatise e m i t l e d T o H i s Brocher
P e t e r , On the Differsnce between Ousia and H y ~ o s c a s i s (Ad P e t r u m h e r e a f t e r ) - i s a t t r i b u t e d t o B a s i l of Caesar25 and i n t s n o t h e r s co
Gregory o f Nyssa.
T h e r e f o r e , u n t i l q u i t e recsntly i t was
b e l i e v e d L O b e the 38th L e x 2 r of 3asil o f C a s s a r e a .
Yet,
s t u d i e s such a s t h o s e u n d e r t a k e n b y Cavallin,- HLibnsr' and F e d w i c k ' have shown t h a t i n r e a l i t y the l e t t e r b e l o n g s t o Gregory
' ~ e f 2 r e n c e . s t o t h s G r e e k t s x t will b e t o S a i n t B a s i l , L e t t r e s , t s x t s s t a b l i s h e d and t r a n s l a t e d by Yves C o u r t o n n e , v o l . i ( P a r i s : L 2 s B e l l e s L e t t r e s , 1957), 8 1 - 9 2 . Other q u o t e s from B a s i l ' s l e t t e r s a r e based on t h e o t h e r two volumes produced b y Courtonne ( P a r i s : L e s b e l l e s L e t t r e s , 1 9 6 1 and 1366) a n d r e f e r r e d I a l s o c o n s u i c e d t h e English t o a s , e . g . Courtonne 3 : 5 3 . t r a n s l a t i o n of this k t t 5 r , S t . B a s i l , T h e L e t t e r s , t r . Roy J . D e f e r r a r i , ~ o l .I C o n d o n : N . Heinernann, 1 9 2 6 ) ; however, s i n c e D e f e r r a r i ' s t r a n s l a t i o n is n c t r o c r e l i a b l e , I have nad t o a l t e r it. ' ~ n d e r s Cavallin, S t u d i e n zu den B r i e f e n d e s h l . B a s i l i u s ( L u n d : Gleerupska U n i v e r s i t e t s b o k h a n d e I n , i944), 7 1 ff. ' R e i n h a r d Hubner, "Gregor von Nyssa a l s V e r f a s s e r d e r s o g . 38 d e s B a s i l i u s . Zum u n t e r s c h i e d l i c h e n V e r s t a n d n l s d e r o u s i a bei den kappadozischen B r u d e r n " i n E p e k t a s i s . Melanoes p a t r i s t i o u e s offerts a u C a r d i n a l J e a n Danielou, e d s . J . F o n t a i n e a n d Ch. K a n n e n g i e s s e r ( P a r i s : Beauchesne, 1 9 7 2 ) , 4 6 3 - 4 9 0 .
&.
'Paul J. Fedwick, "A Commentary o f Gregory o f Nyssa o r t h e 3 8 t h Letter cf B a s i l of C a e s a r e a , " Orientalia C h r i s t i a n a P e r i o d i c a 44 ( 1 9 7 8 ) : 31-51; idem, B i b l i o t h e c a B a s i l i a n a
of Nyssa, a c o n c l u s i o n g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d .
N o n e t h e l e s s , there i s
a g r o u p o f German s c h o l a r s who d o n o t a c c e p t the S r e g o r i a n authorship.'
I f i n d t h e i r argurnenm unconvincing, e s p s t i a l l y
s i n c e D r e c o l l , a l t h s u g h a ~ t r i b u t i n g=he t r e a t i s e t o B a s i l , c o n f e s s e s t h a t " s t y l i s t i c a l l y G r e g o r y ' s a u t h o r s h i p seems t o be
somewhat closer/"'
The addressee o f this treatise i s P e t e r o f
Ansssi, the b r o t h e r cf G r q a r y ~f Xysszi and a b i s h o p of S e b a s t e . C o n c e r n i n g its d a t e , s c h o l a r s a g r e e t h a t A d P e t r u m was w r i t t e n
sometime a f t e r B a s i l ' s d e a t h o n J a n u a r y 1, 3 7 9 .
Danielou dated
ic t o 3 8 1 , Yay t o 3 7 9 o r a l i t t l e l a t e r .
V n i v e r s a l i s . A S t u d v o f t h e i ! I a n u s c r i ~ c T r a d i t i o n o f t h e Works of B a s i l o f Caesarea, v o l . 1: T h e Letters ( T u r n h o u t : B r e p c l s , 19931, 623-623. R o b e r t P o u c h e t a l s c accsprs :he Cregoriari a u t h o r s h i p i n h i s c o r n p r e h e n s l v e s t u d y o f ~ h eB a s i l i a n s o r r e s p o n d e n c e , Easile lo G r a n d e t s o n u n i v e r s d ' a m i s d ' a p r e s sa c c r r e s p o n d a n c e . Une s t r a t j q i e de comrntinion (Rome: A u g u s t i n i a n u r n , 1 9 9 2 ) , 2 9 . ' W o l f g a n g - D i e t e r H a u s c h i l d i n h i s German c r a n s l a t i o n o f B a s i l ' s l e t t e r s ( B a s i l o f C a e s a r e a , Briefe, t r . W . - D . Hauschild, v o l . 1 [ S t u t t g a r t : A n t o n H i e r s e m a n n , l9901, 1 8 2 ff n. 1 8 1 ) ; J i i r g e n H a m m e r s t a e d t , "Zur E c h t h 2 i c l von B a s i l i u s b r i e f 38, " T e s s e r a e : Festschrift f u r J o s e f Enaemann. J a h r b u c h f u r Antike u n d C h r i s t e n t u m 1 8 ( 1 9 9 1 ) : 4 1 6 - 4 1 9 and V o l k e r H . Drecoll, Die E n t w i c k l u n a d e r T r i n i t a t s l e h r e des B a s i l i u s von Casarea: S e i n Weq vom H o m o u s i a n e r zum N e o n i z a n e r ( G a t t i n g e n : V a n d e n h o e c k & R u p r e c h t , l996), 297-331. "Drecoll, Entwicklunq, 309. Cf. a l s o t h e c r i t i c i s m of D r e c o l l by D a v i d G . R o b e r t s o n , " S t o i c and A r i s t o t e l i a n N o t i o n s of S u b s t a n c e i n a a s i l of C a e s a r e a , " V i s i l i a e C h r i s t i a n a e 52 ( 1 9 9 8 ) : 410, n. 61.
' ~ e a nD a n i e l o u , "La c h r o n o l o g i e des o e u v r e s de Gregoire de N y s s e , " Studia Patristica 7 ( 1 9 6 6 ) : 1 6 3 n . 2; G e r h a r d May, "Die C h r o n o l o g i e des Lebens und d e r Werke d e s G r e g o r v o n N y s s a " i n ~ c r i t u r ee t culture o n i l o s o o h i a u e d a n s l a ~ e n s € ed e G r e a o i r e de Nvsse. A c t e s d u C o l l o a u e de C h e v e t o u n e (22-26 s e ~ t e m b r e1 9 6 9 ) ,
As t h e t i t l e d t c l a r e s , the l e t t e r p r o p o s e s t o explain t h e difference between
oljaia
a n d irroa-ra~ic;,two G r e e k words t h e
Cappadocians u s e d t o r e f e r t o s u b s t a n c e and p e r s o n r e s p e c t i v e l y . The work is v e r y s i m i l a r co B a s i l ' s
&.
236,
sixth s e c t i o n i s d e v o t e d t o t h e same t o p i c .
i n which the e n t i r e P o u c h e t noced t h a t ,
a f t e r t h e d e a t h o f h i s b r o t h e r B a s i l a n d i n s p i r e d by Ep. 2 3 6 , 6 , G r e g o r y o f Nyssa composed a more s u b s t a n t i a l disserrarion o n c h e same t o p i c , c h t famous
&. 36 i n
~ h S z a s i l i a n corpus.-
I n t h i s c h a p t e r I p r e s m t a n d a n a l y z e Gregory's view of t h e
d i v i n e p e r s o n s a s i t emerges from Ad Petrum.
This e v a l u a t i o n
h e l p s me t o u n d e r s t a n d mere c l e a r l y t h e C z p p a d o c i a n c m ~ r i b u ~ i o n c o t h e n o t i o n o f perscn
.
.
anc t n e f a r m l a t i o n cf i r i n i t a r i a n dogma.
I s h a l l begin t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n by c o n s i d e r i n g t h e d i f f e r e n c e
between s u b s t a n c e and p e r s o n a s a n a n a l o g y of the d i f f s r e n c e
between common a n d p a r t i c u l a r L o r species a n d i n d i v i d u a l ) F u r t h e r d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e two will f o l l o w .
.
Having
d i s t i n g u i s h e d b e t w e e n n a t u r e a n d p e r s o n , I s h a l l c o n s i d s r some o f G r e g o r y ' s d e f i n i t i o n s s f t h e p e r s o n a n d - h e n s 2 e now t h e y a p p l y t o divine persons*
ed. M a r g u e r i t e Harl ( L e i d e n : E. J. B r i l l , 'R.
P o u c h e c , Basile le G r a n d , 60.
106
1971, 57.
I. T h e Common a n d the Particular
To e x p l a i n t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w t e n C o d ' s s u b s t a n c e (oiloia) a n d t h e d i v i n e p e r s o n s ( h o a ~ a c m s ) ,the C a p p a d o c i a n s u s e d t h e a n a l o g y o f t h e common a n d t h e p a r t i z u l a r .
1 a l r e a d y presented t h e
d i f f e r a x e b e r w e m common a n d particular in Aristocle and t h e S t o i c s i n C h a p t e r Two, w h e r e I a l s o d i s c u s s e d how B a s i l a n d G r e g o r y m i g h t have a d o p t e d t h i s d i s t i n c c i c n .
Yec, I c o n s i d e r i t
n e c e s s a r y t o b r i n g addiricnzl samples frcm t h e twc C a p p a d o c i a n brothers.
I think i t i s i n o r d s r io p r e s e n t f i r s c t h e p o s i t i o n
B a s i l expresses i n Ep. 2 3 6 , 6 . T h e n I s h a l l show how B a s i l
'Otuia a n d il~tjo~aaig have t h e d i s t i n s t i o r . chat
th? common h a s
w i t h r s f s r e n c e t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r (76 K O L I X ~ T ~ K~ UI@~' €TK ~ O T O V ); f c r e x a m p l e , j u s t a s ' a n i m a l ' ( j - o v ) h a s wich r e f e r e n c e t o ' a p a r t i c u l a r human' (ScivaavBpwrrov). F o r this rtascn w e c o r i f e s s o n e substance wiuia) f o r t h e Godhead, s c a s n o t to h a n d down variously the n c t i o n of being; but we z o n f e s s c h a r the h o o ~ a o i s i s p a r t i c u l a r , i n o r d e r t h a t o u r c o n c e p t i o n o f F a t h e r a n d S o n 3rd H o l y S p i r i t may b e u n c o n f u s e d a n d p l a i n .
F o r u n l e s s w e t h i n k of t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t a r e s h a r p l y d e f i n e d in t h e case o f e a c h , a s f o r e x a m p l e f a t h e r h o o d a n d s o n s h i p and h o l i n e s s ( n a ~ p r i q ~e ai 6 , q ~ am i uyaopov! , b u t f r o m t h e g e n e r a l n o t i o n o f b e i n g c o n f e s s Gcd, i t i s i m p o s s i b l e to h a n d down a s o u n d d e f i n i t i o n o f f a i t h . T h e r e f o r e , we m u s t a d d w h a t i s p a r t i c u l a r t o w h a t i s common a n d t h u s c o n f 3 s s t h e f a i t h ; che Godhead i s s o m e t h i n g common, t h e p a t e r n i t y something p a r t i c u l a r , and combining t h e s e w e should s a y : ' I b e l i e v e i n God t h e F a t h e r ' . And a g a i n i n t h e c o n f e s s i o n of t h e Son w e s h o u l d do l i k e w i s e - - c o m b i n e t h e p a r t i c u l a r w i t h
' " ~ n i m a l " i n E n g l i s h a n d o t h e r modern l a n g u a g e s comes f r o m t h e L a t i n word " a n i m u s " ( = s o u l ) . T h u s , " a n i m a l " means a n " e n s o u l e d o r l i v i n g c r e a t u r e " a n d i s p r o b a b l y the b e s t r e n d e r i n g o f t h e G r e e k [Gov.
the common a n d say: ' I b e l i e v e in God t h e Son.' S i m i l a r l y t o o i n the case of t h e Holy S p i r i t , w e s h o u l d frame on t h e same p r i n c i p l e o u r u t t s r a n c e o f che r e f e r e n c e t o him a n d s a y : 'I b e l i e v e also i n t h e d i - ~ i n eHoly S p i r i t , ' s o c h a t t h r o u g h o u t t h e whole, b o t h u n i t y i s p r e s e r v e d i n t h e c o n f e s s i o n o f t h e o n e Godhead, a n d t h a t which i s p e c u l i a r t o t h e p e r s o n s ( T O T ~ ~ V T ~ O O ~ T T W V ~ ~i Ls ~ cC cOnVf e) s s e d i n the d i s t i .n. c ~ i o nmade i n t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a~tributed t o each. - -
a a s i l u s e s ~ h eex a m p l e o f " a n i r n a i " human"
(C@OP) versus "a p a r t i c u l a r
(6riva avtlpwrrov) t o show the d i f f e r e n c e between the common
and the p a r t i c u l a r .
I t is c l t a r that w h a t h e h a s i n m i n d i s c h e
L o g i c a l d i s r i n c r i o n b e t w e e n species a n d i n d i v i d u a i . T o e x p l a i n c h e d i f f e r e n c e between ovoiu a n d bmk~aols, G r e g o r y
uses a s i m i l a r e x a m p l e , s p e a k i n g o f c n e "human" (av8pw~ro~) versus " a c e r t a i n human" ( T ~av0p~Tro.j S j
.
The c o n t e x t of G r e g o r y ' s
e x p l a n a t i o n s i s a r e f e r e n c e t o same o f his contemporaries who do n o t d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n oioia a n d u m i o ~ a o ~ s .Wher, r e f e r r i n g io God, t h e y speak e i t h e r of o n e brrdo~ao~s or o f three ouoia~.- ' Zieglar-
i s righc ir. c1airnir.g t h a t chose who s p e a k o f o n e
urromao~sa r e p r o b a b l y s t r i m p r o - N i c e n e s
f o r whom Oa6o~acsisand
oucria a r e synonymous and mean " s u k s t a n c e , " whereas c h o s e who s p e a k of c h r e e ouaia~ are p r o b a b l y Hornoiol;sians,
"Basil,
.
*
&.
236, 6 . 1-22
Homoians a n d Anomoians.
(Courtonne 3 3 3 - 5 4 )
.
ET mine.
- - T h i e r r y Z i e g l e r , " L e s p e t i t s t r a i t & t r i n i t a i r e s de G r e g o i r e d e Nysse. Temoins d'un i t i n e r a i r e t h e o l o g i q u e (3793 8 3 ) " ( P h . D. d i s s . , F a c u l t y of Protestant T h e o l o g y , University of Human S c i e n c e s of S t r a s b o u r g , 1987), vol. 1, 1 2 7 .
G r s g o r y writes : F r o m among a l l names some, used f o r s u b j e c t s p l u r a l 2 n d n u m e r i c a l l y d i v e r s e , h a v e a more u n i v e r s a l meaning, a s for example ' human' ( U V ~ ~ W T ~ O.S ! For when you say "human, " y o u c h e r e b y signify the ccmrr.on nature (rill)~ o w j vd i u i v ) , a n d do n o t s p e c i f y a n y humac whs is particularly known by t h a ~name (TLVU~ L J ~ ~ W T I TO V~. i&uq V hi)TO
The i n f l u e r x e of Sasil's
Q. 2 3 6 ,
6
on G r e g o r y ' s Ad P e t r i l m 2 . 1-
11 is s b v i o u s , b u t a common p h i l o s o p h i c a l s o u r c e o f inspiration f o r b o t h Cappadocians is n o t be excluded.
Thc
mosL l i k e l y
b e t w e e n i n d i v i d u a i a n d s p e c i e s , o r c h e S r c i s discinctisn b e t w e e n i n d i v i d u a l l y q u a l i f i e d and s c m o n l y q u a l i f i e d , o r b o t h .
To
illustrate heir point, both brothsrs use the example of "human
versus this human".
They x i y differ in iheir choice of the
modifying p r o n o u n : B a s i l uses 6 ~ i v o sw h i l e G r e g o r y
T~S.
Although I h a v e alluded to it in Chapter Two when discussing possible Stoic i n f l u e n c e s sn Nyssen, I shali summarize Hubner's
argument about 8 a s i l r s more Stoicizinq view of substance here. In considering the two components of the Stoic category of
.-
-'Cf. Aristotle, C a t e q o r i e s 2 b 2 5 f f : " [ O ] f t h e primary substances one is no more a substance than another: the i n d i v i d u a l man i s no mors a s u b s t a n c e than t h e i n d i v i d u a l o x . "
quality, Hubner proves that while B a s i l ' s d i s t i n c t i o n i s m f l u e n c e d by the Stoics, Gregory's is A r i s t o t e l F a n . The S t c i c s h e l d that ouoia=iiiro~o~ uXq=np&ov u r r o ~ ~ i p c v o '' v , a n d "being" means " b e i n g
macerial"; thus, i n r h e i r
V ~ W ,t
h e s a m e oilaia Lies a t the
f o u n d a t i o n sf both God and r h e cosmos.
the "material substratum"
-
-
7
-
s
I
t~
-
for c n e human o i u i a ! .
3y ouoiu Basil often means
(TOi j h ~ i i) v~o~~ ~ i p € ~ w - 9. -e, . CEm.
I".e 2xhibits a r a t h e r
2 , 4, 11;
materialistic
u n d e r s t a n d i n g of oilaia, i n f l u e n c e d b y S t o i c i s m , w h i c h i s r e j ccted b y h i s b r o t h e r Gregory:'
Yet, u n l i k e the S t o i c s , B a s i l
distinguishes between God's oilaiu a n d c h e c r 2 a c e d ouaiu.
- '
Basil ' s
concept of substance is c h u s influenced by c h e Stoic n o t i o n a f ' TO GL ~~ L ~.)- "eornvonl y q u a l i f i e a " ( K O L L f
Thus i:
follows, according to Hiibner, t h a r - Greqor:; of
N y s s a ' s description o f oiloh is Aristotelian..' The d i f f e r e n c e of
p e r c e p t i o n b e t w e e n z5.e twc b r a c h e r s m f o r c e s ?-&rzrts
ccnviccion
- ' H u b n e r , V e r f a s s e r , 480.
-'Gregory of Nyssa, 111, 5: "by o u s i a 1 do n o t mean the material s u b s t r a t u m " (GNO 2:168, 2 - 3 : oioiav6i Aiyw v i r v o ~ ~ o i A t r o v UTTOKE~~ELJOV).
.-
- Hiibner,
Verfasser, 480.
..
"Reinhard H i i b n e r , "Gregory von Nyssa a l s Verfasser d e r s o g . EJ. 38 des Basilius," 470, 480. B e r n a r d P o t t i e r f u l l y a g r e e s with Hubner in h i s book D i e u et le Christ selon G r e q o i r e de Nvsse: E t u d e s v s t e m a t i a u e d u " C o n t r e Eunorne" avec t r a d u c t i o n i n e d i t e des e x t r a i t s d f E u n o m e (Narnur, B e l g i u m : C u l t u r e et V e r i t e , 1 9 9 4 ) , 85 ff. %ibner,
Verfasser, 4 6 9 f.
that
Q. 38 should be attributed ts Gregory, since it displays an
Aristotelian understanding of the oilaia.
Nevertheless, HUbner
allows that Basil is not syscemaric, but t h a t he also uses both .-
Aris~ctelianand P l o t i n i a n concepts to deal with other issues.-The concept of r h e "individual," is perhaps anonq these "other A n o t h e r German scholar, Grillmeier, a l s c suggests that
issues."
~ h unaerscanding e of t h e distinctions between substance and
persons in both Basil and Gregory of N y s s a may be influenced by
Stoicism.':
Unfortunately, Criilrneier does ncr. E u 1 1 y slaboract.
2 . Further Differences between oinior and
LT~OTUOL~
in rhe last sections of Ad Petrum ( 6 - 8 ) Gregory r e t u r n s t o
differences between oitoia and bnbo~aois. For a more systematic presentation, I shall now e s a n i n e this issue.
iis
tells h i s
b r o ~ h e rPeter chat even che Apostle Paul m r i s i o n e d the
distinction between
he two ierms
when w r i t i n g : "Hs ( t h e S o n ] is
the r e f l e c t i o n o f God's g l x y and che imprint o f his imoo~aoiq ( ~ a p a r q pi)mo.raocwg a i w i ) )"
(
% ~ b1 : 3 )
.
Verfasser, --
- * A l o y s Grilimeier, "Das Scanaalum oecumenicum des Nestorius in k i r c h i i c h - d o g r n a t i s c h e r und theologiegeschichtlicher Sicht," S c h o l a s t i k 36 ( 1 9 6 1 ) : 340 f. 7
-
- - I n t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y t h e E p i s t l e to the Hebrews was attributed to Paul.
C u r r e n t l y , i t i s generally acknowledged that urroo~acnswas s y n o n y m o u s w i t h oirrria ir. he tine a f SL
Paul and e v e n later.
Modern biblical and patristic s c h o l a r s consider t h a t Heb 1 : 3 r e f e r s t o ~ h Son e a s t h e " i m p r i n t o f G o d ' s s u b s t a n c e (or being)"
c o n s e n s u s . -'
G r e g o r y , however, d o e s not accepr, chis synonymy,
b u r aileges c h a t by using u r r 6 o ~ a othe ~ ~ A p o s r l e wanted t o indicate
in fact "the continuicy and in~imacyof the relationship between t h e Son a n d c h e Father."-' Tc supcorc his thesis Gregory p l z y s
o n t h e m e a n i n g s o f t h e word " i m p r i n t t 1 &apct~;lip). l e v e l h e e q u a t e s "imprint" O(apa~:rjp!
form. -
with "figure" or "exterior
N e v z r t n e l e s s , ever! i f ci?e definirion of
is d i f f e r e n t f r o m
he definition o f c h s body
o n e c a n separate f o r m from body,
On a f i r s t
i.h.2
fcrm ( O X I ~ ~ )
(crGpui and by r e a s o n
"natura does n o t admit of t h e
separation, b u t one i s always ~ h o u g n to f i n c o n n e c t i o n with t h e
othsr. " - '
Accordingly,
if o n e sees t h e f o r m of
3
body,
one is
l i k e l y to c h i n k of the bcdy itself ind if one sees the imprint of
" ~ f .The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the F.pocrvohal/ D e u t e r o c a n o n i c a l Books, the N e w Revised S t a n d a r d V e r s i o n . eds. B r u c e M e t z g e r a n d Roland Murphy ( N e w York: O x f o r d University Press, lggl), 317 NT.
the iiroorao~so f the Father, ons is bound t o think o f t h e hiw.raais of the F a t h e r .
On a second level, G r e g o r y uses t h e same argument
in regard t o " i m p r i n t " now equated w i t h "image"
( E ~ K ~ v and )
draws
h e a v i l y o n t h e fact c h a t the S o n is c h e image of t h e F a t h e r . -
Basil of Caesarea himself n o i only i n s i s ~ scn t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between ouoia a n d ilrroo~ao~s i n Heb 1 : 3 , bur h e also
aiieges c h a t c h e N l c e n e F a t h c r s d i s t i n g u i s h e d b e c w e e n t h e t w o terms.
IL i s i n c h i s way chat h2 incerprsts rhe a n a t h e m a
a c c o m p a n y i n g t h e Yisme < r e e d : " I f snycne s a y s c h a t c h e Son i s of a n o t h e r substance o r
ii
U T O G T ~ ( J L Si~ipal;o~cJias (~~ ~ ~ T I O O T U ~ ~ W St)h, e
c a t h o l i c a n d a p o s t o l i c C h u r c h anathematizes him."-- In an
a r t i c l e an h a p &
and h 6 c ~ ~ c t o lir. s t h e C a p p a d o c i a n s , Jean P e p i n
s u g g e s t s that the Cappadocians wer2 actually a n ~ i - N i c e n e in iheir n n d e r s t a n d i n q of t h e meanings o f oioia and b n o o ~ a a ~ s' . Tn m y v i e w , e v e n i f t h e C a p p a d o c i e n s were a n t i - ? / i c e n e t ;hey d i d not w a n t t o a d m i t t h i s , b u t tried t 2 f s r ~ sz h e i n t s r p r e ~ a t i o nof
he Nicene
a n a t h e m a , i n o r d e r t o accommcdate ii t o - h e i r c n d e r s t a n d i n g o f
oiuia a n d brroo~ao~s. Yet , w h a t e v e r G r e g o r y ' s and a a s i l ' s arguments
..
1 2 5 , l . 32-49. See also Decrees o f the Ecumenical C o u n c i l s , ed. Norman P . T a n n e r , v o l . 1 (London: Shed Ward, 1 9 9 0 ) , 5. -'See EJ.
.-
-'Jean P e p i n , ""rirap{ise c imbraois e n C a p p a d o c e " i n Hvparxis e H v ~ o s t a s i snel Neoplatonismo. Atti del i C o l l o a u i o Internazionale d e l Centro di Ricerca sul N e o ~ l a t o n i s r n o (Universita depli Studi di Catania, 1-3 ottobre 19921, c d s . F. Romano and D. P. Taormina (Florence: Leo S. O l s c h k i , 1994). 7 6 .
&
in favor o f a d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e two cerms, w e n befor2
cheir t i m e , h i s t o r i c a l and exegstical r ~ s t i m o n ys t a n d s a g a i n s t their thesis.
F i r s c a f a l l , t h e C a p p a d o c i a ~ s o v e r h o k t h e fact t h a t unocr-iao~q was considared by many as synonymous wiih ovoia a t l e a s t
until the synod h e l d i n 3 6 2 a t A l e x a n d r i a , and h his synonymy caused mdless trouble.
For sxample, w e n . ? . k x a n d e r h i m s e l f ,
bishop of Alzxandris, a t ch? cime o f ~ h ?s y n o d of N i c a e a ( 3 2 5 ) ,
..
have been p o s s i b l e . ' , -
T h e synonymy v a s due ts ike meaning a f
bb~ordva~ (=to lie under) vnich made i~rroo~aa~; a n equival2ni o f
d i s t i n g u i s h these csrms,'-h i s o p i n i o n c a r r i e d l i t t l e influence.
Hammerstaedt a r g u e s that the m e a n i n g o f tjaoo~am.; a s used by O r i g e n i s d i f f e r e n t from t h e n e a n i n j impossd by che
do acknowledge that in numerous O r i g e n i a n texts unda-;.ao~si s the e x a c t equivalent of o6oia.
But t h i s does not exclude t h e
existence of the p a s s a g e s just i n d i c a t e d -
i n which
Oriqen uses the
-
' - C h r i s t o p h e r S t e a d , Sivine S u b s t a n c e ( O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n Press, 1 9 7 7 ) , 2 2 5 .
"see O r i g e n , i n ComJn 1,24,151-2; II,10,75-76 a n d CCels
VIII, 1 2 . --
'-Jiirgen Hammerstaedt, "Der t r i n i t a r i s c h e G e b r a u c h des H y p o s t a s i s b e g r i f f s bei O r i g e n e s , " J a h r b u c h f u r A n t i k e und C h r i s t e n t u r n 34 (1991): 12-20.
two terms w i t h d i f f e r e n t m e a n i n g s . S e c o n d , in h i s A o a i n s t Eunornius 1,2C, ll B a s i l h i m s e l f makes
use o f the synonymy o f the two w o r d s i n order to affirm the c o n s u b s t a n t i a l i c y o f God c he F a c h e r w i c h his S o n .
T h i r d , i n E&.
125, 1 Basil writes that ouaia r e f e r s t o t h e Son's c o - m o n substance wicii the F a t h e r , w k r e a s ilndo~acr~s ?:<presses rhe d o c t r i n e of saivaclon.
I n ocher words, :he
fcrrner r e f e r s c o the
c h e o l o a i a , w h e r m s the l a i x e r c o ~ h ?sikonomia.
Yet r h e context
i n w h i c h the N i c e n f F a c h s r s a n a t h e n a c i z e w h o e v e r discrirnina~es between the S o n ' s a n d Father's oiloia a n d ilrrboraoi~, t h u s m a k i n g the
cwo words s y n o n y m s , is n o t " e c o n o m i c " a s h s i i i n s i n u x e s .
The
Nicaenurn d e a l s here w i t h rhe S o n ' s g a n e r a t i o n f r o m t h e F a t h e r a n d h i s i m r n u c a b i l l r - 4 , a s well a s r i ~ h:he
when h e was n o t " ;
formula " i h e r e was a cine
n o meniicn o f c h ? S s n ' s i n c a r n a t i o n i s made i n
c h i s p a r t i c u l a r passaqe.
-
rourfh,
:here
. . xas a : r x i ~ r : s n
z k x c x l d have allowed f o r
t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n embraced by t h e C a p p a d o c i a n s .
I t goes back t o
Eusebius of Caesarea who, in w r i t i n g t o his d i o c e s e t o justify h i s e n d o r s e m e n t o f the N i c a e n u m , e x p l a i n e d c h a t t h e Son " i s n o t
from some o t h e r b ~ i ) o ~ a or o i ~s u b s t a n c e , but from t h e Father. " " T h i s interpretation i n d e e d a l l o w s for t h e c o n c l u s i o n that t h e S o n
is another person ( o r hypostasis! than t h e Father, -
"so t h a t
there
" G r e e k t e x t i n O p i x , U r k u n d e n z u r C e s c h i c h t e des a r i a n i s c h e r ! S t r e i t e s , 2 2 : pi i ~ i r i p a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o s i ~ ~a oa ouoias. oi ~ a o~ X e \w %K ~~~ 706 aa~p6s ( a p u d S t e a d , D i v i n e S u b s t a n c e , 2 3 9 ) .
a r e two, a n d i n d e e d t h r e e , d i v i n e h y p o s c a s e s . ""
Fifch,
t h e two
C a p p a d o c i a n b r o t h e r s m i g h also have r3sd eke famous lettzr o f
known as ihe Tomus a d A n t i o c h e n o s ( t h e
A t h a n a s i u s of A l e x a n d r i a ,
-
7
s y n o d a l l e t t a r o f the c o u n c i l held in 3 6 2 in A l e x a n d r i a ) , " w h e r e
a d i s t i n c t i o n i s made becweon oiuiu m d imoa-i-um~.
3 . Definitions o f u-rroaram~
Having disringuished b e t w e e n ocoia a n d 6rr6oraois in .Ad P ~ c r u m1-2,
Grsgory p r a c e e d s c o give defini~ionscf i ! m j a ~ u a t g I n s e c c i o n s 3-5. " T h a ~which is specificaily referred c o is i n d i s a t s d b y the term
unoo~aats." " I n G r e g o r y ' s view "human"
(dv8pw;ros)
is a r a t h e r
i n d e f i n i t e cerm which l e a v e s c h ? listzner w i ~ ha n alrnosc v a g u e ,
unqualified idea of w h a t it is r e f s r r i n g to.
As he 2rnploys the
term i n t k a t h e r t r i n i t a r i a n t r e a t i s e s , w h i c h w i l l b e s t u d i e d i n C h a p t e r s Four and F i v e ,
"human" i n d i c a t e s human n a t u r e , t h u s
b e i n g the name o f a species. unqualified.
Of ccurse,
Thac e x p l a i n s v h y it Is r a t h e r
"human" i s q u a l i f i e d i n the s e n s e t h a t
i t i s d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m o t h e r s p e c i e s , e.g. f r o m horse, but as
'"tead,
D i v i n e Substance, 2 4 0 .
t or the t e x t o f t h e Tornus a d A n t i o c h e n o s , see J . S t e v e n s o n , e d . , Creeds, C o u n c i l s a n d C o n t r o v e r s i e s : Documents I l l u s t r a t i n a the History of the church A. D. 337-461, r e v . ed. W. H. C .
F r e n a ( L o n d o n : SPCK,
1989), 8 a - 5 3 .
t h e name of a species it c o n v e y s lictle i n f o r m a t i o n .
Gregory
s u m m a r i z e s t h i s b y s a y i n g that, " a l c n o u g h the nature i s indicated
b y c h e name ' h u m a n , ' the c h i n o c h a c subsiscs (~6bbco:ds) i n c h a t
n a t u r e and i s specifically ( i S i w ~ ) indicated by .he
made z v i d e n t t o us." ilrr6o~aa~q,because
'
name is not
On t n e c o n t r a r y , " P a u l " i s the name of a
ii indicates ":he
n a c u r s subsisiing ir! t h e
t h r n g i n d i c a t z d b y c h i s namo. "'- A u
, however, "is nor: t h s
indefinite n o t i o n o f s u b s t a n c e , which by r e a s o n of the c o m m o n a l i t y of r h e cerm employed dlsclos2s n o s c a b i l i c y . "
"
It
now becomes evident i r h a t for Gregory i~mkraoi.; means " i n d i v i d u a l " and is o p p o s e d to s p e c i e s .
In c h e human and d i v i n e c a s e s ,
bado~ao~s c a n also be r e n d e r e d a s " p e r s o n . "
To clarify the issue e v e n f u r ~ h e r , G r e g o r y adds chat a bn6o~aois i s "the ccncepc which, by means of the specific n o t s s
whicn it indicates, r e s r r i c s a ~ circumscribes d in a p a r t i c u l a r t h i n g whac i s common a n d uncircumscribed."'
If G r e g o r y speaks
o f "circumscription" (aep~ypabfi)ir, he c a s e of a i~-rroomo~.;,h e o n l y
speaks o f " d e s c r i p t i o n "
( i m y p a d i ) in t h e e a s e o f oiuia.
':
In
--
' A d P e t r u m 3.
--
"Ad
Petrum 3 .
--
"Ad Petrum 3 . 8 . "Stability" renders the Greek o-rao~s. Gregory etymologizes here using "stasis," the second part of t h e word " h y p o - s t a s i s . "
doing so, Gregory characterizes a hypostasis as "somerhing that circumscribes" (aepiypa$otha) or the "circumscription of a
Gregory t h e n gives a concrete example borrowed from the Scripture of what he has said thus far o n a rather theoretical
level: the case of J o b . ' ; '
The s t c r y of 2cb irL Scripture scarts
r n general c e r m s describing w h a ~Job has in common with other
humans; more precisely, the biblical a u ~ h o rwrit25 "human"
indicating a particular human by adding
he w o r d "chis" ; ~ i . ; ) .
.. I
*
The Septuagint text which Gregory has in mind reads:
There was once this human ( " A L J ~ ~ W I T ~ ~i Tn L the S ) l a n d of Uz, whose name was job, and ihac hunar! {u~0pwr;o.; ilteil~oq) was ~ruthfu:, biameless, righteous, fearing God, and avoiding v . T h e r e were b c r n to h i m seven sons and three daughters. He had seven t h o u s a n d sheep, chree thousand camels, five hundred yokes of oxen, five hundred donkeys, a n d very many servants" [ J o b l:i-2, ET n i n e ) . . -. The a c c o u n t beccmss nor? srec~ilc--"+his humanM--in crder t~
characterize Job by means sf his peculiar notes (yvwpiopa~a), designating the place (the land of U z ) , t h e m a r k s which reveal
"Ad Pstrum 2. 14. The issue of eircumscribability played a major role in t h e fight over images in the iconoclastic period (see C h r i s t o p h von S c h o n b o r n , "La 'lettre 38 de saint B a s i l e ' et
le probleme christologique de l'iconoclasme," Revue des sciences philoso~hiaues et theoloaiaues 60 [I9761 : 446-450) .
his character (truthful, blameless, righteous, fearing God, and avoiding evil), and all such exirernal adjuncts that differentiate him and set him apart frcm rhe c o m c n n c t i m sf human (with Len children, seven r h o u s a n d sheep, ~ t c i . T h i s description gives rhe reader a rather clear account of j u s c who Job was.
Grsgory
thinks that, if the biblical author were to give an account of che substance (that is, the human n x u r e ) of Job, he would n o t have referred to the charact2ristics j u s c mentioned because ~ h e subscance is t h 2 same for bcch Job and his friends E l i p h a s t h e
Themmite, 3 a l d a d c h a S a u h i ~ e ,a n d S c p h a r the Yinsean:
Hsre
Gregory makes a distinction between c h e species "human" and some of i t s individuals (Job, E l i ~ h a s , galdad, Sophar) .
description .sf :he
perscn
Also the
b i r t j o ~ a o ~ gx' m e d Job sKggests that this
person is individualizsd b y p u t ~ i n gtogether some of his characteristic marks.
Gregory confirms c h i s supposition later i n
the treatise when s a y i n g : "a Cadoma~si s also the concourse of the peculiar characteristics.":"
Th? l a t c e r definition of
brroomois is highly reminiscent of the Neoplatonic definition of an individual as a collection of properties:
s
.
After giving t h e
"Ad Petrum 3. 26-30; cf. Job 2 : 1 1 . ?id Petrum 6. 4-6: r j v m v 6 p o p j v TGV i6iwpa:wv. Cf. Gregory of Nazianzus, 3 3 , 16 : pia $uois i v ~ p i a i vi6ioqoiv. Cf . Drecoll, Entwicklunq, 3 1 7 .
a.
'-See Plotinus, Enn. ' J I . 3.8.20, VI. 3.15.27 and Porphyry, See my discussion of t h i s issue in C h a p t e r Two.
I s a q . 7 , 21.
example of Job, Gragory s t a t e s that one can a p p l y the same r e a s o n i n g c o divine teachings in order c o understand the three
divine persons.'-
Gregory seems t o be aware t h a t P l c c i n u s and
P o r p h y r y had a p p l i e d o n l y t o s e n s i b l e substances r h e d e f i n i ~ i o n o f a n i n d i v i d u a l a s a c o l l e c t i o n o f prcperries.
T h e r s f o r e , when
h e passes from a sensible r o an in~elligiblesuksrance such as
Gcd, h e warns t h a t " i c i s s f n o a v a i l r o p r e s s u p o n a s p i r i ~ u a l t h i n g a definirely prescribed conception, b 3 c a u s e we art s u r e that it
[ i - e . , r-he d i v i n l ] is beyond all conc2p~ion. "" G r e g o r y
seems t o b e aware t h a t h 2 s x t m d s c o a n intelligible s u b s ~ a n c e
t h e N e o p l a t o n i c definition of a n individual,
3
ccnzlusion
N e o p l a t o n i s t s would have p r o b a b l y found unacceptable.
does n o t p r e t s n d
LO
3ut he
p r o v i d e a n e x p l a n a f i o n sf hcv sne s i m u i d
understand c h e d i v ~ n en a t u r e and ~ h 2t h r e e p e r s o n s i n p e r f e c t agreement
w i t h a philoscphiial view.
Fie zlslms
LO
provide h i s
r e a d e r s with " a n i l l x t r a z i s c 9ereiy icd adumbracisn cf t h e
t r u t h , m t c h e v e r y r r u t h cf t k r n a x e r . "
view of divine persons next.
I shall present his
4. Divine Persons
T h e a c t u a l d i s c u s s i e n of diy;ine
3.34.
F s r s o n s i n Ad Perrum s ~ a r t sa t
It i s t h i s l o n g a n d b e a u t i f u l passage ( 3 . 3 4 - 4 . 9 3 )
s h a l l e x a m i n e next.
that I
Gregory w r i c e s t h a c t h e d i v i n e n a i u r e common
to c h e t h r e e p e r s o n s i s u n c r e a t e d ,
i n s o n p r e h e n s i b l e , infinite,
xnclrcumscribed b y s p a c e , life-giving. -
>Jo d i v i n e person can b e
said c o b e more u n c r e a c e d o r Less u n c r e a t e d t h a n c h e o t h e r t w s , because " u n c r e a t e d " d e s c r i b e s
the subsmnce, ~ i n dt h e r e a r e no
d e g r 3 2 s within ihe same s u b s x n e e .
TP.e x i s z
hat t h e r e a r 2 no
degrees of substance b e t r a y s an . ? r i s c c r r e l i a n influence.
Gregory a p p l i e s , by way of a n a l o g y ,
LO
-
Here
the d i v i n e p e r s o n s che
a r g u m e n t he develcped i n regard t o human p e r s o n s a t A d P e t r u m 2 . 6-7
("Peter i s no more humar. than Andrew, J o h n , or James"). He
rspeacs t h e a r g u m e n c in h i s A-aains? Eunornius I , 1 7 2 f f . ; I , 180 f f . , e m p h a s r i n g i h a ~there a r e n o i e g r e e s o f substance in God:
if m e b e l i e v e s ~ h a cthe t h r e e p e r s c n s to a c c e p t that none of t h e m i s the ocher rwo.
mGre
ir?
d i - n n e , then a s has
d i v i n e , o r less d i v i n e , t h a n
Yet, let m e r a u r n to Ad Petrum.
G r e g o r y t h e n p r o p o s e s :o i n v e s t i g a t e o n l y t h o s e p r o p e r t i e s
(istaCov~aor yvdptopa~ahroo-iaorws) b y w h i c h t h e n o t i o n (ivvota) o f
?.
' - A d Petrum 3.38-46 and 4. 4 5 - 4 6 . ..
'-See Chapter
Twc for a discussion of t h i s A r i s t o t e l i a n
i n f l u e n c e o n Gregory of N y s s a .
e a c h p e r s o n o f the Trinity is conspicuously and sharply marked
The i n v e s t i g a t i o n begins i n che realm
off from what is commcn. of divine economy, :hat
is, God's r e l a c i c n
LO
b e more specific, God's relation to humans.
~ h w e o r l d , or, t o
He quoces 1 Car
1i:ll: "All c h e s s [gifts] a r e activared by o n e and rhe same Spirit, who a l l o t s chooses."
LO
each s n s individually ; u s t a s the Spirit
Gregory parapnrases
chis
verse: "Every good thing c h a t
corncs t o u s f r o m che p o w e r d i v i n e we s a y i s the
g r a c e which w o r k s a l l chings i n a l l . Ccr
It
working of the
G r e g o r y ' s selection o f 1
.
12:11 i s h i g h l y a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e argument he is a b o w
LO
make, because t h e w h o l e o f c h a p t e r 12 in 1 Corinthians deals w i t h the spiritual g i f c s humans receive f r o m the Holy Spiric a n d the way i n which e a c h human h a s
common good of t h e C h r &
cf :hese gifts f o r
L O make u s e
x n x h 1 s :he
3cdy s f C h r i s t .
he
T h i s -;cry
chapter p r e s e n t s not only t h e relations tstablished among humans in t h e Church (the image of members sf c h e same body i s used), but a l s o the r e l a i x o n s becwsen humans and God (the spiritual g i f t s a l l come from God).
T h e s p i r i t u a l gifts P a u l refers t o in
this c h a p t e r a r e t h e following: utterance o f wisdom, utterance of knowledge, faith, healing, w c r k i n g sf miracles, d i s c e r n r n e n c o f s p i r i t s , v a r i o u s kinds o f t o n g u e s , interpretation of t o n g u e s .
Ail o f t h e s e come from the Spirit alone.
Or do t h e y ?
notices an apparent contradiction in S c r i p t u r e : -"Ad
P e t r u m 4. 2-4.
Gregory
If we ask w h e t h e r from ( i ~che ) t i o l y Spirit alone this supply of goods t a k e s its origin a n d comes t o those who a r e worthy, we are again guided by che S c r i p t u r e s t o rhe b e l i e f t h a t t h e Only-begotten God is t h e source and c a u s e of t h e s u p p l y of qoods which are worked in us t h r o u a h ( & a ) t h e Spirit. F o r ws have been ~ a u g nby~ the Holy Scripture chat all things came into bting throuuh ( S t a ) him (cf. J n L 3 ) a n d in h i m hold together (cf. Col i:17) ." Of course, this is no concradicticn, but t h e Scripture's way of t e a c h i n g u s in stages, liftinq up our minds f r s m what is s i m p l e : o comprehend to that w h i c h
is more ccmplex.
This is one of
G r e g o r y ' s mechods of interpreting difficult or apparently contradictory s c r i p m r a l p a s s a g e s .
.:.
-
-
c r s o r r x i h l s divine
pedagogy is i h e fact c h a t , 2 s s c z n a s we ar? lifted up
LO
the
conception t h a t a l l things come i n t o being through c h e Logos, we are a g a i n k d on b y t h e d i v - x e l y - i r i s p i r e d ~ u i d a r ~ cand e t a u q h t chat throush i S ~ d )this p c w e r [i.e., r h e Oclyb e g o t c m ] E L L z h i n g s a r e c r c u q n t I n E c being from n o t - b e i n g ; n o t , k c w e v e r , even f r o m ,€{I :kis power vithout 3 beginning; nay, there is a power x h i s n ? x ~ ~ wt isc h o u ~qeneraticn or beginning, and this is t h e cause o f he causc o f a l l c h i n g s that e x i s t . " ' 7
7
The ultinate c a u s e sf ever1;thicj z b a r exiscs is God i h e F a t h e r .
All that exists, including che Holy Spirit, comes into being from the Father t h r o u g h the Son.
T h e cause o f t h e Spirit's b e i n g
~ b a is ~ ) the Father, assures u s Gregory.
(TO
Indeed, t h e
characteristic n o t e s of the S p i r i t ' s p e r s o n a r e t o b e known after
"Emphasis m i n e , Ad P e t r u m 4 . 6-11. -. -
--Emphasis mice, Ad P e r r u m 4. 11-19. Gregory plays on the two prepositions, "from" ( d ~ )and "through" (bid).
t h s Son and w i t h t h e Son, a n d rro proceed ( i ~ ~ o p ~ ~ from e t v )t h e F a t h e r , t h a t i s , t o have his subsistence !il&.cr~ava~! from t h e
Father?
From t h e Spirit ~ h ee n t i r e s u p p i y cf goods g u s h e s
f o r t h t o c r e a t i o n a l t h o u g h t h e other ~ w od i v i n e p e r s c n s a r e t h e
s u p p l y o f goods as well. G r s g o r y chen s h i f t s h i s f o c s s t o t h e S o n and t h e F a r h e r ,
He
a l r e a d y s a i d something s b o u r the Son e a r l i c , namely t h a ~all t h i n g s come i n c o b e i n g t h r o u g h h i m and i n h i m a r e h e l d t o g e t h e r . He
now s p e a k s a b o u t t h e Son's own w a y of b e i n g .
Thus,
i n accord
with t h e Bible a n d t h e Nicaenum, i i e S c n shines forth a s only uniquely generated"
f r c m t h e u r i g e n e r a t m liqhr.
he
T h i s is
the Son's own characteriscis n a r k t h x d i s t i n g u i s h e s h i m from both r h e F a t h e r and i h Y ~ o l y Spiric: :he
of t h e three.
Scn i s ~ h oe n l y b e g o t t e n
Unlike ~ h Son 2 2 n d the S p i r i ~ ,c h e F a t h e r i s t h e
" u n g e n e r a t e d light"'" and " h a s the s u b s i s t e n c e from n o o t h e r cause.
u: '
Each of :he
t h r e e m a r k s ( u n g e n e r a ~ e d , D e g o t w n and
p r o c e e d i n g forth! best characterizes x e divine p e r s o n and o n l y
one. Karl Holl notes t h a t , unlike B a s i l , G r e g o r y o f Nyssa does n o t use t h e t e r m s " f a t h e r h o e d "
! r a ~ p b - ; q ~ and ) "sonship"
( v i o q ~ )io
express the peculiarities
persons. "
( ~ ~ L O ~ T Eof S ) the
first two divine
Instead, Gregory prefers ayel)vqoiu. y€vvrpis and
€KTTO~EVOL~ -.
for r h e Father, c h e Son, and the Holy Spirit respectively.'Gregory also uses a biblical
t e r n s u c h as p o ~ o y h v f i f~o r t h e Sor!
in
order LO emphasize against the Macedonians that che Son is the
The l a t c e r ridiculed the orthodox by saying that
only-begotten.
t h e Son and c h e S p i r i c wer? b m t h e r s z r z k a r rhe Spirit was ihe
grandson of the Father. peculiarities
Consequently, in respect to .-he
( ~ & L ~ ) ~ T E of s ; 'cn2 divine
perssns,
Grsgory abandons
philosophical speculation and adheres :o biblical revelaiion.
If one adds
LC
each divine p e r s o r . ~ i ~ a ~ o xoct h~ei r~ )
propercies, besides the ones chat uniquely aharacterize each of ihem, one describes each divine p e r s a r i a s propercies.
3
nniaze collection - f
F c r example, - - c h e C a c h e r czr. be d e s c r i b e d as,
and
is, a u n i q u e collection of the f o l l a w i n g : proceeding from no
ocher cause, that is being x-qenerated, 2r.d k i n g Father.
The
Son is a collection of t h e fdlowing: " c h r c u g h himself and wich
himself makes known the Spirit who proceeds from the Facher," shines forth as the unique Only-begotten from the Father; all
" - K a r l Ficll, L ~ ~ h i 1 o c h i u .vso n Ikonium in seinem Verhaltnis zu den orohen Kapsadoziern (Tubingen: J. C. 8. Mohr, N O 4 ) , 211.
-. "Tf. also Gregory of Nyssa, Ad Graecos (ex cornmunibus notionibus} 25, 5 - 6 . --
"-These examples a r s caken from Ad also Drecd1, Entwickluno, 3 1 3 .
?errurn
4. 1 9 - 3 7 .
See
t h i n g s ( i n c l u d i n g t h e H o l y S p i r i t ) come i n t o e x i s t e n c e from c n e F a ~ h e rt h r o u g h che S o n .
The Spirit in t u r n car! be d e s c r i b e d a s a
u n i q u e c o l l e c t i o n s f c h e f s l l o w i n g properries: h a s h i s b e i n g from
the F a t h e r , that i s , p r o c e e d s frcrrn ~ h Fe a t h e r , a n d h e i s known after t h e Son and w i t h the S o n .
G r e g o r y seems ro i m p l y h e r e t h a t
he u n i q u e c o l l e c t i o n o f p r o p e r r i e s i s b o t h c h a t b y which t h e
p e r s o n is m o w n o r ~ d e n t ~ f l ea n d d c h a t by w h i c h r h e p e r s o n i s c o n s t i t u t e d a s disiinc~. M o r e o v e r , t o t h e common n a c u r ? i s s i m i l a r
i n d i v i d u a l and c h e u n i v e r s a l
LO
che r e l a t l o n of these persons t h e relation b e t w e e n t h e
r h d r j a r z i c x l a r a n d che x m m o n i .
.. . . . . T h u s , b i b l i c a l data, z s ws-A 3 s p n i - z s c c c : ~ ; l
z z c s e p r s cf
i n d i v i d u a l s a n a l y z e d i n Chapter Two, are p r e s e n c i n G r e g o r y ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e d i v i n e p e r s o n s .
The q u ~ s i i o r iz r i s i n p new is, " W x c a u s e s 1 5 . t F a r h e r , 3cn a n d kloly S p i r i t properties'?"
LO
b e divine p e r s o n s a n d n o t mere ' a o l l t c t i o n s of
The answer t o t h i s q u e s t i o n is d i f f i c u l t ,
e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e o n e c z n n c c s p e a k s f t h e soul i n c h e c a s e o f r h e d i v i n e p e r s c n s , a s I did in C h a p c e r Two vhcn i e a l i n g with t h i s
i s s u e i n t h e human c a s e .
Yec, I t h i n k Gregory was a w a r e o f t h i s
complex issue and t r i e d t o a d d r e s s i t .
Having said t h a t t h e d i v i ~ en a t u r e i s common a n d that t h e t h r e e divine p e r s o n s have individual c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , G r e g o r y
g i v e s t h e i m p r e s s i o n of r e t u r n i n g t o c o n s i d e r t h e d i v i n e n a t u r e
i n more d e t a i i , b u t h e a b r u p t l y c h a n g e s the s u b j e c t and s p e a k s o f
the p e r s o n s .
T h e text reads:
[Rlegardinq a t t r i b u t e s denoted b y t h e terms i n f i n i t e , i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e , u n c r e a t e d , u n c i r c u m s c r i b e d b y spacs, a n d a 1 1 o t h e r s o f t h e s a m e o r d e r , r h e r ? i s n o v a r i a t i ~ ni n t h e l i f e - g i v i n q n a t u r e - - 1 s p e a k ~f the F a t h e r , he Son a n d r h e Holy S p i r i t - - b u t a c e r c a i a c o n t i n u o u s a n d ~ninc?rrupted ccmmunion i s o b s e r v e d i n them ;:wa c n v q j ~ a ui6 ~ a o a a o ~~ouuwial~ o~) €1)
a u ~ o i)
.
'
T h a t G r e g o r y i n t e n d s c o s p e a k o f a "communion" o f p e r s o n s here and n o t o f a "commu~..ity" sf subsrazce is f i r s r ; indicaied b y t h e referents t 3 cne rhree p e r s o n s and n o t rro the common n a t u r e .
S e c o n d , after h e h a s s a i d t h a r r h e r e i s no d i f f e r e n c e i n r e g a r d t o t h e common attributes describing ~ t e n a t u r e , i~ does n o t
f o l l o w c h a t h 2 c o a l d add in t k sams s z n c e n s ? r h a r ;here
i s "2
c e r t a i n communion1' ( e m p h a s i s added), because i t w m l d msan t h a t
a c c u a l l y irhere i s a d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e common n a t u r e .
Third, i f
G r e g o r y i n t e n d e d r o r e f e r ta t h e c m r L a n raiurs, m e n t h e r e s h c u l c i have been
3
n m e r x z l a c c c r i c s cL ,.q ~ e y . " n a t ~ r ? " a nour.
s i n g u l a r ) a n d its o b j e c t .
IR ~
h s
I n t h i s c a s e , che cext shculd h a v e
r e a d : " t h c r e i s no v a r i a t i o n i n c h e l i f e - g i v i n g n a t u r e , b u t a
c e r t a i n c o n t i n u o u s and u n i n t e r r u p w d communion i s o b s e r v e d i n i t . " 3ut o u r -
them."
t e x t a c t u a l l y reads:
"
.,.
communion is observ2d in
C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e second part of the s e n t e n c e s h o u l d
r e f e r t o the p e r s o n s and t h 2 i r communion r a t h e r t h a n t o t h e nature.
Another argument in favor of Gregory's discussing the --
-Ad P e t r u r n 4. 4 5 - 5 0 .
c o r m u n i o n o f divine p 2 r s o r L s i s tc b f found in the use o f the t e r n ~otvwvia i t s e l f .
I n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r w o r k , Gregory uses two c e r m s
t o express the idea o f something c h a t i s common:
~otvwvia. Yet, w h e r e a s the forrier
term
s u b s t a n c e o r n a c u r s ( s e e 2.7,13; 3 . 9 ;
K O L V O ~ Sand
is used in reference to
4.39,86;
5.48,62), the
l a t t e r is used in r e f e r e n c e to t h e divine p e r s o n s (see 2.15; 4.33,49,84
.
"cornmunit y ,
'I
T h e r e f o r e , 1 p r o p o s e c o r e n d e r ~ o t v 6 q sb y a n d ~ o w w i ab y "zommi;nio.n.. "
The y s s s a g e j u s t qucced
a b o v e e n v i s a g e s the "communion o f ersons. " G r e g o r y then describes c h e strong r e l x i o n s and what would
be called later t h e o e r i c i o r e s i s s u i s r i n g among persons.
he divine
He s a y s t h a t , b y c o n t e m p l a t i n g t h e n a j e s t y o f a n y one
o f t h e t r i n i t a r i a n p e r s o n s , one a r r i v e s i n v a r i a b l y a t the other
two e r s o n s , since " t h e r e i s no i ~ t t r v a l ( r ) i 1 d € ~&taAc\ELppa~~) i between F a ~ h c ra n d Son and 2zly S p i r l ;
a void.""'
Although d i s t i n c t ,
separated from each other.
in x .r x n. c h f c h o q h ~will w a l k in t h e d i v i n e persons a r e n o t
M o r e o v e r , i h e y i m p l y o n e another: i f
one b e l i e v e s in any cne sf them, s n e has to accept and confess the other two also.
He
uses the image of a c h a i n : one who grasps
c n e end o f a c h a i n p u l l s a l o n g with i t t h e other e n d a l s o t o
oneself. Gregory wants to make his arguments s o u ~ das b i b l i c a l as possible; therefore, he even qGoies Scm 8: 9 a n d P s 119: 131:
S i n c e -,he Spirit i s of C h r i s t a n d f r o m God [ c h f ath her]" ( R c m 8 : 4) . . . he who d r a w s t h e S p i r i r , a s t h e p r o p h e t says," t h r o u g h t h e S p i r i t draws b o t h t h s Son and the F a t h e r a l o n g with i t . And i f you t r u l y l a y hold of t h e Son, you w i l l h o l d h i m o n two s i d e s , on the o n e w h e r e h e draws his F a t h e r t~ h i m s e l f , a n d e n the o t h e r w h e r e he d r a w s his cwn S p i r i c . . . . In l i k e manner he who a c c e p t s t h e F a t h e r v i r t u a l l y accepcs 3 1 x q w i t h h i m ihe Son and t h e S p i r i t a l s o . (Ad ? ? t n r n 4.63-501
Yet, p e r h a p s t h e most Fmpcrtant expression o f G r q o r y ' s t e a c h i n g
about the d i v i n e r e l a t i o n s and communion i n Ad P e c r u m i s to be found i n t h o fcllowing: [ T l h e r e i s a p p r e h e n d e d among r h e s e t h r e e a c e r t a i n i n e f f a b l e and i n c o n c e i v a b l e communion ( ~ o i r ~ w v i aand ) a t t h e same time d i s t i n c t i o n ( & L ~ K ~ L O L I ;with ), neizher he dif f t r e n c e b e c w ~ e n their p e r s o n s !i~aooxioewv) disinteqracinq c h e concinuicy 0 5 t h e i r n a c u r e , n o r chis z o m m u n i ~ yof u b s ~ a r . c e ~ K ~ T;ili)ocaia~j U . . KOLL~~)TT(TOS) c o n f o u n d i n g ~ 5 2i n d i n d u a l 5aracter o f t h e i r distinguishing notes .... [Wje d e v i s e a strange a n d p a r a d o x i c a l sort o f m i r e d s e p a r a t i o n and s e p a r a t e d union. (Ad Petrum 4.83-91)
is exactly by chis " c o m u n i s n " among the d i v i n e p e r s o n s t h a t Gregory manages t o show t h a t t h e F a t h e r , Son a n d 3cly S p i r i t a r e n o t mere i n d i v i d u a l " c o l l e c t i o n s of p r o p e r t i e s , " b u t d i v i n e
persons.
In o c h e r w o r d s , in a d d i t i o r . c;
a l r e a d y mentioned,
t h e c t h e r properties
it i s cne communion among t h e s e p e r s o n s t h a t
reek: T O ~ )Xpimoi! ~ O T 70 L n~p~ilya. ~ a EKi xi'&oil. c l e a r l y non-filioquist n u a n c e .
Note t h e
avcSpa. a OTL as "PS 11 8 :I3 3 LXX 1 : TO mopa pou j v o ~ e a~ a~i i X ~ u o ~ v ~ o ~ ~ \ d ~ ~ o ~ ~ r r c119:131). r r o ~ o ~ ~ vD(ePf es r r a r i s a y s t h a t Gregory p e r h a p s i n t e n t i o n a l l y m i s i n t e r p r e t s " I drew b r e a t h " f r o m P s . 1 1 9
(p. 211).
makes t h e m p e r s o n s .
T h e d y n a m i c s cf communion i s e x p r e s s e d n o t
o n l y i n r e l a t i o n s o f o r i g i n among the d i v i n e p e r s o n s , but a l s c i n t h e i r l o v e f o r e a c h other, perfect k n o w l e d g e o f e a c h other,
p e r f e c t a c c o r d of w i l l ,
a n d all o r h e r p e r i c h o r e t i c a c t i v i t i e s .
Since i n A d P2trum t h e r e i s no comprehensive r r e a r r n e n t of divine relationality,
I s h a l i pursue c h i s copic i n Chapter Five.
d - i ~ l ed y n a m i c s o f i n c e r - p e r s o n a i
The
cornmumon w i l l become e v i d e n t a t
~ h c p t oint.
Conclusions
H a v i n g p r e s e n t e d a n d a n a l y z c d C r e g o r y o f X y s s a ' s Ad Pecrum fratrern d e d i f f e r e n t i a u s i a e e t h v ~ o s c a s e o s , I c o n c l u d e t h a t t h i s c r e a t i s e p o i n t s c o some factors t h a t a r e essential f o r c h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g af th? c o n c t p t s f d i v i n e p e r s o n s :
I\the r e l a t i c n
sf t h e d i v i n e p e r s o n s to t h e d i v i n e o u s i a i s s i m i l a r tc :he
r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e i n d i v i d u a l and t h e u n i v e r s a l ;
2 ) a divine
person is understood a s a u n i q u e c o l l e c t i o n of p r o p e r t i e s , 3 ) the d i v i n e p e r s o n s a r e r e l a t i o n a l e n ~ i t i e s ,4 ) t h e m a i n d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e divine p e r s o n s a r e t h a t t h e F a t h e r i s unjenerated, the
Son is t h e Only-begottsn from the Father, and t h e Holy S p i r i t p r o c e e d s f o r t h f r o m t h e F a t h e r , a n d 5 ) t h e d i v i n e p e r s o n s are i n
a p e r m a n e n t and perfect communion w i t h o n e a n o t h e r and t h i s l a s t f a c c o r makes them be l i v i n g p e r s o n s , ncc m e r e l y u n i q u e
collections of p r o p e r t i e s . I should a l s o add that, in c o n r r a s t to a widespread,
misinformed o p i n i o n of cne ~ w e ~ t i e tche n t u r y , the
Cappadocians d i d not state a p r i o r i t y o f the p e r s o n s o v e r t h e
substance, b u t kept the two m q e c h e r in w ~ r s h i p i n gSod a s F a r h e r , Son and H o l y Spirit, a s in aasil's
&.
235,5.
THE LESSER TRINITARIAN TREATISES 11: TO EUSTATHIUS. ON THE HOLY TRINITY, TO ABLABIUS. ON NOT THREE GODS AND TO THE GREEKS. BASED ON THE COMMON NOTIONS
In this c h a p t 3 r I c o n t i n u e t h e search for a concept of divine persons in Gregory's l e s s 2 r crinicarian ireacises.
I consider
the t h r e e rreatises mentioned in ths c h a p t e r cicle b e c a u s e of
Fcr txampl?, one such
some simiiar arguments p r 3 s e n c in them.
argument is Gregory's c o n t m t i c n c h a t t h e d i v i m n a t u r e i s one .
.
b e c a u s e each d i v i n e 3ct:vxy
divine p e r s o n s .
i s o n e , o m n g c o m o n to all ~ h r e e 9
.
is ~ ? . esllegsd
Anocher p r 3 v a l m t i r q x r n e . :
etymological derivation of "God" ( 0 ~ 0 sand ) "Godheadr' (&(j~qs) from the verb " t c behold"
( 8 c u o p u ~ : ir? he s e n s e of p r v i d e n t i a l
~ v s r s i g h ; ; aecor5i-qly,
llSc,j"2zd t ' C c. ~ h ~
d i v i n s activity o f o v e r s i j n t ,
r i o t i h divine ~
' I J G U ~ ~ ~ X ~ T ? ihrt S S
nature.
Modern
s c h o l a r s have f o u n d such a r g u m e n t s unconvincing, b u t Gregory was c o n f i d e n t i h a t , b y t h e i r use, he c c u l d p r o v e rationally chat the
divine nature is o n e .
I commence t h e a n a l y s i s of each t r e a t i s e by considerations of the treatise's Sitz-im-Leben, mentioning t h e date and what p o s s i b l y prompted Gregory to write them.
Then I look f o r v a r i o u s
elements relevant f o r the concept of divine persons.
In the case
of t h e last treatise, I a l s o a t t e m p t t o t r a c e some of Gregory's
p h i l o s o p h i c a l explanations.
1. To Eustathius. On t h e Holv T r i n i c v
T h e t r e a t i s e To E u s t a r h i u s . On t h e H c l v T r i n i r v ( A d E u s c a r .
h e r e a f t e r ) - a t c r i b u r e d t o Basil sf t-aasarea b y some m a n u s c r i p t s , has been j u s c i y r e s t o r e d t o G r e g o r y
GNO 3 . 1 ,
F. M u l l e r .
of Nyssa b y i ~ esd i c o r i n the
G e r h a r d May d a c e d t h i s t r e a t i s e t o s h o r t l y
b e f o r e t h e C o u n c i l o f C o n s m n c i n o p l e of 381.
-
DaniGlou i r ; i c i a l l y
d a t e d Ad Eustat. LO 389, b e c a u s e h e surmizcd c h a t a p a s s a g e on
Balaain ( 9 , 18-13) was inspired b y G r e g o r y ' s L i f e of ."loses, a l a c e
work u s u a l l y dated to 3 8 9 - 3 3 3 s r L a c 5 r . '
B u t s e v e r a l y e a r s later
h e c h a n g e d h i s m i n d a n d p r o p o s e d t h e y w r 3 7 5 for c h e c o m p o s i t i o n
o f t h i s s m a l l treatise.'
I n the i a c t e r case DaniPLou c h o u g h t
"
3
-References z z t h 2 G r e e k wst WE, ce :G Ad E u s ~ a t h i u r nde s a n c t a T r i n i t a t 2 i n Greoorii N v s s e n i Opera, 7 ~ u L3 , p a r t 1, 2 d . F r i e d r i c h MUller (Leiden: Brill, 19581, 1-16. I consulted Gregory of Nyssa, On the Hclv T r i n i t v , and of t h e Godhead of t h e H o l v S ~ i r i t . T o E u s c a c h i u s , t r . H . A . Wilsor: ir! MPNF, 2d s e r i e s , v o l . 5 ( N e w Y o r k : T h e Christian i- i .c e r a c u r e Ccrnpany, 18931, 3 2 6 3 3 0 ; however, s i n c e the l a t c s r p x d a t e s the critical edition prepared by Muller, 1 h a v e n o t relied entirely o n it. 9
-G. May, "Die Chronologie," 57 f. T h e same p o s i t i o n i s held by R. P. C. Hanson, The Search f o r the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversv 318-381 (Edinburgh: T & T C l a r k , 1988),
717.
'J. D a n i e l o u , r e v i e w o f Greaorii Nvsseni Opera doamatica minora I, ed. F . Miiiler, Gnomor. 31 (1959): 615. 'J. Danielou, "Chronologie,
"
162.
that the a d v e r s a r i e s Gregory m e n t i o n e d i n Ad E u s t a t . were p a r t i s a n s o f E u s t a t h i u s o f Sebasce who arcacked B a s i l , Gregory and
Meletius i n 3 ? 5 and a g a m s t whom B a s i l wrote Gz S o i r i ~ \ ~
Sancto.
May c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e a d v e r s a r i e s were i n d e e d
s u p p o r t e r s o f E u s t a t h i u s ef S e b a s t e , b u c chat
Gregory d u r i n g h i s stay I n % b a s t 2
ir. 3 6 0 .
hey a t r a c k e d
S u s : a ~ h i x s was
himseif d e a d b y 3 6 0 , and Gregory's b r o c h e r Peter was c h e bishop
of Sebaste at that time.'
Based on internal e v i d e n c e -- Gregory
strives LO d e f e n d the d i v i n i ~ yof rh? k b l y Spirit -- m e can e a s i l y i n f e r c h a t c h i s treacise was mcsc l i k e l y written before
the Council of Constantino@e
of 381,
aL w h i c h chs s t a t u s
of the
Holy S p i r i t was c l a r i f i e d . Addressed c o a p h y s i c i a n E u s ~ a t k i a s , r h i s treatise deals
with two c h a r g e s b r o u g h t against G r e g o r y of N y s s a : 1) he
distinguishes the hypostases (70 6 t a ~ p ~ TU.; i v h a ~ a o e ~ sw )h m t a l k i n g a b o u t God, y e t 2 ) he d o e s n o t employ a n y 3 f t h e names that a r e w o r t h y cf God i n t h e p l u r a l number, b u t s p s a k s "of t h e goodness as one, and of the power, a n d of the godhead, and a11 such names
in t h e singular. "' Gregory dismisses quite r e a d i l y t h e f i r s t accusation, since t h o s e who formulate it "hold the d o c t r i n e of t h e diversity of substances ( i x p o q r a ~ & v o u o ~ l j vin ) the divine
'Hanson, Search, 716 f. "Ad E u s t a t .
6 , 11; cf. a l s o 5,
134
18.
"For i t i s n o t c o be s u p p o s e d t h a c those u h o s a y ~
nature. "-
h
t h e r e are three s u b s ~ a n c e sdo not a l s o s a y chat t h e r e a r e three
hypostases
( T ~ E ~ bS a
o o ~ d m ~" -~ ) .I t r a n s l i c e r a t e d the
word briomao~.;,
b e c a u s e in this case G r e g o r y ' s a c c u s e r s seem t o u s e i t a s a synonym of oiuia. One can. c o n c l u d e t h a c G r e g o r y ' s a c c u s e r s a r e on t h e m e hand N e o - A r i a n s ,
who d e n y c h a t rhe S o n i s o f -he same
d i v i n e suDstance (opoova~os)w i t h t h e F a t h e r , and on .-heother
hand Macedonians, w h o deny t h a t che H o l y Spiric is of he s a m e s u b s t a n c e w i t h che F a t h e r . .-
Gregory d e f e n d s h i i n s e - r a g a i n s :
r h e s s s m d accusaticn, b y
s h o w i n g that i t i s n o t biblical t o u s e i n t h e p l u r a l names
Tht riame "God" indicates
r e f e r r i n g t o G o d ' s u n i q u e substance. t h e subscancs;
plural.
t h e r e f o r e i t c a n n o t be p r o p e r l y u s d in the
T h o s e who do use s u c h n a m e s i n t h e p l u r a l a r e
polytheists.
Moreover, t o r e f u i e the s e c o n d a c c u s a t i o n , N y s s e n
u s e s a n argument ~ h a cis present in
-
1
ill
t k t e
crearises I a n a l y z e
i n t h i s z h a p t 2 r : divin? 5 a n r e i s on? because 2 a c h d i v i n e
a c t i v i t y a d e x t r a i s c o m m o n t o a l l irhe p e r s o n s .
I shail deal
w i t h t h e l o g i c o f t h i s srgurnenc l a t e r when a n a l y z i n g Ad Ablabium. At this point,
I c o n f i n e myself t o n n d e r s t a n d i n g a d i v i n e p e r s o n
b y e x a m i n i n g t h e meanings of t h e Greek words used t o d e n o t e i t .
Ad Eustat. 6 , 11-13. 3.d E u s t a t
.
6,
1 4 - 1 5 : oil yap
~ a rpeis i n a v m s imoo~aoe~s Mye~v.
E ~ K O Sion T O L ~T P E ~ SM Y O V T ~oCuias S
a
~
In Ad E u s i r a t . Gregory uses t h e term h r o a ~ a as ~i x~ rimes. The t e r m o c c u r s four times i n t h e p l u r a l t h o o r a o e ~ ~ )with , referent? t o the t h r e e divine p e r s c n s :Ad Euscat. 5, 1 3 ; 6 , 8; 5 , 12; 6 ,
15); it can be t r a n s l a t e d a s " p e r s o n " i n two o f rhe c a s e s , s h o u l d be transliierated a s " h y p o s t a s i s "
DUE
it
[and u n d e r s t o o d as a
s y n o n y m o f o i u i a ) i n ihe cwo o c h e r cases f o r the r e a s o n s I have lndlcated a b o v e .
T h e n i l a o o ~ a c roccurs ~~ twice i n r e f e r e n c e to God
he F a t h e r a l o n e ( 1 3 , 1 3 and 1 5 ) .
The c o n t e x t for t h e l a t t e r t w c
o c c u r r e n c e s i s irnporcanc f o r m y analysis: F o r s i n c e i t i s said "the a n q e l s see ;he face ( r l i i r p 6 o w r r o ~ q o f my Father in h e a v e n " ! M t 18:lO), and i t i s n o t ~ossible t o see the p e r s o n ( ~ o a p d o w ~ r o vof ) che Father otherwise c h a n by f i x i n g the s i g h t upon ir: c h r s u q h h i s imprint ( ~ a p a ~ ~ f p ; ; a n d c h c i n p r i m o f :be p e r s o r , sf z h ? Faci..er i,i16€ ~ a p a ~ f i p q ~ ~ o i ~ ; r a r p c j ~ i ~ ~ ~ oLoS ; ut hoe~ ~ _ 7~~). 1 y - 5-jLe - c ~ + n , Heb 1 : 3 : , and LJ h i m n o a n e can draw x a r whcse 3ind h a s cct been i l l u m i n e d b y ihe Holy Spirit. N h a t ?is? is shown from chis but that the Holy S p i r i t i s n o t separated f r o m a n y activity ( e v i p y ~ ~ u ) which is w r o u g h t by the F a r h e r ? ' T h u s t h e i d e n t i t y o f activity in F a t h e r , Son a n d Holy S p i r i t s h o w s p l a i n l y c h e u n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e chzrascer cf t h e i r natur?. G r e g o r y u e s i~mjcrao~.;here inierchangeably w i i h rrptiowmw to refer
'io the same r e a l i t y : the " p e r s o n " of God t h e F a t h e r .
T o d o sc,
h e p l a y s o n t h e meanings of apdowrrov as b o t h " f a c e " and " p e r s o n , " combining them t o
support
h i s argument.
Ai che same r ime,
' ~ i v eout o f n i n e m a n u s c r i p t s u s e d to establish the critical t e x t read "wrought b y t h e F a t h e r a n d the Son" (Ad Eustat. 13, 18-13). The editor, F. M i i l l e r , r e g a r d s this a s a n interpolation d u e t o dogmatic r e a s o n s . He may be wrong at this point.
" ~ dEustat. 13, 11-21.
Cf. N P N F 2 . 5 : 3 2 9 .
speculates on t h e famous text Heb 1:3, interpreting baomaois i n ..
t h i s t e x t in the sense of " p e r s m ." - - A similar stratsgy used to
advance h i s a r g u m e n c i a n be found i n A d Petrum 9 , a s 1 show in
Chapter Three-
In his works w r i t t e n a f t e r 365, B a s i l o f Caesarea
no longer allowed for t h e use o f lipoowrrov ar.d i r r 6 a ~ a o ia~s synonymous, b e c a u s e i n his view ripoawrrov was compromised b y Sabeiiius wnen m e l a r t s r used i~ w i ~ hr h e meaning o f "mask."
As
s e e n here, Gregory of N y s s a dces n o r s n a r e in h i s brother's oarti p r i s , b u t continues t c u s e the cuo terms interchangeably.
2 . To Ablabium, On N o t T h r e e Gods
As for the dates of To A b l a b i ~ m ,On Nor T h r s e
Gods
(Ad Ablzbium
h e r e a f t e r ) '- a n d To the G r e e k s , Based on the Common Nocions (Ad
Graecos hereafter) Yay a g r c e s with G a n i e l o u in placing chem - . -
coward the end of Z n q s r y 2 5 Yyssds XI?.
.. --See
May r e j e c i s the
also Basil, 2, 3, 5 ( 6 6 1 a ) and my "Prosdoon a n d Hypostasis in Basil of Caesarea's Aaainst E u n o r n i ~ s and the Epistles," Viqiliae Christians? 51, no. 4 (1997): 384-85 for an explanation of the reasons for the deliberate Cappadocian misinterpretation of the meaning of iltromao~sin Heb 1 : 3 . . - - R e l e r e n c e s t o t h e Greek text will be to Ad Ablabium Ouod non sint tres d e i in Greaorii Nysseni Ooera, vol. 3 , part 1, ed. F r i e d r i c h Muller ( L e i d e n : Brill, 1 9 5 8 ) , 35-58. I consulted the G r e g o r y of Nyssa, On " N o t Three Gods To Eustathius, tr. H. A. Wilson in NPNF, 2d series, vol. 5 (New Ycrk: The Christian Literature Company, 1893), 331-336; yerr, since the iatter predates the critical edition prepared by Muller, I did not rely entirely on it. +
.I1
proposal for the year 381 voiced by some scholars. He argues that t h e s e trsatises m a k e nc rnencicn of c h e iaportan~dispu~escaking
place t h a ~very year.
These i r e a z i s e s remind Y a y of G r e g o r y cf .,
Nazianzus' &. 202, written i n 387:'
D a n i e l o u dates A d A b l a b i u m
and Ad Graecos to about 388. In his opinion, " c h e y correspond
LO
a period when Gregory is inwrested less in dogmatic controversies and more in spirituality and when he surely approaches them [these dogmatic c o n t r o v e r s i e s ) by requesc frcm his friends and in a rapid mznner. " : : b e right
in dating Ad A b l a b i u n
XI
and
Daniklou may
a r o u n d 3 8 7 - 3 8 , espcially
since in A d Ablabiurn 3 7 , 8 t h e r e is
age.
3 c c k ?la!;
2
reference LO Gregory's old
Their o p i n i o n has recently b e e n confirmed by Stead.:'
In this treacise Ablabius, a frisnd who does noc know how to unders~andc h e formuia " o m substance, ~ h r e ehypostases," confronts Gregory with two equaliy sxtreme alternatives: either
say "ihree gcds" x speak sf cne Cod, t s z l o d i n g t h e Son and ihe Spirit f r c m i h e divinity.
Th? former a l c e r n a c l v ? is Tritheisn,
whereas the latter is mtrerne Arianism a n d Macedonianisrn. Ablabius asks: If we can speak of Peter, James, a n d J o h n as c h r e e
.
.
-'G.
May, " C h r o n o l o g i e , " 58 f.
.
Danielou, review of GMO 3/1 i n Gnomon 3 1 ( 1 9 5 9 ) : 5 1 5
" G . Christopher Stead, "Why Not Three Gods? The L o g i c of Gregory of Nyssa's Trinitarian Doctrine," in Studien zu Greoor von Nvssa und der christiichen Spatantike, eds. Hubertus R. Drobner and Christoph Klock (Leiden: 51511, 1990), 150.
humans a l t h o u g h t h e y are o n e i n n a t u r e , why n o t s p s a k o f t h r e e gods also?
I n o c h e r words, i f i t is logical to refer t o humans, b y t h e p l u r a l number o f th2 came d e r i v e d
who a r e more izhan c n ? ,
from their n a t u r e , why t h e n i s t h i s a b s u r d i n che d i v i n e c a s e ? To begin w i t h , G r e g o r y replies i z h a ~ L O speak sf "many humans" ~ T I O MU LO@~~ W T O L ; is a xszomar:,p
abcss sf l m g u a g e , sir,ce x e
a o nor c a l i somebody b y rhe name o f his n a c u r e , but b y t h a t w h i c h s i g n i f i e s t h e particular s u b j e c t (urrou~ipcvov).
I n d o i n g s o , we
t r y t o a v o i d t h e c o n f u s i o n c h a t may r e s ~ l cf r o m trn? ~ K O L V ~ ~a fS ) t h . 2
came,
"as
ic wcclii hsppen :r. -
cornunity
e v e r y one
of chcse
who h e a r i t were io c h i n k c h a t h e h i m s e l f was cne p e r s o n addresssd.
"Human n a c u r e "
( d v 0 p L m ~ q d i m g )i s common t o all
human i n d i v i d u a l s a n d che word "human"
nature.
C o n s q u e n t ly, : c
! a d p w r r o ~ ! signifies iiiis
s a y "aar!y h..umansM is r o u g h l l ;
tantamount
t o s p e a k i n g of "many human n a t u r e s " w h i z h i s errcneous: T h e r e f o r e , G r e g o r y p r o p c s e s c h a t w e correct our w r o n e o u s habit o f c a l l i n g "many" what is actually one.
This c o r r e c t i o n would
h e l p u s t o a v o i d m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g the d i v i n e nature w h i c h i s o n e
a n d s h o u l d be r e f e r r e d t o a s s u c h .
He means c h a t f r o m a l o g i c a i
p o i n t o f v i e w w e c a n n o t z e f e r to a n i n d i v i d u a l b y
he name o f i t s
species or t o a s p e c i e s b y t h e name o f i t s g e n u s .
We nave to
q u a l i f y them somehow.
-'Ad A b l a b i u m 4 0 ,
When referring t o a human i n d i v i d u a l ,
10-14.
.-
- A d A b l a b i u r n 40, 5 ff. 139
A r i s t o t l e h i m s e l f s a y s "this human" or "a c e r t a i r ! human"
is
avOpwrro~, C a t . 2 a 1 5 ) , not simply " h u m a n , " a n d Gregory s a y s " s u c h a n d s u c h human"
( ~ o t o a av8pwrro~, k A d S r a a c o s 23-30 3
.
Nevertheless, Gregory h a s t o r e c o g n i z e that cornmon l a n g u a g e
emplsys the p h r a s e "many h u m a n s " a n d s o does cne S c r i p m r e . H e n c e h e i s constrainsd LO s a y c h a t we can a m u a l l y z o l e r z r e t h i s
n o h a r m r e s u l t s f r o m the m i s t a k e n u s e o f t h e name.
":'
Yet, the
same v a r i a t i o n in t h e u s e cf the term is n o L acceptable in the
case of the divine n a t u r s , -
-.
r l r s c sf ai,, -
1
, the n a o i c 3 f calling 3
"many" t h a t which i s o n e i s d a n g s r o u s i n r e f e r r i n g t o che d i v i n e , because i t contravenes S c r i p t u r e : "Hear, God i s o n e L c r d "
( D e u i 6:4).
Crqcry
0 I s r a e l , t h e Lord your
insisis t h a t Cod is one,
although, Y h e name sf godhead 2 x t e n d s ' h r c u g h
~ i Ye o l y
T r i n i t y . "--
Second, he proposes L O a n a l y z e mcre c l o s 2 l y :he
the word " g o d h e a d " in o r d e r his point.
A
LO
obtai. addirional help i n p r o v i n g
long argument b e g i n n i n g a c 42,
a f f i r m c h a t n o t e v e n the word " g o d h e a d "
.-
-'Ad A b l a b i u m 4 1 ,
.-
-'Ad A b l a b i u r n 42,
m e a n i n g cf
13 attempts t o
(or d i v i n e n a t u r e , tkoqs)
1 8 ff.
1-3.
--
-'This Septuagint text differs quice dramatically from the Hebrew t e x t w h i c h r e a d s : "Hear, 0 I s r a e l , the L o r d i s our Lord, t h e Lord alone. " -.
--AdAblabium 42, 5-6.
is able to fully describe what the d i v i n e n a t u r e i s , b e c a u s e ~ E ~ T T ] Sis the
name o f a n a c t i v i c y ( o r m e r g y , € ~ j i p y t m .')
draws upor! t h e alleged derivation o f
& O ~ Sfrom
Gregory
ihs v e r b Oeuopa~
which means "tc behold" in he s m s e of p r o v i d e n t i a l o v e r s i g h r .
O E O ~ ' ;t h u s r e f e r s t o t h e i ~ ~ i ~ ofi ro vye r s i g h t , a s d o e s Beds itself."
Yec a n y activity o r i e n t e d f r o m God t o
he c r e a t i o n i s
common c o a l i t h r e e d i v i n e p e r s o n s : "every a c c i v i t y which excends from God t o t h e c r e a t i o n , and i s named a c c o r d i n g r o o u r v a r i a b l e
conceptions cf it, h a s its s r i g i n f r o m t h e F a t h e r , a n d p r o c e e d s chrough the Son, and is p s r f e c t e d in he H o l y Spirit.
81
-;
One
example of a c t i v i c y common ~o t h e thrze c i i v i n c p e r s o n s i s "seeing."
God t h e F a t h e r i s s a i d y o s e e :
God" (Ps 8 3 : 10 ir. c h ? LXK;
7
34
I
:Y
\
; :?is
"Behold o u r s h i e l d , 0
Scr. ZISC sees z k hidden
~ h o u g h t so f c h o s e whc c o n d x m him ( M t 9:4j; the Spirit also is
s a i d t o see when Peter s a y s t o Ananias, "Why had S a t a n filled
your heart,
LO
lie ts :he
Holy
Spiriz?" ( A c t s 5 : 3 ) , showing t h a t
t h e Spirit saw A n m i a s ' h i d d e n ihoughcs a n d r e v e a l e d
hem t o
Peter. - U n l i k e d i v i n e n a t u r e , human n a t u r e does not have the same
..
- - L i k e t h e other twc C a p p a d c c i a n s , G r e g o r y refers t o activities a s "that whicn s u r r o u n d s [the s u b s i a n c e ] " ( ~ map i a u q v , Ad Abiabium 43, 14).
-
"See
A d E u s t a t . 14, 6 for a similar remark.
" ~ dAblabium 4 7 , 24-48, 2 ; NPNF 2 . 5 : 3 3 4 . -
*
-'Ad Ablabium 4 4 , 1 7 - 4 6 ,
2.
oneness.
The r e a s o n , a c c o r d i n g t o Nyssen,
human activity i s common L O a l l humans.
i s t h a t no s i n g l e
Even i f s e v e r a l humans
a r e e n g a g e d i n t h e same a s t i v i r r y , t h e y v o r k s e p a r a t e l y each b y himself a t t h e t a s k h e has u n d e r t a k e n .
"For i n s t a n c e , supposing
t h e c a s e o f s e v e r a i o r a t o r s , t h e i r p u r s u i t , b e i n g o n e , h a s the same name in the numerous c a s e s : b u t e a c h ef t h o s s who f o l l o w i c
works b y himself, c h ~ sm e pizading on h i s own a c c o u n t , a n d t h a t on h i s own a c c o u n t .
Ther?fore,
"-"
p r o p e r l y c a l l e d "many.
g n l i k e God, humans a r e
"
The f a c t t h a t every d i v ~ n ea c t i - i ~ y maniftst2d ad extra is common co
he t h r e e d i v i n e p e r s o n s i s a sufficient r e a s o n
in
G r e g o r y ' s v i e w to d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t i h e d i v i n e n a t l l r ? i s o n e i n a way cne.
hat i s a i f f e r e n t from che way in x h i c h
Therefore,
in
he human n a c u r e i s
he d i v i n e c a s e m e should n o r xse che p h r a s e
" t h r e e g o d s f 1 t o r e f ? r t o t h e divine p e r s o n s .
One i s a l l o w e d ,
h c w e v e r , es r e f e r is humans a s " n a n y Ficrnans. "
I believe 1 h a v e p r e s e n ~ e aquiz? e s t z n s i v e i y C r e g c r y l s a r g u m e n t r e g a r d i n g the u n i t y of n a t u r e a n d the " p r o p e r " use o f names d e r i v e d from n a t u r e .
I s h a l l r e t u r n t o some o f t h e s e
a r g u m e n t s l a t e r i n this c h a p t e r w h e n d e a l i n g w i t h A d G r a e c o s , a s Gregory a d d s a d d i t i o n a l e x p l a n a t i o n s there.
A t t h i s point,
however, I s h o u l d s a y , a l o n g w i t h S t e a d , t h a t G r e g o r y ' s e s s a y " O n
Not T h r e e Gods" "resembles a n a c c o m p l i s h e d c o n j u r i n g c r i c k more .
<
-"Ad Ablabium 4 7 ,
14-16.
nearly than a valid t h e o l o g i c a l d e m o n s t r a t i o n . " -
--
The m e s s a g e
G r e g o r y w a n t s t o convoy b y the whole a r g u m e n t , despite t h i s
flawed a n d u l c i r n a t e i y u n c o n v i n c i n g dxrionstration, i s thai u n l i k e i n d i v i d u a l s , substance i s not an e n u m e r a t i v e e n t i t y .
He then
moves o n to show why i n d i v i d u a l s c a n b e e n u m e r a c s d .
2.1 The eoncem of enumeracion of individuals
The p r o b l e m G r e g o r y p r o p o s e s t o s o l v e i n Ad Ablabium i s a c t u a l l y t h e same t r i n i t a r i a n p r o b l e m
sonfrcncing
how c o c o n c e i v e o f God a s ? r s t a c c o r d i n g to s u b s t a n c e .
a l l
ihe C a p p a d o c i a n s :
a z c x d l n ~cc p e r s o n s and
m e
A c o n c e p t he uses in Ad A b l a b i u m to
e n h a n c e t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i s t h a ~o f " e n u m e r a t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l s " :
unlike t h e i r common substance, individuals
n o t i o n o f p e r s o n s admits o f : h a t
separacisn which i s n a d e b y t h e
p e c u l i a r a t t r i b u t e s o b s e r v e d i n 3ach s e v e r a l l y , a n d when t h e y a r e
combined i s p r e s e n t e d t o us b y means o f i?umber."--' He r e t u r n s t o t h i s argument l a t e r , as h e finds it v e r y u s e f u l io s u p p o r t h i s
case : [Nleither d i m i n u t i o n n o r increase a t t a c h e s c o a n y n a t u r e ,
--
S t e a d , "Why Not T h r e e Gods?, " 1 4 9 .
when i~ is concernplated in a larger or srnallzr number. For it is only those things which are conternplaced in their individual circumscrip~ion ( K U T ' i6iav i r q ~ y p a $ f p ! which are ~ enumerated by way of addition (KUTU o i w 8 ~ o uaj p ~ e p ~) i.~ aNow this circumscription is noted by bodily appearance, and size, and p l a c s , and differsnce in figure a n d colour; and that which is ccnternplatsd a p a r r f r m these conditions is free from the circumscription which is formed by such [properties]. T h a t which is not thus circumscribed is not znumeratzd, acd t h a t which i s not enumeratzd cannot be ~ ~b 6 i contemplsred in mult i r u d e ( i j 6i p i i r c p c y p u b e ~ ao~i f upc0peira~. p i a p i 8 p o u p t ~ w€1) rr4\~0ec BrworlOfi~~ac oil S~VUTUL i
.
-
'
In this texr Gregory states i h a t no nature can be circumscribed; t h i s h o l d s true f o r t h e divine nature as well, which he
previously described as infinits a n d i.n.cornprsher,sLble.'. Unlike nature, individuals s r e circumscribed and e n u m e r a b l e . N e v e r t h e l e s s , thz e x a m p l s s af individuais he provides in the
passage a r ? very naterial and therefore h a r d l y rtkvant far d i v i n e persons.
The d i v i ~ ep e r s o n s are n o i material,
they are c i x u r n s c r i b x i. .
.
although
As scs?., t h e y a r e 3 l s o x u m e r a b l e .
G r e g o r y does n o t e x p l a i n ic h e r e , b u t elsewhere he distinguishes
d i v i n e p e r s o n s from o n e a n o t h e r b y t h e i r r~laticnsof origin.
I
shall deal wirh chis issue l a t e r when discussing z a u s a l language in Ad Ablabium. Two things a r e worth noting in t h e above-quo~edpassage.
"Ad Ablabiurn 53, 7-15;
NPNF 2 . 5 : 3 3 5 .
"Ad Ablabium -.
'-See G r e g o r y
of Nysss, Ad Petrun 3 . 10-12: hroo.;ac~~s is " t h e c o n c e p t which, by means of t h e specific notes w h i c h it i n d i c a t e s , restricts and circumscribes in a p a r t i c u l a r thing what is common and uncircumscribed."
First, the definition of c h e i n d i v i d u a l a s a "circumscription" ( m p i y p a b ~ )formed by some properties reminds us of zhe Placonic
defini~ionof an individual as a collec~ionof prsperties. Origen too, as Michel Barnes noted,'- used c h e term mpiypabj to indicate the separate r e a i i t y of the many Svr~aptis of God, in particular, the real a n d separate w L s c m c e o f Gad's Word, whizh- u n i i i e c h e human word i n k r e n t in our minds--possesses substance (i!a60~acris).
"
IkptypaQi i n this c a s e can perhaps be rendered by
"individuality," as Heine 3 2 2 s when trinslaring O r i g e n . Second, i n d i v i d u a i s a r z zhara;csriz& concept of enumeration.
b y rneans of t h e
To m a k e t h i s theoretical explanation
more accessible to Ablabius, Gregory puts forward some concrete examples.
He says that we do not speak of "many gclds" b u t of
"much gold. "
Yet, r e dc s p e a k sf many "goid ~ i e c e s "or "gold
coins," or "sta~ers,"wichcut finding any multiplication of the
'-Kichel R . Sarnes, "The Background a n d Use of Z u n o r n i u s f Causal Language" in .J.rianism After Arius: E s s a v s on the Develoornent of the F o u r ~ hC s n t : i r v Trinitarian Conflicts, eds. . - - . Michel R. Barnes and D a n i e l 3 . b l ~ ~ ~ a r; En dsi n b u r g h : T&T Clark, l 9 9 3 ) , 2 2 0 n. 10. Cf. also M. Earnest "Auvapis a n d the AntiMonistic Ontology of Nyssenfs Contra Eunomium" in Arianism: Historical and Theoloaical Reassessments, ed. Robert C. G r e g g (Cambridge, MA: T h e P h i l a d e p h i a Patristic Foundation, 1 9 8 5 ) , 3 3 0 . ."See
Ccmmentarv on Johr? I, 292. Ronald .'(cine translates this passage as follows: "As, therefore, there are many powers of God, each of which has its own individuality (a~ptypabfl).. . so also the Christ . . . will be understood to be the 'Wordf--although che reason which is in us has no individuality (rrepiypacbfl) apart from us--possessing substance (baoomms)" (Oricren: Commentarv on the Gosael accordino to John Books 1-10 [Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1 9 8 9 1 , 94).
., n a t u r e of gold b y t h e n u m b e r of staters;'. b u t a f t e r making t h i s
s t a t e m e n t , h e emends i t b y s a y i n g t h a t " p r o p e r l y , w e s h c u l d n o t --
call them ' g o l d [ c o i n s ] ' but ' g o l d e n [coins]' . " "
Similarly,
c o n ~ i n u e sG r e g o r y , one c a n t h i n k of Psrer a n d Jamss, a n d j o h n a s many, " y e t t h e human i a v 0 p w m ~ ) i n
hem is one."'. E l s e w h e r e ,
G r e g o r y wrices that " N u m e r i c a l o r d e r d o e s n o c b r i n g a b o u t
2 i ~ z r s i t ysf th? n a c u r e s , c u r tne numbered items, whatever t h e i r n a t u r e i s , remain x h a t c h e y a r e , w k t h e r c h e y ar? n u m b e r e d o r
not.
The n u m b e r i s a s i g n t o make i t known how many things
a r e . "'-
Basil o f C a e s a r f a a l s o uses ~ b ec o n c e p c o f m u m e r a t i o n
o f h y p o s t a s e s ( b y hypostasis he means p e r s o n a t :his he i n s i s t s t h a t t h e d i v i n e hypostases have
LO
be " e n u m e r a t e d
p i o u s l y " (d1oepGs a p ~ e p ~ i ~ not l ) naitrially a n d acids : h a t above number.
time!,'- but
divinicii is
"
" ~ dAblabium 53, 16 ff. .-
"Ad A b l a b i u m 53, 2 5 - 5 4 ,
"Ad
1.
. 4 b l a b i u m 54, 2 f.
.' Gregory o f Nyssa,
I , 201-201.
"See h i s EJ. 210, 5 . 3 1 - 3 6 ( C o u r t o ~ f i e2 :195-6), Q. 4 . 16-22 ( C o u r t o n n e 2 : 2 0 5 - 6 ) . For the m e a n i n g o f imkr~acs~g t h e s e letters, see my " P r o s d o o n a n d Hvoostasis in Basil of C a e s a r e a ' s A o a i n s t Eunomius a n d the E p i s t l e s , " V i a i l i a e C h r i s t l a n a e 51, no. 4 ( ? 9 g 7 ) : 389-394.
%e S ~ i r i t uS a n c t o 1 8 , 4 4 . 1-23 ( e d . P r u c h e , 4 0 2 - 4 , SC 1 7 C f . Andrea Milano, Persona i n t e o l o a i a . Alle o r i a i n i d e l s i a n i f i c a t o d i o e r s o n a nel c r i s t i a n e s i m o a n t i c o ( N a p l e s :
bis).
D e h o n i a n e , 1984), 149-151. T r o i a n o traces t h e c o n c e p t of e n u m e r a t i o n o f h y p o s t a s e s b a c k t o A r i s t o t l e ' s Met. 1074a31-38
G r e g o r y ' s goal F s t o p r o v e t h a t t h e r e a r e not three gods.
am i n t - x e s t e d
I
i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g his c o n c e p t o f the d i v i n e p e r s o n s .
T h e r e f o r e , I c o n c l u d e the a n a l y s i s of ~ n econcepc o f 2 n u m ~ r a t i c n of i n d i v i d u a l s b y n o t i n g t h a t t h i s c o n c e p t can and s h o u l d be
a d d e d t o t h e m t i o n o f p e r s o n s : more e x a c c l l ~ . , persons a r s e n u m e r a b l e entities.
Troiano r e a c h e s a s i m i l a r c m e l u s i m f o r
B a s i l , namely t h a t c h e c o n c e p t o f e n u r n e r a ~ i o n o f h y p o s t a s e s i s
c l o s e l y c o n n c c c e d ~c c h e d i s ~ i n c t ion of !y;postas~s.'
2.2 Causal differences amona the divine cerscns
Soms o f his a p p c n e r i t s accused G r s g o r y of n o t recognizing c h e d i f f e r e n c e of nature i n
he Godhead.
His argurner.:,
would a l l e g e d l y l e a d to a confusion cf p e r s c n s .
calumniators (au~obult.rct~) G r e g o r y answers cha:
therefcre,
To c h e s e
h e does n o t s o n f i l s e
t h e p e r s o n s , b e c a u s e he admits o f i h e i r diffarence i n r e s p e c t of
cause and hat whish is c a u s e d inj~l h'a-a rb a k w ~ a ai-iia~iw i 8~aboopav)."
He d i s t i n g u i s h e s t h e p e r s o n
ainov), i.e., (€K
who is "the c a u s e "
(TO
the F a t h e r , f r o m the p e r s o n who is "from t h e c a u s e "
~ o i ar i ~ i o u ) o r "directly frorn the first" (rrpooexws €K ~ o i raph+ou)
,
(Marina S i l v i a T r o i a n o , "11 concetto d i n u m e r a r i o n e delle i p o s t a s i i n B a s i l i o di C e s a r e a , " Vetera C h r i s t i a n o r u m 24 (1987): 350 f . ) .
'%IM.
Troiano, "Nurnerazione d e l l e i p o s t a s i , " 3 4 7 n . 3 0 .
Ad Ablabium 5 5 , 24 f f .
i.e., the Son, and from that who is "by t h a t vhich i s directly
"The mediation cf c h e Scn p r s s e r v e s h i s b e i n g che
Spirit."
o n l y - b e g o t t e n a n d does noc s s w r i h e Spirit's r e l a t i c n by way of
nature c o c h e F a t h e r .
""'
T h e s e c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s in which one
person is the s o u r c e o f t h e o t h e r two p e r s o n s a r e r e l a t i o n s o f
x q m .
T h e y Chus h e l p G r e g o r y c o d i s t i n g u i s h rhe p s r s o n s f r o m
each other.
This c o n c e p c i o n , h c w v e r , western
must
n o t be identified w i r h the
since the F a t h e r and the Son
principle;
t h e p r o p e r m u s s 2 5 the S p i r i ~is
n o r form one
he father
( T ~ ~ K T O ~
writings w h i c h would a l l e g e d l y i m p l y he f a v o r s c h e f i l i o o u e h a v e
proved to be i n t e r p o l a r i o n s . ' from he F a c h s r ihrough :he
In scating t h a t t h e S p i r i t comes
Son, C r q o r y and h i s brother B a s i l
%d Ablabiurn 5 6 , 3-5. X o t e t h a t t h e English translaticn i n t h e NPNF 2 . 5 : 336 is r n i s ~ a k e ni n r e n d e r i n g € K TO[' npI;)xu by "from the f i r s t Cause"; consequently, che s ' p i r i c i s r n i s ~ a k e n l y s a i d to be " b y that which is from the first C a u s e " ( p . 3 3 6 ) . G r e g o r y d i d n o t s p e a k h e r s o f the "first" a n d "second c a u s e , " but o f t h e F a t h e r a s m e r e l y " t h e f i r s t " in t h e Trinity, b e c a u s e h e i s t h e cause o f t h e o t h e r two p e r s o n s .
'"Ad Ablabium 4"
- S e e K . H o l l , Pm~hilochiusvon I k o n i u m , 2 1 5 n . 1. Simonetti agrees with Holl t h a t n e i t h e r G r e g o r y , n o r the o t h e r two C a p p a d o c i a n s s p o k e o f t h e filiooue (see M a n l i o Simonetti, crisi a r i a n a nel IV secolo [Rome: A u g u s t i n i a n u m , 1 9 7 5 1 , 4 4 9 f f . )
.
a c t c a l l y maniftst themselvss as followers of Origen.
It
was
Origen who intorpreced Jn 1 3 ("All chings came inco being
through him [i.e., c h e Word], and wichout him not one thing came into being") as all things came in10 existencz ~ h r o u g h the Word,
including the X o l y Spiric. G r e g o r y i h e n prcceeds w i d L h i s c a u s a l argument and s a y s chat,
in using chis ianguage, we do n o c actually s c a w whac c h e
persons are, but how they are.
Causal language indicates only
6 ~ a d q a v ) ' ' among cha persons; the d i v i n e persons a r e d i s t i n c ~frcm
each other by the way in w h i c h they s i x a i n their 2sistence.'
It
is worth noting tbac, like rhe d i v i x xmes of Fatner, Son and Holy Spiric, causal l a n g u a g e is relecional linguags expressing relations of o r i g i n . . . . To sum up, dlrrerenc2s i m c n g :he d r v x ? p s r s c n s a -
indicated b y n a u s a ? languag?.
are
also
Cznsequencly, the description of
the divine persons by means of this language should be added to the concept of divine persons.
'-see also Brian E. C a l e y , "'A Richer U n i o n ' : L e o n t i u s o f Byzantium a n d t h e R e l a t i o n s h i p o f Human and Divine in Christ," Studia ~ a t r i s t i c a24 (1993), 264. F o r a discussion o f t h e p h r a s e "mode of existence" in the Cappadocians, see Chapter Five below.
3 . To t h e Greeks, Sased or! t h e Ccmmon Notions
A s I rnenirionrd a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e s e c t i o n d e a l i n g w i t h &i
Ilblabiurn, May a n d D a n i e l o u c o n s i d e r e d A d Graecos ~ o be a late work by Gregory, p r o b a b l y from t h e k t ? 380s.
Stramara, t h e
E n g l i s h t r a n s l a t o r o f Ad G r a e c o s , recently argued c h a t this tract u a s written shortiy after cne C o u n c ~ lof C o n s i a n ~ i n o p l ewhich
ended i n July 381.'- T h e l a c k o f any r e f e r e n c e r s t h e
C o u n c i l i n ~ n eI r a n x a s d u e is :he
great
Cunornians' r m u n c i a c i o n o f
t h e Councii which had explici~lycondemned chsm in its f i r s t
canon.
v c u l d hay:?
"Gregory's argumen:
c s b e lingulscic and
m e t a p h y s i c a l , rather t h a n e c c l e s i c l c q i c a l a n d d o c ~ r i ~ a i r ?i ,f i t were t o c o n v i n c e s u c h p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y h e l l e n i z e d C h r i s t i a n s . " , " The complece title o f . h i s
work i n Muller's s r i ~ i c a le d i t i o n
i s t h e f o l l o w i n g : "3y staiing 'ihre? persons' in ihe Godhead, w e do not s a y ' c h r e e g c d s t . notions.
.,
T4
thL,,C
-
~ e e k s , S ~ s e dor. ;omon
I n A d Graecos, G r e g o r y w a n t s to p r o v e t h a t , even i f
' - D a n i e l F. Strarnara, j r , "Intrcduccion" tc Gregory o f Nyssa, "Ad G r a e c o s : How i t Is t h a t He S a y T h e r e Are Three P e r s o n s i n t h e Divinity b u t Do Not S a y c h a r T h e r e Are T h r e e Gods" (TO the Greeks: C o n c e r n i n g t h e Commonality o f C o n c e p t s ) , " t r . D a n i e l F. S t r a m a r a , jr, T h e Greek O r t h o d o x T h e o l o a i c a l Review 4 1 , no. 4 (1996): 3 7 7 .
'~tramara, "Introduction, " 378. -
-
" R e f e r e n c e s t o t h e Greek c e x t w i l l b e t o A d Graecos (ex cornmunibus n o t i o n i b u s ; i n Greaorii N y s s e n i O a e r a , vol. 3 , p a r t 1, e d . F r i e d r i c h M i i l l e r ( L e i d e n : B r i l l , 1958), 1 7 - 3 4 . ET o f t h e passages q u o t e d i s m i n e . A long-overdue English t r a n s l a t i o n of
o n e b a s e s o n e ' s u n d e r s c a n d i n g o f God o n t h e "common n o t i o n s " a n d not on r e v e l a t i o n ,
o n e canncc i n f e r t h a :
rhere a r e t h r e e gcds
f r o m t h e fact t h a t C h r i s t i a n s speak o f c h r e e p e r s o n s i n - h e Godhead.
a y "common n o t i o n s "
( ~ o u ~i awio i a ~) Gregory means
" g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s " sr " u n i v e r s a l l y a c c ~ p c e ds c i n i s c s . " of Caesarea,
Basil
t c o , i n a p o l e m i c a l c o n c e x z a g a i n s t Euncrnius s a y s
t h a c t h e ~ o i v airtvoia~ ~ ire11 u s
hat God e x i s t s , n o t whac he is."
The doct r i m of Che "common n o t ions" ( ~ o w aPi ~ v o i a ~was ) widespread i n ancienc philcsopkg a n d x a s u s x i c c ?stablish
g r c u n d of
3
common a g r e e m e n t a s a s u p p o r t for a g i v e n theory.
-
In being
a
t h i s cext was w e r i t u a l l y published 3 s G r t g o r y of Nyssa, I 1 & i G r a e c o s : H o w I t Is c h a t Ne S a y T h e r e I r e T h r 2 e P e r s o n s i n t h e D i v i n i t y b u t Do Noi Say c k a r T h c s Are T h r e t G o d s " (To t h e Greeks: C o n c e r n i n g the Ccm~snalicysf C - n c ~ p ~ s ) , z" r . C a n i e l ;. S t r a m a r a , jr, T h e Greek C r r h o d o u T h e o l m i c a l 9eviev 41, n o . 1 (1996): 3 8 1 - 3 9 1 . I f i n d chis c r a n s l a t i c n h i g h l y p r o b l e r n a ~ i c t h o u g h , e s p e c i a l l y when i t r e n d e r s i n t o E n g l i s h important theological t e r n s such as : u18pwms. i m i o ~ a c ~ihap(~s, ~s, oiuia . Here a r e some examples: 1) T h t G r e e k u~8pwrrog i s a n inclusive word which i u s u a l l y translate a s "human"; S t r a r n a r a p r e f e r s to r e n d e r i t a s che n o n - i n c l u s i v e "man" w h i c h h e c h e n twists t o "manst1 ( a s i n t h e n e x t e x a m p l e : 2 ) G r e g o r y s a y s t h a t on? s a n n c t p r o p e r l y s a y ii6Mo~ dvepwmt ( I r e n d e r i t a s "many h u m a n s " ) b e c a u s e a~~epwrros stands for human n a t u r e ; S t r a m a r a r e n d e r s t h e p h r a s e a s "many Mans" ( s i c ) , a h i g h l y m i s l e a d i n g p h r a s e i n my view; 3 ) S t r a m a r a t r a n s l a t e s brrdo~aols.ikapcis. a n d oiuia a s " s ~ b s i s t e n c e ", " s u b s t a n c e , " a n d " e s s e n c e " r e s p e c t i v e l y , when there i s a certain s c h o l a r l y c o n s e n s u s t h a t t h e y s h o u l d a c ~ u a l l yb e r e n d e r e d a s " p e r s o n " ( o r " h y p o s t a s i s " ) , "existence," a n d " s u b s t a n c e " ( o r " e s s e n c e " ) r e s p e c t i v e 1y . --
1
12.8
iSC 299:212). ~ z f . Hanson, S e a r c h , 6 8 0 f.
'-See Robert B. Todd, "The S t o i c Common N o t i o n s : A ReE x a m i n a t i o n a n d R e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , " Svmbolae O s l o e n s e s 1 8 ( 1 9 7 3 ) : 47-75. By r e n d e r i n g t h e t i t l e o f Gregory's t r e a t i s e "To the Greeks: C o n c e r n i n g t h e Commonality o f C o n c e p t s ( T h e G r e e k
m i x t u r e of logic and ontolcgy, -Ad Z r a e c o s reminds us very much of
Aristotle's Cateaories or Metaohvsics.
Nevertheless, it is an
Aristotle probably learned from an intermediary.
Given t h e f a m
that Gregory addresses this treatis5 c o " t k Greeks," i.e., perhaps concemporaries who were crained in Greek philosophy arid tculd nor a c c e p c r h a c God is ~riun?, ue s h o u l . 3 n c c be rerrifisd about che
ianguage of genus and species cr substance and
accidents used or h i r x e d a c throughout chis work.
The s ~ y l sof this c r e x i s e is : i r c u r n l c c u c o r y difficult
io
fcllow.
and racher
Gregory s L a r i s by assuming c h a r the name
"God" is not indicative cf the persons !rrp6ownu) but cf the subsiance ioiloia) of divinic:;; , persons, we s h o u l d n2crssarl.q
o t n e r w i s t , when speaking sf t h r e e --. a r x m
2x22
gods.
'
Then, he
says that, when speaking of God, we s a y " F a c h e r a n d Son and Holy Spirit" or "God the Father and Gcd zhe Son and God the Holy Spirit."
We 30 not say "God and God and God," because, according
to rrhe " [commcniy a c c e p c s d i r.ocicn"
1
I.
, che cmjunction
(Kar WLJ~LUP~
) different realities, not one and the same "and" ( ~ a i binds
reality. Most of ;he ~ i m eG r e g o r y uses ~ p o o w n o v and v ~ o m a o t ~
Orthodox Theoloaical Review 41, no. 1 (1996): 375-391!, Stramara shows that he is unaware of the existence cf the rhetorical device of "common notionsf'in antiquity. His choice of title also betrays Stramara's failure to understand Gregory's logic. "Ad 9
Graecos . 19,l-7.
s y n o n y m o u s l y i n t h i s t r e a t i s e when r2ferrinq t o d i v i n e o r human p e r s o n s ; bur whereas t h e f o r m e r r e r m occurs s i x y t i m e s , l a t e r occurs o n l y t h i r ~ y - s i x rimes.
the
T o e x p r e s s t h e n o c i o n o f .he
p e r s o n , however, h e a l s o u s e s o t h e r t e r m s , s u c h a s : " i n d i v i d u a l j , and o r i n d i v i s i b l e " ( u ~ o p o v,) " p a r r i a l subs~ance" ( p e p ~ moljaia)
"particiilar substance"
(i6ihy o h i a i .
Gregory t r i e s io b e r x h e r
~ a r e f u ii n h i s use o f rhe latter terms, since one c o u l d i n f e r
t h a t God's o i d a i s d i v i d e d among irhs d i v i n e p e r s o n s .
Thn
d i v i s i o n of the s u b s t a n c e i n t o r h r s e b e c a u s e o f c h e p e r s o n s w o u l d i m p l y t h e d i v i s i o n o f God i n t o t h r e e gods ( A d G r a e c o s . 2 2 , 2 2 1 . I n my v i e w , G r e g o r y seems c c b e s o i n s u h a ~ i n c o ~ s i s c e n t , b e c a u s e a l m o s t immediately after s c a r r i n g : k c
:he
s:bsranse
s h o u l d n o t be
d i v i d e d a m o n g ;he p e r s o n s , 5 2 s p e a k s s f " p a r t i a l " sr " p a r t i c u l a r substances."
His only excuse p o s s i b l y i s t h a t h e does s o in
r e f e r e n c e t o human p e r s o n s a n d swiftly q u a i i f i e s his s c a i e m e n t s . T h e tsxt r u n s :
I f s o m e b o d y s a y s t h a t we cali F e c e r a n d 5 a u l a n d a a r n a b a s t h r e e p a r t i a l s u b s t a n c e s (oi~oias p e p ~ ~ a s() i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h i s m e a n s p a r t i c u l a r ( i b i ~ a s ) [ s u b s t a n c e s ] ) -- for this i s m o r e accurace t o s a y -- h e s h o u l d recognize t h a t [ b y t h a t ] we do n o t mean a n y t h i n g else b u t t h e i n d i v i d u a l , w h i c h i s t h e p e r s o r ? ( ~ T O ~ O L6J ~. r GOT( q iipdoui~oi'). ' T h e q u e s t i o n t h a c i m m e d i a t e l y a r i s e s a b o u t " p a r t i a l " and
" p a r t i c u l a r s u b s t a n c e s i 1 i s whether o r n o t , when using these
phrases, Gregory h a s i n mind .!ristotle's " p r i m a r y substance."
" ~ dG r a e c o s 2 3 , 4-8.
"
C h r i s t o p h e r Stead a n s w e r s t h i s q u e s t i o n i n t h e n e g a t i v e . "
-
A n o t h e r s c h o l a r , Herrnann Vcgc, the c r a n s l a c o r o f Ad G r a e c o s i n t o German, i s i n c l i n e d t o see A r i s t o t l e l u r k i n g b e h i n d G r e g o r y ' s expressions."
Yet, Vogt goss even f u r c h e r and regards t h e
e n t i r e creatise a s
3
" C h r i s t i a n u s e cf P o r p h y r y ' s i n t r o d u c t i o n t o
the Aristotelian t e a z h i n g cf c h e c x 3 g c r i t s . " id
Yoqt's s m t e m e n ~i a c e r .
I s h a l l return
I n Chapter Two, s e c n o n 3 ,
I argued
chat G r e g o r y ' s v i e w s f s u b s ~ a n c e , s s p e c i a l l y i n t h e case of such p h r a s e s a s " p a r t i a l s u b s t a n c e " o r " p a r t i c u l a r s u b s t a n c e , " is l i k e l y c o b e a n amalgam o f :he
A r i s t c t e l i a n "primary substance"
a n d the S t o i c " p e c u l i a r l y q u a l i f i e d e n t i t y , " o r io b e t r a y a n i n f h e n c e sf P c r p h y r y ' s c m m e n t a r i e s o n . l . r i s r o c l e ' s C a c e q o r i e s .
G r e g o r y -,hen inT:ckes :he
same a r g u m e n t mentiontd in
A b l a b i u m t h a t we c a n n o t s p e a k o f "many humans, " since the ncun
"human" s i g n i f i e s human nature.
tonsequentiy, t o s a y "nany
humans" i s t a n t s r n c u n c to s p a k i n g - 5 "nany human r a c u r e s t t w h i c h
i s erroneous. -
A s I a r g u e d x n e n analyzing A d A b l a b i u m , G r e g o r y
m e a n s t h a t we cannot r e f e r to a n i n d i v i d u a l b y t h e name o f i t s
s p e c i e s o r t o a species b y t h e name of i t s g e n u s a l o n e . .- --
--Stead, P h i i o s o p h v i n C h r i s t i a n A n t i u u i t v ,
I t is
182 f .
'"'Die S c h r i f t Ex cornmunibus n o t i o n i b u s des G r e g o r von N y s s a , " tr. and corn. Herman J . V o g t , i n T h e o l o a i s c h e O u a r t a l s c h r i f t 1 7 1 (1991): 2 0 9 n , 1 6 . -
A
--
"Die Schrift Ex cornmunibus n o t i c n i b u s , " 2 0 4 n .
"'Ad Ablabium 40,
5 ff.
1.
n e c e s s a r y t o q u a l i f y t h e m i n some m a n n e r .
Yet,
he recognizes
t h a t p e o p l e a n d e v e n S c r i p t u r e do s p e a k o f "many h u m a n s . " Ncnetheless, in t h e c a s e o f Holy S c r i p ~ u r e ,G r e g o r y d i s t i n g u i s h e s b e t w e e n a rnanr.er o f s p e a k i n g " h a b i t u a l l y "
(6iacsuvj0~~av)w '"hich
'- and anorrher, more S c r i p t u r e Eses b y c o n d e s c e n s i c r n icnlylca~dpaoi~~)
a c c u r a t e m a n n e r z o r r 2 s p o n d i ~c~c r k e n a r u r e o f things.'C o n c e r n i n g o u r u s e o f c h e p h r a s e "many humans" Gregory s a y s t h a i a c t u a l l y , because o f some " c o n s t r a i n i n g c a u s e s "
-? 3 , 2 2 - 2 3 ) ,
(€c uvay~aiwvU ~ T L ~ V ,
w e h a v e t c s p a k I n t h i s way a b o u t human b e i n g s .
s a m e c a u s e s a r s noc c r 2 s e n i in z?.? 2 o l y "WE!;.
The
T h e tvda
c o n s t r a i n i n g c a u s e s G r e g o r y n e n r i m s i n Ad Gra3cos a r e : 1 ) t h e t o t a l n u m b e r of humans i s nor s o n s c a n t , o w i n g t o deaths and b i r t h s ( 2 4 , l - l 4 ) , while c h i s c a n n o r b e t h e c a s z w i t h t h e H o l y
T r i n i t y w h e r ? one c a n n e v e r s p a k o f a dualicy o r q u a t e r n i c y (21, 2 ) humans have d i f f e r e n t o r i g i n s , t h a t i s p a r e n t s ,
15-25);
he T r i n i t y h a s c n l y o n e c r i g i n ,
whereas
Father (24,26-25,-!)
.
t!-.e p e r s o n o f God t h e
i n Ad Abiabium, G r e g o r y a d d s o n e m o r e
cause: 3 ) w e s p e a k o f "many o r a t a r s " because e a c h a f c k m works
" ~ dGraecos 2 8 , 1. -
-
""Ad Graecos 28, 5 . -.
"-Cf.also A d E u s t a t . 5, 20-6, 6 ; B a s i l & 2, 5 8 5 B C , 616A. M a r i e t t e C a n e v e t , G r e a o i r e de Nvsse e t l ' h e r m e n e u t i q u e b i b l i a u e : ~ t u d ed e s r a p o o r t s e n t r e le lanqaqe et l a c o n n a i s s a n c e d e Dieu ( P a r i s : ~ t u d e sa u g u s t i n i e n n e s , 1 9 8 3 ) , 7 1 n . 2 1 .
independen~ly (47,11 ff) .
In h i s "Why Not Thrse Gods?"'- Stead
c l a i m s that G r e g o r y menZions one mcre such cause: I ) that, more
generally, only spatial and i n a c e r i a l things are numbered:
'
a s I showed earlier when creating chis i s s u e in .4d
Nevertheless,
Ablabium, Gregory's iext dcss n o r s u p p o r ~r h e lacter i n f e r e n c e at the exclusion sf rhe divine p s r s c n s who zlearly a r e aspatiai and immaterial.
Scead, however, aismlsses as "quire unconvincing"
all of t h e s e causes Gregory p r e s e n t s LO e x p l a i n our differences
of l a n g u a g e usage i n reference m he divir,e and human natures?
I agree uith Scead in this
z a s e and
become confused because of
LOO
acknowledge c h a t Gregory h a s
nuch t r u s c in s p r c u l a t i v ? chinking
a n d f a l s e etymologies.
In l e a v i n g aside t h ? "1:cnscraining
c a u s e s " b e c a u s e t h e y are
unconvincing and 30 not add n c c h zs zP.e discussisn of che I s h a l l now return c s
persons,
512
logical expianation a f the
difference b e t w e e n s u b s t a n c e a n d persons which constitutes Gregory's n e x t argument.
The explanaiicn "based on common
notions" that Gregory adduces in order c o exonerate himself from t h e accusation of tritheism sheds more light on the differences
between substance and persons.
In what follows, I will simply
transliterate h o o ~ a a ias ~ "hypostasis" for reasons that will
. .
"-Stead, "Why Not T h r e e G o d s ? , -
"
-
''Cf. Ad Ablabiurn 47, li f f . "Stead,
"Why Not T h r e e Gods?, " 156
become clear as I advance in my presentation.
He writes: "A
substance differs from a subscance not insofar as it is subs~ance,but as ' s ~ and h such' ITOLUSE!
a substance, and a
hypostasis from a hypostasis as 'such and such' a h y p o s t a s i s . " " To this Gregory adds another rather theoretical explanarion a little l a c e r on che next page: T h e r ~ f o r s , "such a n d s u c h 1 ' ( ~ o t J a S r )Is a i d when someone wishes to distinguish s particular from ;he general p r o p e r to that designation, to which "such and such" is applied ( a p o o ~ i e e ~ a ~Thus ). we say - , h a t a human is "such and such" a n animal, having in mind to dis~inguishhim from a horse, fcr example -- a h o r s e w h i z h has i?. comrncn w i ~ hh i m the ?.am? of animal, by which is differen~iaced from him v i i h regard to rationality-irracior:aIith.. Something is disringuished from something else either by subscance or b y hyposcasis or by both substance and hypostasis. Human is distinguished from horse by substance, Paul is distinguished from Peter by hyposcasis, whereas -his hypcscasis of the human is distinguished from rhis hyposcasis sf the horse b y both substance a n d hypostasis. '-'
He then explicates each o f chese distinctions.
One c i n
distinguish among various substances by icdisatinq "such and
each
(dv8pwrros)
, "horse" and "dog" are nouns indicative of human,
equine and canine nature, respectively.
Thus, "human" is
rational ( X o y i ~ o ~in ) contradistinction to "horse" which is --
"Ad Graecos 28, 24-25.
i r r a ~ i o n a l ( a l o y o s ) ; " h o r s e " i n t u r n i s characterized b y n e i g h i n g ( X P E ~ E T L O T L K 1O Ei
n c o n t r a d i s t i n c t i o n t o "dog" which i s
c h a r a c t e r i z e d by b a r k i n g ( i h r ~ ~ io )r ~whatever ) other q u a l i t y o n e wants t o c o n s i d e r . ' -
Gregory insists t h a t t h e x characteristics
j u s t m e n t i o n e d belong t o t h e substances oer se. be s a i d o f p e r s o n s ,
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s do
The same c a n n o t
a s we w i l l see immediately: t h e i r DOC
b e l o n q t o t h e m cer s e b u t a c c i d e n t a l l y .
When making distinctions " b y h y p o s t a s i s , " G r e g o r y a g a i n s a y s t h a t d i f f e r m t i a e s h o u l d b e a d d e d t o t h e common i e r m " h y p o s t a s i s " i n o r d e r t o o b t a i n " s u c h and such a h y p o s t a s i s , " 2 . g . Paul.
Such d i f f e r e n c i a s i n h i s view a r s b a l d n e s s ,
Peter c r
height,
f a t h e r h o o d , s o ~ s h i p ,and t h e l i k e , " - and c h e y "constiiute the hypostasis not t h e s u b s c a m e " Pet3r o r P a u l .
~i~~~rda-ao~i~~uioi~~oi~oiu~~ou~~io;.di~i" of
I n t h i s senss I t k i n k t h e d i f f e r e n t i a e can be
s a i d t o be a c c i d e n t a l .
Gregory uses t h e t e r m " a c c i d e n t s "
( o u p ~ c ~ q ~ o r Ar sd , G r a e c o s 31,201 i n r e f e r e n c e t o ~p6owrrov not t o
imooraais.
From t h e s e explanations i t becomes e v i d e n t t h a t
h y p o s t a s i s no l o n g e r a e s i g n a t a a n i n d i v i d u a l u n d e r s t o o d a s something i n d i v i s i b l e ;
h y p o s t a s i s i s r a t h e r a new s p e c i e s t o
which " s u c h a n d such" can be attached i n o r d e r t o o b t a i n Peter o r Paul.
T h i s o b s e r v a r i o n , hcwever, w i l l be c o n i r a d i c c e d by what ." A d G r a e c o s 30,lO-11.
..
""Ad G r a e c o s 3 O r 2 O - 2 3 . G
A
~
G r a e c o s 30, 2 3 .
Gregory himself says nexc, b u c reconfirmed only a f e w lines below in a passage (Ad Graecos 31, 16-20) which I shall discuss at the
end of this seccion.
L2c
US
f i r s t see how Gregory coricradicts
what he has just said.
He writes: "it is clear that species ( e i d o s ) and individual (aropov)
ara not c h e same thing, thac is, substance [is noc the
sam~!] as hypostssis . "
T h i s s t a t a n e n c a p p a r s n c l y son:radicts
th2 previous assertion c h a ~"hyposcasis" is a sort of new species
co which "such a n d such" can be added t o o b c a i n h t e r o r Paul or
this horse.
"Individual," continues Gregory, thac is hypostasis,
makes one think cf someone with z u r l y h i r , g r e y e y e s , a father,
a son and the like, w h e r e a s ~ h et e r m "species," that is substance, makes one think of "a rational animal, m o r t a l , capable of understanding and knowkdge" or sf "an irrational aninal,
..
morcal, capable of neighing and ;he i ~ k s . " He rhen a p p l i e s t h e same rzasoning b!;
analogy ro Zod.
Ye
can now connect t h e s e argumenis x k h the introductory part of .9d Graecos where Gregory says that ~ h e name "Ccd' refers to the
divine nature distinguishing it from the mortal nature.
At the
same time, the reader of Gregory's explanations should not refer to the Father, the Son and c h e Holy Spirit as merely "such and such God" cr "God and God and God," since he o r s h e is supposed
' 3 ~ dGraecos 31,l-2.
--Ad Graecos 31,Z-7.
t o h a v e understood b y now that c h e thrze d i v i n e p e r s o n s have the same common s u b s t a n c e and t h a t the r e l a t i o n b e t w z e n t h e substance a n d the p e r s o n s i s the! s a r e a s t h a r b e w e e n a species a n d i t s individuals.
-
H i s t r i u m p h a l s o n s l u s i o n ir! regard t c
he T r i n i ~ y
i s t h a t i f one d i s c r i m i n a t e s among t h e divine p e r s o n s , cne should n o t d i v i d e t h e s u b s t a n c e o f God
according to these persons.
N e v e r r h e l e s s , b e f o r e t h e t r i u m p h a l end there is Ad G r a e c o s
31, 1 6 - 1 0 ,
a passaqe hard c o incerprec.
.. '
Here G r e g o r y a s s e r t s
b e y o n d a n y r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t that i m o o ~ a o ~iss a s p e c i e s f o r
rrp6owrrov, t h u s c o n f i r m i n g w h a t h e s a y s i n A d Graecos 30, 20-21. T h e s t a t e r n e x i s a s t c u n d i n q , becsus? i t cacses
w.2
is t h i n k c h a t
v n o o ~ a oi~s ~ a s t u a l i y synonymous w i ~ hoiloia, after G r e g o r y h i m s e l f h a s assured
he reader t h a t imooraois i s i n f a c c
~ h ei n d i v i d u a l .
I t car, a l s o mean thac b~i6o~aois is a s u b s p e c i e s o f o h i a , s o m e t h i n g
between oiuia a n d rrp&x~~rroif. If c h i s is c h e = a x , t h e n G r e g o r y can b e c r e d i t 2 d w i t h m a k i n g a d i s t i n c t i o n between i ~ d i v i d u a l sand p e r s o n s , t h u s b e i n g a p e r s o n a l i s t a v a n t l a l e t t r e , w h i s h is perhaps unlikely.
The t s x t r e a d s :
[W]e a t t a c h t h e p h r a s e " s u c h and s u c h " -0 h y p o s t a s i s i n o r d e r t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e t h e p e r s o n s (npooma) from one -. -Ad G r a e c o s 32,21-26. -'Two s c h o l a r s who d e a l w i t h p e r s o n i n G r e g o r y o f N y s s a f a i l t o n o t i c e t h i s t r o u b l i n g p a s s a g e : J o h n M. L y n c h , " P r o s B p o n i n Gregory o f N y s s a : A T h e o l o g i c a l Word i n T r a n s i t i o n , " T h e o l o g i c a l S t u d i e s 4 0 ( 1 9 7 9 ) : 7 2 8 - 7 3 8 a n d S t r a m a r a in h i s t r a n s l a t i o n o f G r e g o r y of N y s s a , " A d G r a e c o s " i n T h e Greek O r t h o d o x T h e o l o a i c a l Review 4 1 , n o . 4 ( 1 9 9 6 ) : 3 7 5 - 3 9 1 .
a n o t h e r , even t h o u g h chey have i n common r h i s name, t h a t o f h y p o s t a s i s , and ~ h u sd i f f e r from one another n o r in p e c u l i a r i t i e s proper t o s u b s t a n c e , b u t r a t h e r a c c o r d i n g LO so-called a c c i d e n t s . Tn commenting or! A d G r a e e o s 31,1640, Voqt a s k s himself w h e t h e r a r u p u r e s f logic is not unavoidable when G r e g o r y ~ r i e s t o s p e a k of t h s T r i n i t y i n r h e same way i n which he s p e a k s of
humans and other c r e a t e d b e i n g s .
Acccrding t o Voqc, Ad Graecos
31, 16-20 night suggesc the id23 ~ h a cthe concept o f
c a n be u s e d i n r e g a r d t o che F a t h e r ,
Spirit .
the Son a n d t h e H o l y
In other words, Vogt i~cirnacasthat che concept of
"individual" c a n n c t be a p p l i e d to God.
The P a t h e r , r h e Scn, and
the Holy Spirit c a n n o t b e i n d i v i d u a l s u n d e r any c i r c u n s ~ a n c e s whatsoever.
T h e d i f f i c u l t y w i t h Y o g c ' s e x p l a n a r i o n is c h a t
Gregory's t e x t does n o c support such a c h a r conclusion. A n o t h e r G e r m a n s e h o l z , Aircjm n.. a n m e r a t x d t ,
a u t h o r of ihe
e n t r y on "Hypostasis" in c h e Reallexikon fur Antike und -.
C h r i s t e n t u m , " i n a ietter t o me s u g g e s t e d i h a t h e d i d n o t
--
'H. 3. V o q t , "Die S c h r i f t Ex comrnunibus n o t i c n i b u s des G r e g o r von Nyssa," e s p . 215, 215. -'Jiirgen Hamrnersrraedt , "Hypostasi s (u~oo~uai~) " in Reallexikon fur Antike und Christentum vol. 16 ( S t u t t g a r t : A. Hiersernann, 1 9 9 4 ) : 986-1035.
believe that Gregory wanted to qualify i l ~ o o ~ a mas s a species for rrp~owrrov. Hammerstaedrr has hem r a z h s r inclined
LO
see a " c a p i t a l
error" occurring in Gregory's whole argumentation starting on p . 29 w h i c h then becomes e v i d e n t only on p . 30, l i n e s 1 5 ff and
which l e a d s him ta che stazement contained in th? p a s s a g e under
investiga~ion (p. 31, lines i l f f ) . error conslscs
ln
In Harnrnerstaedt's v i e w , the
an indiscriminate use of rhe d e m o n s c r a c i v e
adjective " s u c h a n d such" \ ~ o i b a S ~wirh ) both c o n c r a c e qualifying
such as "animal" and abstract q u a l i f y i n g terms such a s
Lerrns
"genus," " o u s i a , " or "hyposcasis. " a n i m a l , " ycu p o i n c ~s
Accordingly, if you say "such .
..
"hunac" s r " t s r s e , " b u i ir
ycu s a y "such
ouaia" you p o ~ xco o ~ h e ro t h i a ~ , r.oc ~s spscies s u b s u n e d u n d e r the
same ouaia ( u ~ ' a u r ~ v ~ a ~ ' o i p. ~ ~ 3i 1a ,v ,l i n e ? 5 ) , a s Gregory suggests.
In considering c h e passages in question, Stead h i r n s e i f notices c h a c c h e discussion in Ad Graeccs " z a k e s a s u r p r i s i n g form."-- Gregory says that we attach the phrase "such and such" LO
a word denoting a g e n u s , z h e r e t y pizking sut a particular
Ye a r g u e s : h a t
species.
ar
c h i s ccint one would expect G r e g o r y
t o c o n t i n u e on t h e same p r i n c i p l e a n d s a y " w e a t t a c h t h e word 'such-and-such'
t o a word d e n o c i n g a s p e c i e s , s o as t o p i c k o u t a
p a r t i c u l a r individual; s a y i n g for i n s t a n c e , man'."
Then S t e a d jastly remarks:
-.
Stead, "Why Not Three Gcds?, 162
"
' P a u l is a grey-eyed
B u t t h i s i s n o t what Gregcry s a y s ; h e argues c h a t s i n c e t h e p a r t i c u l a r i z i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s b e l o n g t o the i n d i v i d u a l , t h t p a r t i c u l a r i z i n g d e s c r i p t i s n m u s t be a c t a c h e a t o t h e word a , ' i n d i v i d u a l I , a n d n o t t o the c l a s s - n a m e 'man'. We c a n t h u s describe P a u l a s a grey-eyed i n d i v i d u a l , b u r n o t a s a g r e y - e y e d man.- . O n t h i s g r o u n d h e c l a i m s t h a t h i s c r i t i c s ' case c o l l a p s e s . '
I conclude his a n a l y s i s b y n o t i n g t h a t c h e m a i n c o n t e n t i o n of Ad Graecos i s thac ~
s of n ~ n :hres e iiT line - ' p e r s o n s can be
r e f e r r e d t o a s God, b e c a u s e
he name "God" i n d i c a t e s t h e i r common
n a t u r e , buc n o b o d y s h o u l d s p e a k cf " t h r e e g o d s , " s i n c e c h i s w o u l d
(obviously!) soncradicrr chs ccrrn.onl:i accepied p r i n c i p l e s . f i r s t part of h i s demonstration is c o r r x t .
The
T h e difficult p a r t ,
a s j u s t m e n t i o n e d , i s z h a c G r e g o r y makes i1ir60?aais a s p e c i e s for npdowrra and w e h a v e t o a c k n o w l e d g e i c a s a m i s t a k e i n judgernenc.
4 . E u s t a t h i u s of A n c i o c h , G r e u o r v o f !!Jvssa a n d T h e i r P o s s i b l e Philosophical Sources
I s h a l l now c o n s i d e r a n o t h e r ~ r i n i t a r i a nw r i t i n g ,
Anticch's A o a i n s t P h o t i n u s , a s of Nyssafs Ad G r a e c o s . t h e s e two w o r k s ,
i C
E u s t a t h i u s of
can s h e d more l i g h t s n Gregory
G i v e n t h e striking s i m i l a r i t i e s b e t w e e n
Rudolf L o r e n z a r g u e d a few y e a r s apo t h a c
Graecos was h e a v i l y i n f l u e n c e d b y A c r a i n s t P h o t i n u s . --
'Stead,
- .
'
Ad
Eustathius
"Why Not T h r e e G o d s ? , " 155.
--
aRudolf Lorenz, "Die E u s r a ~ h i u svon A n t i o c h i e n- z u g e s c h r i e b e n e Schrift g e g e n P h o t i n , " Z e i t s c h r i f t f u r -n tr a l t e r e n K i r c h e -
-
was a bishop of Antioch and played a prominent p a r c a t the
Council of Nicaea 1 3 2 5 ) .'
His w r i ~ i n gPsainst P h o t i n u s was
considered spurious until recently, at one time b e i n g even
attributed to Gregory of Nyssa.
Yet new fragments from the
treatise of Peter of Csllinicus a g a i n s ~Danian of l l e x a n d r i a pr2served in the Codex Vsticanxs S y r i a c u s 108 have causexi Lorenz
ro beiieve that E u s t a t h i u s is chz author of Aaainsc Photinus whish can thus be dated tc around 310 AD.
Zustachius' writing is
important, since ic mes c=r.cepLs f r m :he
schocl logic, sheds
some light on c h e early history of i h e trinitarian dispute and is
used by Gregory of Nyssa in his Ad Graecos. The treatis2 enticled Against Darnian is the principal
literary achievement of P e c e r of Callinizus, Monophysice
patriarch of Antioch from 581
LC
591.
He w r o t e
it in Syriac
against his co-religicnist Pope Darnian D F Alexandria ( 5 5 7 / 8 5 0 6 / 7 ) , who seemed x nave e n b r a c s i somc ~ r i n i t a r i a ne r r o r s . To
date, Books I1 and I11 have been published of ~ h e critical
edition of Peter's Aqainst Damian, but other volumes are being .. prepared? Unfortunately, none of the three volumes published
' J F o r more on Eustathius of Antioch see the entries in the Encvclo~edia of the Early Church, ed. Angelo di Berardino, tr. A. Waldorf, v o l . 1 ( N e w York: Oxford University Press, l992), 303 and F . L . C r o s s , ed., The O x f o r d Diccionarv o f t h e Christian Church, 3d od. by Elizabeth Livingstone (Oxford: Oxford University Press, E W ) , 576.
"petri Callinicensis Patriarchae Antiocheni Tractatvs contra Damianvm, Books 11 and 111, eds. Rifaat Y. E b i e d , Albert
thus f a r r e p r o d u c e s pp. 2 6 7 - 2 6 8 o f
he Vatican m a n u s c r i p t S y r .
1 0 8 c o n t a i n i n g che a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d q u o t a t i o n f r o m S u s t a t b . i u s o f
Antioch.
Dr.
L i o n e l R . Wickham, however, k i n d l y p r o v i d e d m e w i t h
t h e English t r a n s l a t i o n of rhe p a s s a g e i n q u e s t i o n b e f o r e i t g o e s t o c h e p r e s s and I a l s o r e l y o n R . Lorsnz's German t r a n s l a t i o n i n h i s a r t i c l e m e n t i o n e d above.
I shall show i ~ m e d i a t e i yhow
E u s ~ a t h l u s ' A a a i n s t P h o t i n u s i n f l u e n c e d G r e g o r y o f Nyssa's .4d G r a e c o s , a s s u m i n g t h a t A a a i n s t F h o t i n u s is i n d e e d w r i t t e n b y Eustathius.
The f o l l o w i n g i s E u s t a t h i u s o f .%xiachls
x x t as
q u o t e d by P e c e r o f C a l l i n i c u s : Murinus o r P h o t i n u s , w i t h h i s a s s o c i a t e s , w i l l c r i c i s i z ? u s , t h e n , a s c a l l i n g F a ~ h e r , Son arid Hoiy Ghost ' t h r a z G o d s ' , , a n d h e a n d t h e y w i l l b e v e r y f o o i i s h . For l i w e were s i m p l y s a y i n g 'God and God a c d Sod', t h e y w c c l 3 ha7+:s Seen : u s t i f i e d i n c e n s u r i n g u s :or s a y i c ~' z h r e e Cads' ; t u t s e e i n g : h a t i c i s t r u e a n d a p p c s i t e i h i i t w e s h o u l d call c n e Father ' G o d ' , t h e S o n 'God' a n d t h e Holy G h o s t ' G o d ' , n e v e r t h e l e s s i t i s n o t b e c a u s e we c a l l God t h r e e b y d i v i s i o n (even t h o u g h e a c h h y p o s t a t i c p r o s d p o n i s p r o f e s s e d a s God, b e c a u s e they b e l o n g t o o n e a n d t h e same d i v i n e n a c u r e ! b u t because we r e c o g n i z e ihe F a t h s r ' s , S o n ' s and H o l y S h o s ~ ' sk i n s h i p , p r c p e r c y and n a t u r a l mutual u n i t y . I f :he name 'Gcd', t h e n , were s i g n i f i c a n t o f o r o s a ~ o n , b y s a y i n g 'three p r o s d o a ' we s h o u l d certainly have b e e n s a y i n g ' t h r e e Gods'; but b e c a u s e i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t o f n a t u r e , b e i n g a p p r e h e n d e d from some p r o p e r t y w h i c h i s i n t h e n a t u r e ( a s l a u g h t e r i n man, a n d b a r k i n g i n dog) whereas t h e p r o p e r t i e s s a i d t o b e l o n g t o natures i n d i c a t e n a t u r e s , r e do n o t s a y ' t h r e e Gods' b e c a u s e we do not say ' t h r e e n a t u r e s ' . Bur i f w e c a l l each o f the p r o s d p a o f t h e d i v i n e n a t u r e ' G o d ' , because i t b e l o n g s t o t h e nature, i t w i l l be r e c o g n i z e d a s h a v i n g t h e name ' G o d ' i n t h e f u l l s e n s e , n o t b e c a u s e 'God' i s s i g n i f i c a n t o f
v a n Roey and L i o n e l 8 . Wickham, Corpvs C h r i s t i a n c r v m S e r i e s Graeca ( s i c ! ) v o l s . 2 9 , 32, a n d 35 ( T o r n h o u t : Brepols, 1 9 9 4 , 1 9 9 6 , and 1 9 9 8 ) . C f . a l s o t h e same e d i t o r s ' Peter of C a l l i n i c u m , Anti-Tritheist D o s s i e r ( L e u v e n : D e p a r t m e n t O r i e n t a l i s t i e k , 1981).
p r o s o p o n , but b e c a u s e i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t o f the o n e nature. T h e p r o s d o o n t o o i s c a p a b l e cf b e i n g c a l l e d b y t h i s t i t l e , because i t b e l o n g s a l s o t o t h a t n a t u r e . F o r o r o s 5 ~ o ni s o n e t h i n g b u t n a t u r e anocher. I f , t h e n , 'God' belonged t o p r o s a o o n , b y s a y i n g ' t h r e e p r o s d o a ' we s h o u l d c e r t a i n l y be s a y i n g ' t h r e e Gods', b u t b e c a u s e w e s a y t h a t t h e p r o s d o a h a v e o n e n a t u r e , o f n e c e s s i t y w e s a y t h a t here i s o n l y o n e God. B u t i f there i s one n a t u r e a n d 'God' b e l o n g s t o t h a t nature, it follows thac i f w e s a y 'one nacure' w e also s a y chere i s o n l y one God.-and
zcmparison b e ~ w e s nc h i s
which
d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r i n c h i s c h a p t e r , makes o n e r e c o g n i z e ~ h e a s t o u n d i n g s i n i l a r i c i e s betwen
~ h e zwc E e x c s .
The a r g u m e n t
about "God a n d God a n d G o d , " t h e fact t h a t i n b o t h a u t h o r s ' t h e noun ''Cod" r e f e r s t o G o d ' s n a t u r e , a n d
he distinction b e t w e e n
p r o s d o o n a n d n a t u r e a r e j u s t i h r e t t e l l i n g examples. M o r e o v e r , when r e a d i n g c h e :vc x x t s , m e h a s ~ i e ieling t h a t b o t h a u t h o r s a r e familiar w i t n P o r p h y r y ' s
A r i ~ t o t l e ' sC a t e q o r i e s .
rationaliiy,
B o t h G r e g o r y and P o r p h y r y s t a t e t h a t
n e i g h i n g 2nd h a r k i c q c h a r a m e r i z e r h e s p e c i e s human,
h c r s e a n d dog r e s p e s z i m i y
3s., -
5 ; I2 Catec. 32,19ff; ?/1
Graecos 30,lO-11); that r a t i o n a l i t y is a l s o a s p e c i f i c d i f f e r e n c e d i s t i n g u i s h i n g human from h o r s e 30,7-10);
(Isaq. 8,17; 11,20; Ad Graecos
t h a t r a t i o n 2 1 a n d m o r t a l b e l o n g t o human p e r s e , w h i l e
snub-nosedness (in P o r p h y r y ) o r baldness (in G r e g o r y ) belong to him accidentally (Lsaq. 9,9-13; 11,llff; Ad G r a e c o s 3 1 f 2 0 )
-
-
.
'-Peter of C a l l i n i c u s , A a a i n s t Damian, B o o k 4 0 . I wish to e x p r e s s m y g r a t i t u d e t o Dr. Lionel R. Wickham for p r o v i d i n g m e w i t h the E n g l i s h t r a n s l a t i o n o f t h i s passage.
Eustathius also speaks of properties which are in the n a t u r e of a species, such as l a u g h t e r in man, a n d barking in dog. It is inportam zc n o r e ~ h a cS r q o r y ~ s s smore explanations
than Eustathius in the remaining fragment from Against P h o t i n u s . For example, rationality, as a property of the human substance i n Euscathius;
appears in Pcrphyry and Gregcry b u r no:
r a t i o n a l i t y i s not only a property b u t can be counted also as a
specific difference distinguishing human from horse, and chis
does not occur in Eustathius.
Howevsr, we 30 noE know what ihe
rest of Aaainst Phocinus niqhc have concalned.
At c h e same cime,
ic s h o u l d b e k 2 p t i n mind that G r e g o r y ' s brother, Basil of
Caesarea, p r o v i d e s similar 3 x p l a n a i i o n . s abouc various natures in
his Homilies on Che Hexaerneron IV.4.1-5, but l i k e Gregory's editors, Basil's editors indicace no source for these explanat ions.- '
Consequently, 1 tried :a
discaver :he
first occurrsnces cf
the e x p l a n a i i o n s we kncw m i n l y frsm F c r p h y r y . T h e s a u r u s Linauae Graecae."
I ran a search for the pair
"rational-neighing, " t h a t is X O ~ L K - near
7
1 u s e d the
) ( ~ F ~ ? - L ~ T Lwithin K-
four
7
"See Basil of Caesarea, Homelies sur llHexaemeron, ed. Stanislas Giet, 2d ed., SC 26 bis (Paris: Cerf, 1 9 6 8 1 , 264-267 and the long overdue Basil of Caesarea, Homilien zum Hexaemeron, eds. E. Amand de Mendieta and S t i q Y. Rudberg ( B e r l i n : Akadernie Verlag, N W ) , 6 4 - 6 5 .
"Thesaurus i i n q u a e Graecae CD-Rom, University of California, 1995).
v e r s i o n D (Irvine, CA:
lines of each other throughout the whole corpus con~ainedon t h e TLG CD-Rom.
Surprisingly, the two words do n o t o c c u r w i t h i n four
lines of each other in aristotle himself but in later a u t h o r s . What does occur in Aristo~leis the pair "human-horse" (dv9purri n n ) (sometimes along with "dog" or "god") within four lines of
each other (e.g., Met. 1016~25,1018b5, 1C20a3G, lC23b30, 1 0 5 8 ~ 1 1058b15; Nic. Erh. 111635 c z n z n c i ~ nanly a f 2 x rel2y;ant
passages), b u t never accompanied b y the pair "rational-neighing." As a matter of fact,
; Y P E ~ E T L O T L K - n2ver
o c c u r s in .Qristotle.
In
the passages I have j u s t mentioned, Aristotle usually speaks of "human" and "horse" (and "dog" and "god") as having one genus, n a m e l y animal o r living thing.
The post-Aristotle b u t p r e -
Porphyry authors whom I f o u n d t o h a v e used the pair "rationai- -
neighing" are the rsilcwing: .Aisxander sf A@--xmiisias,
Sexcus
Empiricus, Clement of Aiexandria, and ?sseudo-PLutarch.
three were contemporaneocs ( 2 n d - 3 r d centuries
CE),
The f i r s t
whereas the
last one, if he is c o be identified with the Grcck doxographer Aetius, lived somewhat earlisr ( a r o u n d 100 AD). Alexander of A p h r o d i s i a s , a renowned commentator on Aristotle and a Peripateeic philosopher himself, in dealing with combinations and figures
h i s mentor's Prior Analvtics, w r i t e s :
[Tlhe middle term may be predicated of both the terms in the problem, as in the following combination. Suppose we are investigating whether men are neighers or not. We take a third term, raticnal, a n d predicate it o f b o t h the others-b o t h sf man and of n e i g h e r (affirmatively o f man and negatively of neigher). This makes t h e following
c o m b i n a t i o. .n : Every man i s r a t i o n a l . rational."
No
neigher is
Clement of Alexandria, in addrsssinq the r e s t r a i n t w e shculd impose on ;ur
l a u g h t e r (human is
he only
animal capable o f
l a u g h t e r , according to Aristotle, De anim. membr. 111,673a8) ,
writes: Because human is an animal c a p a b l e of laught?r, hs should nor laugh st e v ? r y r h F n g and b3cause h s r s e is capable o f n e i g h i n g , h e s h o u l d n o i neigh o n ?very sccasion; as rational animals w e shouid g o v 3 r n oursslves with m e a s u r s , harmoniously rdaxinq c h e a u s t e r i ~ yand over-tension of our serious pursuits .-'
o f t h e p h i l o s o p h e r s and a w o r k u s u a l l y attributed to Aetius i o d a y . Thus, in a conrexi presenting xhat v a r i o u s philosophers
think of p r i n c i p h s one c a n r e z d :
[I]f one considers the muitirude of humans t a k s n m e by one, t h e y cannot be perceived, thsir i n f i n i t e number cannot b e apprehended, and ws cannot conceive but a unique human with whom no one e l s e is i d e n t i c a l ; l i k e w i s e the h c r s s w e c o n c e i v e c a n n o t b 2 but unique, but there is an infinite number of horses c~nsideredm e by one. Indeed, ail these s p e c i e s and g e n e r a a r t e n v i s a g e d from che point sf view of the monad; that is why we a p p l y to each of them a definition
-. "Greek text in Alexandri in Aristotelis analvticorum oriorum librum i commentarium, ed. M. Wallies, Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 2.1 (Berlin: Reimer, 1 8 8 3 ) , 4 6 . 3 2 - 4 7 . 2 , E.T. in Alexander of Aphrodisias, O n Aristotle's Prior Analvtics 1.1-7, tr. J c n a t h a n Barnes s t al. (London: Duckworth, 1991), 1 0 7 . . .
"Greek cext in Clement of Alexandria, Le ?edaaoaue, 2.5.46.2, eds. C. Mondesert and H . 4 . Marrcu, 2d ed., SC 108 ( P a r i s : Cerf, 199i), 1 0 0 . ET m i n e *
.speaking of rational animal c r neighing animal.'
I left to the end the rext from Sextus Empiricus, because in my view it is the most interesting and zlosest explanation to w h a ~we sncounter in Porphyry and rh.3 Cap~adocians.In a concext dealing with the u s e f u l n ~ s s of definitions, Sextus writes:
For exanple--if we may indulge in a licrle ridicule--suppos? someone wanted to a s k you if 1;ou had met a human 3 n horseback leading a dog, and were to pose the question like chis: ' 0 mortai rational animal receptiw of thought and knowledge, have you mer a broad-nailed animal capable of laughter and receptive of polirical knowledge, resting his b u c t o c k s on a neighing mortal animal, leading a barking q u a d r u p e d animal?'--wouldn't h e be mocked for cascing such a familiar subject into obscurity because of his definiticns? A s far as r h e s s consideratiors g o , then, we should say chat definitions are useless." However, in a footnote to this passage from Sextus' Outlines of Sce~ticismthe English translamrs mentior! that the e x a m ~ l ewhich Sextus has i?. mind is from
4.r.
m a - y n c u s zcmrnencxy o n Tlatc's
Theaetetus that reads: "Epicurus says that names are clearer than definitions, and that indeed it would be absurd if instead of
saying ' i i e l l c Socraces' one were zs s a y 'hello rational mortai animal ' . ""
But tho reference to -zplccxs (341-271 BC) takes us
.-
'Greek text in Plutarchi Moralia, e d . Jurgen Mau, vol. 5.2.1 (Leipzig: Teubner, E 7 l ) , 0 7 7 b 1 - 8 . ET mine. .
.
"Greek text in Sextus Empiricus, Pvrrhoniae h v p o t v ~ o s e s 2 . 2 1 , v o l . 1 of Sexti Emoirici ooera, ed. 3 . Mutschrnann (Leipzig: Teubner, 1912). ET in S e x t u s Ernpiricus, Outlines of Scepticism, tr. J. Annas and J. Barnes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 1 2 5 .
c reek text in Anon, In Plat. Theaet., e d s . H. D i e l s and W. Schubart, Berliner Klassikertexte 2 (Berlin, 1905). ET and
almost a s far back as Aris~sclewho, as we saw, d u e s n o c speak of
horse as a "neighing animal."
Therefore, at t h i s time w e can trace with certainty the pair "rational-neighing" only as far back s s A e t i u s , Alexander of Aphrodisias and S e x u s Empiricus, t h a t is, to the second o r third century CE.
It is very likely that the Cappadocians knew some of
t h e s e authors' writings or knew of their ideas from t e x c b o c k s sf
philosophy.
. n . e t i n s 1 ?laci-a o ! - G a s o o h c r u n is an axcellant
sxarnple of such a collection cf philosophical opinions grouped u n d e r various headings.
I t is also possible t h a t Clement of
Alexandria or Eustatnius of Antioah w e r e intermediary f o r these
ideas.
A:
ihe same time, I would n o t e x c l u d e t k hypothesis that
the Cappadocians--Gregory of Nyssa in par~icular--mighthave read
at least Pcrphyry's Isaaoue.
T h i s is a small, introductory work
zo Aristotle's famous Cateaories and, like today, some people
Sack then might have wanted to be i n t r o d u c e d t o a major w o r k by a commentator whc could make the subject matter more a c c e s s i b l e . Furthermore, is today, many r e a d e r s m o s t likely would never read
the major work after reading the introduction to it.
reprint of the Greek text in Long Philosophers 1.99 and 2.102.
&
Sedley, The Hellenistic
AGAINST EUNOMFUS AND THE REFUTATION 3 F THE CONFESSION OF FAITH OF EUNGMIUS
I n this c h a p t e r I propose t~ a n a l y z e a d d i t i o n a l aspects of t h e c o n c e p t o f d i v i n e p e r s c n s in two m a j o r dogmatic w r i t i n g s b y Gregory of N y s s a , A s a i n s t Eunornius a n d t h e R e f u t a t i o n o f t h e
C o n f e s s i o n o f Faith o f E u n o m i u s .
Specifically,
t k bulk
of t h e
c h a p t e r d e a l s w i t h t h e i s s ~ e~f d i v i n e r s l a t i o n a l ~ t y . As
c o r o i i a r i e s to t h i s , I w i l l a l s o study w h a t I call G r e g o r y ' s
t h e o l o g y o f 3 x i i e a n d homecoming w i t h s p e c i a l a t t e n c i c n m G r e g o r y ' s view of d i v i n e freedom, and :he
issue of gender
l a n g u a g e i n r e f e r e n c e t o t h e I-!oly T r i n i t y .
I n t h e l a t e 3 7 0 s che ?.rFari b i s h o p Eunomius of Cyzicus- had p c b i i s h e d t h e .si~oloal; for ar. .4pcloav , o r Secznd A ~ c l o a v ) .
In
this w o r k he attemptsd t o d e f e n d himseif a g a i n s c a e c u s a t i m s
r a i s e d by Basil of C a e s a r e a t s Aaainst Eunomius
(u!, which i n
turn was a response to E u n o m i u s ' First P . ~ o l o u v . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , B a s i l h i m s e l f was too ill t o a n s w e r this second w r i t i n g by
Eunornius.
A f t e r Basil's death
OR
J a n u a r y 1, 3 7 9 , this challenge
was left to h i s b r o t h e r , G r e g o r y o f N y s s a .
Gregory composed his
-For a n a c c o u n t o f E u n o m i u s ' c a r e e r , see 3 . P. C . Hanson, The S e a r c h f o r t h e C h r i s t i a n D o c t r i n e of God: The A r i a n C o n t r o v e r s v 318-381 ( E d i n b u r g h : T & T C l a r k , 1 9 8 8 ) , 611-617.
own A a a i n s t Eunomius
(Gh e r e a f t e r ) , i n this
way p r e v e n t i n g
L a t e r , Eunomius w r o t e a
Eunomius from h a v i n g t h e f i n a l s a y .
C o n f e s s i o n o f F a i t h w h i c h was p r e s e r v e d b y G r e g o r y . w r i c t e n e x p r e s s l y f o r the g a t h e r i n g
3f
T h i s was
various p a r t i e s i n the
Church c a l l e d b y Emperor Theodosius i n 383 as a l a s t s f f c r t achieve unity.-
KO
Gregory responded t o t h e l a t t e r as w e l l by
w r i t i n g t h e Refutation of t h e C o n f e s s i o n o f F a i t h o f Zunornius (Ref h e r e a f t s r )
.
There i s a g r e a t e r d e g r t e o f a g r e e m e n t ammg scholars t h a n in
he c a s e of other G r e g o r i a n w o r k s c v e r che c o m p o s i t i o n d a t e s
o f Gregory o f Nyssa's A u a i n s t E u n o m i u s a n d c h e Refutation o f t h e
Csnfession of F a i c h s f Zunomius.
Kay p l a c e s t h e x r i r i r q o f
I-
I1 b e t w e e n t h e summer o f 380 a n d t h e s p r i n g of 3 8 1 , a n d , f o l l o w i n g Diekamp,' dates
the R e f , Jan .,-an S a r y s
CE
111 between 3 8 1 a n d 3 8 3 . ;
~ h i r . k s that i:
s c c u ~ i a sa special p l a c e
in the e n s e m b l e of Gregory's anci-Eunomian p o l e m i c s . only chronologically t h e l a s t - -
As f o r
It is n o t
the series of w r i t i n g s a g a i n s t
--
Hanson, S e a r c h , 618. " L i t e r a r g e s c h i c h t l i c h e s z u r Eunomianischen K o n t r c v e r s e , " B v z a n t i n i s c h e Z e i t s c h r i f t 1 8 ( 1 9 0 9 ) : 1 - 1 3 a n d 190T. Diekamp,
194. 'May, " C h r o n o i o g i e , " 5 7 , 60. ( S e a r c h , 717-18)
Hanson a g r e e s t o t h e s e d a t e s
'Jan van P a r y s , G r e s o i r e d e N v s s e , R e f u t a t i o n de l a Profession de f o i d r E u n o m e , i n t r o d u c t i o n , t r a n s l a t i o n a n d i n d e x ( P h . D . d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f P a r i s - S o r b o n n e , 1 9 6 8 ) , v o l . 1, 170.
Eunomius ( w r i t t e n perhaps shorrrly after May 3 8 3 ) , bur: unlike which does not d e a l with pneumatology, R e f refutes the i o t a l i t y
of Eunomius' ~rinicariazind christological heresies.
Van Parys
thinks that the convocation a r Cons~antinopie3 f an "interconfcssional colloquium" in May 383 was an addi~ional occasion for Gregory of Nyssa to r t f u c e Eunomius.
T h e homily
Gregory also delivered at i h a ~colloquium, De deitate Filii at Soiritus Sancti, mainly refutes Eunomius' theological opinions and
reveals a number of p o i n t s i n corr~mon wirrh c h e Ref.
Xanson
agrees with r h e d a t i n g of r h e R e f . to 383 a n d b e i i e v e s t h a t ir i s possible
Ce
deitate ?ilii
2t
Soiritus Sancti was written for :he
council ~f 3 8 3 . '
1. Patristic Antecedents of O i v i n e Relationalitv
The argument from correlativity was used long b e f o r e t h e Cappadocians
LC
p r c v e that :he
Son is ic be distinguished from
ihe Father, that the S o n is eternally generated b y the Father and
even that h e i s o f t h e same d i v i n e n a t u r e a s the Father.
Basically, this argurnent sets forth the idea that correlative terms imply o n e another: a father i m p i i e s cne existence of a son,
a lord implies the existence of a slave, and vice versa. I n Aaainst Praxeas (Adv. P r a x . hereafter) 9-10 Tertullian
%anson, Search, 718. 174
a r g u e s z g a i n s t the M o n a r c h i a n Praxeas who c o n f u s e s t h e t h r e e d i v i n e persons.
T e r t u l l i a n s a y s c h a c t h e v e r y names " f a c h e r " and
" s o n " p r o v e the p e r s o n a l d i s t i n c t i o n o f t h e t w o ,
s i n c e "a f a t h e r
makes a s o n and a s o n makes a f a t h e r and t h e y become wnac they
are b y r t i a t i o n s h i p with o n e a n o t h e r ( e x a l r e r u t r o )
."
Each one
of them n e e d s t h e o t h e r o n e i n order t o b e w h a t he i s .
O n e can
n e v e r b e a son t o o n e s e l f , ?or car! one e v e r b e one's own f a r h e r . A n o t h e r e x a r n p l z o f r e l a t i o n i n r h e same c h a p t e r 13 of h i s Adv.
P r a x . i s c h a t o f h u s b a n d a n d wife.
A s for b he H o l y S p i r i t ,
T e r t u l l i a n writes:
I: s u i t s m y ease a h a c h a ~w h m c u r Lord u s s d c h i s w o r d L- a l i u s ] r e g a r d i n g t h e p e r s o n of c h e P a r a c l e c e , he s i g n i f i e d
n c t d i v i s i o n b u t d i s p c s i c i o n (disoosirionem): f o r he says, I w i l l p r a y the F a t h e r a n d h e w i l l s e n d you a n o t h e r (alium) a d v o c a t e , t h e Spirit o f t r u t h (Jn 14: 1 6 ) . T h u s [ h e calls] c h e P a r a c l e t e o t h e r than h i m s e l f , is w e s a y t h e Son i s o t h e r t h a n the F a t h e r .
T e r t u l l i a n d o e s n o t u s e the w o r d r e l a t i o ,
b u t disoosi~io and
he
p h r a s e a u i e x alcerutro f i u n t ( t h o s e whose e x i s t e n c e d e p e n d s o n e a c h other!
.
I n a r e c e n t b o c k , . W i d d i c o m b e gives a c o m p r e h e n s i v e
t r e a t m e n t o f divine r e l a t i o n a l i t y f r o m O r i g e n t o A t h a n a s i u s o f
- ~ d v .Prax. 3 . ET in T e r t u l l i a n , T r e a t i s e A a a i n s t P r a x e a s , e d . , t r . a n d corn. E r n e s t E v a n s ( L o n d o n : S P C K , 1 9 4 8 ) ,
140 f. 'Peter W i d d i c o m b e , T h e F a t h e r h o o d o f God f r o m Oriaen t o A t h a n a s i u s (Oxford: C l a r e n d c n , 1 9 9 4 ) .
Alexandria, c o n s i d e r i n g a l s o Dionysius of A l e x a n d r i a , Methodius o f Olympus, A l e x a n d e r o f A l e x a n d r i a a n d A r i u s .
More t h a n h a l f a
c e n t u r y b e f o r e Widdicombe C h e v a l i e r made a s i m i l a r attempc t o present divine relacions Augustinian views.
when he cried c o c o m p a r e the G r e e k a n d
C h e v a l i e r ' s treatrnenc i s l e s s c o m p r e h e n s i v e
a n d less c o m p e l l i n g t h a n Widdicombe's, b u t , and Athanasius,
i n addiiion c c A r i u s
c o v e r s a n u m b e r a f z u c h r s nor ~ : ~ : a r n i n xbi y
Widdicombe, s u c h a s B a s i l o f .rincyra, E p i p h a n i u s cf S a l a m i s , B a s i l o f C a e s a r e a , G r e g o r y o f N a z i a n z u s , a n d Didyrnus c h e B l i n d . '
Since
i t i s v e r y likely that Gregory sf N y s s a was familiar aL least
w i t h some w o r k s o f h i s Christian p r ~ d e c e s s o r s -, - a sumrnary o f
t h e s e p r e d e c e s s o r s ' v i e w s on a i v i n a r e l a t i o n a l i t y i s c e r t a i n l y i n order.
'IrPnee C h e v a l i e r , S . . % u a u s i i n 2 t l a ~ e n s P ea r e c a u e . 5 e s r e l a t i o n s t r i n i t a i r e s ( F r i b o u r g e n Suisse: L i b r a r i e de l l U n i v e r s i t e , l W O ) , e s p . 106-163. See also R . Arnou, " P . r i u s e t l a d o c t r i n e des r e l a t i o n s t r i n i i a i r e s , " G r s a o r i a n u r n 14 ( 1 9 3 3 ) : 2 6 9 - 2 7 2 and A. N i c h s i , " R ? i a t i s r , s di.;Fr-.as, " 3 i z t i o n n a i r e d e t h e o l o q i e c a t h o l i a u e ( P a r i s : p r i n t e d f o r L e t s u z e y e c Ane, 1937) cols. 2135-2156. ..
- - F o r a r g u m e n t s i n f a v o r o f N y s s e n ' s u s e o f Origen's p r i n c i o i i s and A t h a n a s i u s ' C o n t r a a e n t e s and D e I n c a r n a t i o n e i n h i s O r a t i o c a t e c h e t i c a , s2e J a k o b Reinhard Kees, Die Lenre von der Oikonomia G o t t e s i n d e r " O r a t i o catechecica" G r e q o r s von Nvssa ( L e i d e n : B r i l l , l995), 5 9 - 9 0 . C f . a l s o David L. B a l d s , ~ T Z I OEOT: A Man's P a r t i c i o a t i o n i n Cod's P e r f e c t i o n s A c c o r d i n q t o S a i n t G r e q o r v o f Nvssa (Rome: n . p . , 1 9 6 6 3 , 11 ff. ; H u b e r t M e r k i , 'Ofioiwo~c8r6. Von d e n p l a t o n i s c h e n A n o l e i c h u n q a n G o t t z u r G o t t a h n l i c h k e i t b e i G r e s o r v c n Nvssa ( F r i b o u r g : P a u l s d r u c k , 1 9 5 2 ) , l S 6 f . ; R e i n h a r d M . Hiibner, Die E i n h s i t des L e i b e s C h r i s t i b e i G r e a o r von N v s s a . U n t s r s u c h u n q e n zum U r s p r u n o d e r ' ~ h v s i s c h e n ' E r l o s u n o l e h r e ( L e i d e n : B r i l l , 1974), 144 ff. -
I n De P r i n c i ~ i i s ( E h e r e a f t e r ) 1.2.2 a n d 3, O r i q e n makes
c l e a r t h e d i s a s t r o u s c o n s s q u e n c e e n t a i k d i n tht d e n i a l g f t h e .
.
S o n ' s e t e r n a l existzncz: Sod x c u l c l n c c a l w a y s b e a F i t h e r . - -
In
DP 1.2.10, h e also s a y s t h a t "one c a n n o t b e a father a p a r t f r o m h a v i n g a s o n . " Widdicombe s u g g e s t s that O r i g e n ' s a s s u m p t i o n o f t h e c o r r e l a t i v e a r g u m e n t may r e f l e c c t h e i n f l u e n c e o f A r i s t o c l e ' s c a t e g o r y of r e l a t i o n ,
T T P ~TI, S
--
b u t h e a l s o draws a t t e n t i o n co t h e
p a r a l l e l b e t w e e n t h e f a t h e r - s o n and l o r d - s l a v e r e l a t i o n s h i p
1.2.10 and M a l a c h i 1:6, a t e x t O r i q e n q u o t e s in c h a a c n c s x t h i s d i s c u s s i o n o f t h s movement f r o m :he .
01
i n o w l s a g 2 of God a s L o r d
.
t o t h a t of God a s F a t h e r . - ' O r i g e n c o n n e c t s t h e i d e a o f t h e
carrelativity o f the F a t h e r a n d t k S c n vith z h a c ,
goodness.-'
is
gf
God's
Widdicombe t h i n k s chat chs F a ~ h e r - S o n r e l a t i u n s h i p
paramount
i n Origen's thought.
i t i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by
c o n t i n u o u s a c t i v i t y . Here a r e some o f t h e i m a g e s O r i g e n u s e s t o express i c : z n c e a s i n g g e m r a t i c n s f
9.2
S c n b y c5.e F a t h e r
(Horn.
on Jer. IX.4); t h e Scn unceasingly turns csward che Father (Corn.
Jn. 11.2.18) ; the F a t h e r ' s l i f e i s a n e t e r n a l r e j o i c i n g i n t h e -
..
--Cf.aiso O r i q e n , Dialcaue with Seraclides 4. .- -C a t . 7b15,
Met.
5.15.
.-
-'Widdicombe, F a t h e r h o o d , 69 n . 2 1 . C f . a l s o t h e influence of Jn 15: 1 5 on O r i g e n (ibid., 9 5 ) , I
1.2.9 and C o m e n t a r v c n G e n e s i s ( i n Eusebius, Contra Marcellurn 1 . 4 , GCS 1 4 , p . 2 2 , 11-18) : ~ a ~ o ~ ~ a u ~noa ~ v i~p b aat TOIO~TOU uiot.
-'E.g.,
(m1.4.4
p r e s e n c e of t h e S o n who i s Wisdom
and IV.4.1;
Corn.
Jn.
1.9.55); k n o w l e d g e a n d l o v e o f r h e F a i h e r a r e t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f s o n s h i p (Corn. Jn. X X . 3 4 . 3 0 5 - 3 0 9 ) ;
t h e Logos i s Son, g i o r i f y i n g
a n d b e i n g g l o r i f i e d b y t h 2 F a t h z r (Corn. J n . XX. 1 1 . 2 8 a n d 2 9 )
."
T h e s e images a r e d e r i v e d f r o m S c r i p c u e . Dionysius of Alexandria's wriclngs a l s s provide evidence f o r t h e a r g u m e n t from c o r r e l a t i v i t y ,
Athanasius,
b u t h i s language, a s r e p o r t e d by
seems t o b e m o r e i n c l u s i v 2 than t h a t u s e d by
t h e o l o g i a n s b o t h b e f o r e a n d a f t e r h i m : "when t h e r e i s a p a r e n t , t h e r e i s a l s o a c h i l d . " - ' E v e r s i n c e t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e Arian
controversy,
t h e a r g u m e n t f r o m c o r r e i a t i v i t y was x e d b y t h e non-
A r i a n p a r r y a g a i n s t their m e a i e s .
B i s h o p .z.lexander of
A l e x a n d r i a u s e d ir but Arius rejtcced i~:
In
a lzredal l e t t e r
ro
h i s b i s h o p ( w r i t t e n c a . 3 2 0 1 , - - A r i u s wrcte: F o r he S o n j i s noc e m x n a l , c r c o e t e r n a l o r e q u a l l y i n g e n e r a c e w i t h t h e F a t h e r , nor does he h a v e h i s b e i n g s i m u l t a n e o u s l y iapa) w i t h t h e Father, [ i n v i r t u e ] some s a y [ o f ] h i s r e l a t i o n w i t h h i m ( r a npds T L ), t h u s p o s t u l a t i n g two i n g e n e r a t e f i r s t p r i n c i p l e s . B u t a s monad a n d f i r s t
,
-
-'Widdicombe, F a t h e r h o o d , 9 0 ff a n d Rowan W i l l i a m s , A r i u s : Heresv a n d T r a d i t i o n ( L o n d o n : D a r t o n , Longman & Todd, 1987!, 1 3 9
ff , -'Athanasius of Alexandria, 57.14-16.
De S e n t . D i o n v s i i 1 5 ,
.-
Opitz
- F o r a d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n of t h e s e i s s u e s , see Widdicombe, F a t h e r h o o d , 128-144; Williams, A r i u s , i 5 5 ff. C f . a l s o R . A r n o u , " A r i u s e t l a d o c t r i n e d e relations t r i n i t a i r e s , " Greaorianurn 1 4 ( 1 9 3 3 ) : 2 6 9 - 2 7 2 .
'"or
the chronology, see Williams, Arius, 5 8 - 9 .
.-
p r i n c i p l e o f a l l t h i n g s , God thus i s before all t h i n g s . - '
l e t t e r , Alexander o f A l e x a n d r i a r e p l i e d wich a
To A r i u s '
l e t t e r known a s
fi biXap~os ( c a .
321/2)
.
80th were p r e s e r v e d b y
A t h a n a s i u s i n h i s De S v n o d i s . In his leccer, A l e x a n d e r uses the argument f r c n c o r r e l a t i v i ~ y :
[The Father] is F a t h e r because of t h e s t e r n a l p r e s e n c e o f t h e SAP, A? ~ C C A I J P -cf ~ whnm h e is ~ a 1 1 ' d F a r h e r . . . . T o s a y t h a c he brightness o f che F x 5 e r 1 s glory d i d n o t e x i s t - . , d e s t r o y s ( ~ ~ u ~ ~ a t m7r.s p t i !o r i g i n a l i q x sf w h i c h i~ is -5-2 brighmsss. And if a l s s :his imaqe sf 2cd was n o i e t e r n a l , it i s c l s a r t h a c n e i t h e r I s c h a r of w h x n it is c h e image ( E ~ K G L a~ )t s r n a l . -' 4
,
I n a l e t t e r t o E u s e b i u s o f N i c o r n e d i a w r i c c e n shortly after r e c e i v i n g Alexander's l e t r t e r , . r i r i u s summarized teaching &our
the z o r r e l a ~ i v i ~oyf Facher and Son thus: "God
e t a r n a l , S o n e t e r n a l , F a t h e r a n d S o n a l w a y s ~ o g e t h e r " ( u ~&bs i ari
uids, spa m n j p u p a vi&
..
. --
5or-h A r n o u - L a n d W i d d i m m b e
'
notice chat
some terms ( a p a . o w a i ~ a ~ p c iused ) by b c c h A r i u s a n d .J.lexander are r e m i n i s c e n t o f A r i s t o t l e ' s discussion o f t h e c a t e g o r y o f r e l a t i o n
in C a t 7b15":
be s i m u l t a n e c u s
" R e l a t i v e s seem r:,
(apu1 by n a t u r e
.-
-'Opitz,Urkunden 6.13, 10-13; ET i n P . Widdicombe, Fatherhood, 143. .-
W r k u n d e n 14.24.3-6.
ET i n Widdicombe,
Fatherhood, 1 3 2
ff. --
--Urkunden, 1.2.1-2,
ET i n Widdicombe,
..
--Arnou, " R e l a t i o n s t r i n i t a i r e s , " 2 7 0 --'Widdicombe, F a t h e r h o o d , 1 3 1 ff . -
I
- - P r e s e n t e d i n C h a p t e r Two.
179
Fatherhood, 1 3 3 .
a n d i n most cases t h i s i s t r u e
.,..
Also, one c a r r i e s t h e o t h e r
t o d e s t r u c t i o n ( a u ~ ~ a v a ~. "p ~Widdicornbe, i) however, a d d s that A l e x a n d e r a l s o u s e s G r i g e n ' s a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e denial o f ch?
e t e r n a l generation o f t h e S o n imperils the e t ~ r n i t yo f God's fatherhood."
L i k e O r i g e n , Alexander e m p l o y s v a r i o u s b i b l i c a l
images t o e x p r e s s the Father-Son r e l a t i o n s h i p :
Prov. 5 : 3 0
( " I was
daily his d e l i g h t " ) c o n f i r m s in h i s * i k w ~ h 2s t e r c a l p r e s e n c e o f Wisdom ( i d e n ~ i f i e dw i t h t h e S o n ) w i t h t h e Father-"; t h e Son is t h e b r i g h t n e s s and image o f che F a t h e r . ' B o t h A r i u s a n d Eusebius o f Caesarsa r e j e c t c h e a r g u m e n t from
corrsiativity.
A s W i l l i a m s nocic2d, " A ~ i u st r e a t s the wcrds
F a t h e r a n d Son a s names identifying d i s t i n c t and u n i q u e s u b s i s t e n c e s who d o n o t s h t t r e s u b s t a n t i a l a t , t r i b u t e s . " , ' E u s e k i u s
s a y s t h a t t h e c o e t e r n i t y of Father m d Son wculd d i m i n a t e c h e i r
individual identities a s r ' a c h e r and son:'
As i s h o w l a t e r in
this c h a p t e r , Eunomius r e p e a t s some o f t h s s a r l i e r A r i z n arguments a g a i n s t c o r r d a r i v i t y .
For A t h a n a s i u s o f A l e x a n d r i a t h e f a c t c h a t the F a t h e r and
Fatherhood,
.-
- Urkunden, 14.24.3-6; W i l l i a m s , A r i u s , 1%. -.
Widdicorribe, Fatherhood, 133;
-'Rowan W i l l i a m s , " T h e Logic o f A r i a n i s m , " Journal o f T h e o l o g i c a l S t u d i e s n . s . , 3 4 (1983): 61.
t h e Son are c o r r e l a t i v e s means t h a t tc d e f e n d t h e d i v i n i t y cf the ..
Son i s t o d e f e n d tht f a t h e r h o o d o f God.'
However, h e caricatures
A r i u s f p o s i ~ i o ni n order t o d i s c r e d i t him: f o r e x a m p l e , he i m p l i e s a change i n God when q u o t i n g A r i u s , w h i c h a c t u a l l y -.
p r e s e n t s a p o s i t i o n i n t o l e r a b l e to r h e l a t t e r . ' -
-4thanasius'
i s p e r h a p s b e s t e x p r e s s e d b y che f o r r n u i a oil^ dci a a ~ i po. u a~ ~ vii 6 ~ .( [ i f ] no e c e r n a l F a t h e r , n o a t e r n a l Son) . 'Widdicombe n o t i c e s
t h a t A t h a n a s i u s recascs Origen's p r e s s n ~ a t i o no f r h e a r g u m e n t f r o m relations i n the l a n g u a g e o f a p o s c - P l e t h o d i i n c o n c e p t i o n of
God a n d he w o r l d . " A t h a n a s i u s d o e s t h i s b y p o s i t i n g two s e t s of ccrrelatives against Arius:
F a t h e r and Son, on c h e one h a n d ;
u n o r i g i n a t e a n d c r i g i n a c e , o n ~ h 23
~
k
?.and. r
I . 33 A t h a n a s i u s w r i t e s :
And j u s t a s ' u n o r i q i n a t e ' i s i n d i c a t e d w i t h reference t o o r i g i n a t e d things, s o a l s o 'Father' is i n d i c a t i v e o f t h e S o n . The one who n a m e s God ' n a k e r ' , ' f a s h i o n e r f , a n d ' u n o r i g i n a t e ' sees and d i s c o v e r s t h e c r e a t u r e s a n d o r i g i n a t e d t h i n g s , w h i l e c h e c n e who c a l l s God ' F a t h e r ' i m m e d i a ~ e l y knows s x d c o n t e r n p i a c e s Ch2 S o n . "
--
",See U r k u n d e n 4.7.19-20, Contra A r i a n o s I . 5 - 6 (PG 26:21A) a n d 1 . 9 ( P G 26:29A-B) , De d a c r e t i s ( O p i t z 5 , 2 3 4 1 ) ~A d E ~ i s c o p o s
1 2 ( P G 2 5 : 5648) . hpud Widdicombe,
Aeqvpti
-.
'-Williams, Arius, --
'-De d e c r e t i s 6 ;
Fatherhood, -.
Fatherhood,
104.
9 p i t z 5.23-24.
See Widdicombe,
163 f -
"Widdicombe,
F a t h e r h o o d , 167.
';PG 2 6 3 8 0 8 . ET i n Widdicombe, F a t h e r h o o d , 1 6 7 .
160.
Nevertheless, Athanasius d i s t i n g u i s h e s between t h e c o r r e i a t i v i ~ y
o f m a k e r a n d t h i n g made c n o n e h a n d , and the c o r r e l a t i v i ~ yo f f a r h e r a n d s o n o n the o t h e r : the f o r m e r b e l o n g s t o the r e a l m of will,
--
the l a t t e r t o t h e realm o f s u b s t a n c e . "
L i k e O r i g e n , A t h a n a s i u s links che e w r n i t y cf G o d ' s f a t h e r h o o d w i t h t h e a t t r i b ~ r r e so f i m m u t a b i l i t y a n d p e r f e c t i o n . He t h e n c o n t r a s t s d i v i n e a n d human g e n e r a c i c n , f a t h e r h o o d a n d s o n s h i p do n o i " p r o p e r l y "
s t a t i n g c h a t i n man,
! ~ - t . ~ p i we~x) i s r : s i n c e i h e y
do n o c reside i n c h s i r r e s p e c t i v e " c h a r a c t e r s ,
q o d h e a d a l o n e " c h e r ' a ~ h e ri s p r o p e r l y (mpiw.;)
w h e r e a s i n che f a t h e r and :he
Son
p r o p e r l y ( m p i w g s o n , a n d i n t h e m a n d t h e m m l y , i s i~ c h e c a s e
-
.
t h a t t h e F a t h e r i s a l w a y s F a t h e r a n d ihe S o n z l w a y s S o n . "' God
is "eternally Father, and he z h a r a c r e r z f F a t h e r is noc a d v e n t i t i o u s ( o l h~y i y o v t . ) t o h i m , l e s t h e b e c h o u g h t mucable. "
' -
A g a i n l i k e O r i g e n , A t h a n a s i u s c o n n e c t s t h e e c e r n i t y o f God's f a t h e r h o o d w i t h t h e a t t r i b u t e of S c d ' s goodness.'' A t h a n a s i u s i s p r o b a b l y u n a w a r e o f c h e P l a t o n i c o r i g i n o f t h e i d e a that for God t o b e the way h e is i s good. .-
Some o f t h e images A t h a n a s i u s u s e s
"See C o n t r a A r i a n o s 1 . 2 9 ;
PG 2 6 : 7 2 E .
-.
'@Contra Arianos 1 . 2 2 ; PG 2 6 : 5 6 C . -
' C o n t r a A r i a n o s 1.21: ?G 26:57A. 7
-.
" C o n t r a A r i a n o s 1.28; PG 26:72A. .-
" C o n t r a A r i a n o s 1.28 a n d 111.59-67. C f . O r i g e n , 2.9 and Corn Gen. ( t h e fragment p r e s e r v e d b y Eusebius o f Caesarea m e n t i o n e d above) .
to illustrate the Father-Son relationship are the following: the
characteristic and determinate quality of chis relarion is that of love;': the Father t a k e s " p l e a s u r e " ( ~ i l S o ~ i ai )n the Son whom he
has generated "by n a t u r e " ' : ;
t h e F a t h e r a n d the S o n delight in
one another (based on Prov 8 : 3 0 :
"I was b y h i m , daily his
delight, rejoicing always before himw).'Yet perhaps the one who influenced Gregory of Nyssa the most i n his view of the divins relationalicy -.as his awn brother,
Basil, whom he sometimes callsd "teacher and fathsr."': In his polcmics against E u n o r n i u s 3 a s i l s a x i o n ~ da q a i n s t c h e a s s of the name "ungeneraced" y
o S a x u s e Eunsrnius a1 l e g e d that i t
referred to divine substance.
According tc Eunornius' logic, if
God is ungenerated, his substance is ungenerated; t h e Son, who is
referred to as generated, should h a v e a generat2d substance, and accordingly should differ from God.
I
Briefly, t h e Son is not God
.
'-InContra Arianos 111.59-6; Athanasius elaborates on c h i s . Cf Jn 5 : 2 0 quoted at PG 26:461C. Widdicomte, Fatherhood, 184, 186, 206-7. ::c£ Mk 1:ll: 26:4618) .
"Contra
"This is c h e Son i n whom I am pleased" (PG
Arianos I . 2 0 ; I.3 8 ; 11.56: 11-82.
"~lthough Chevalier's thesis chat Augustine knew the Greek Fathers very well is less compelling, his analysis of Basil of Caesarea's theory of relations is still useful to map out one's route through the Basilian texts (see Irenee Chevalier, Auoustin et la pensee arecaue. Les relations trinitaires, 129140). Nevertheless, some of Chevalier's quotations f r o m Basil are unreliable.
a c c o r d i n g t o t h e young g e n e r a t i c n of Arians r e p r e s e n t e d by Eunomius.
Even i f B a s i l c o n s i d e r s " u n g e n e r a t e d " q u i t e
a p p r o p r i a t e c o r e f e r t o God t h e F a t h e r , h e s a y s t h a c , u n l i k e " F a t h e r , '' " u n g e n e r a t e d " i s n o t b i b l i c a l ;
t h e r e f o r e , che l a t c e r
s h o u l d r a t h e r n o t b e spcker! zf ( o ~ m i i a b u.~ ) Ths rarne " F a ~ h e r " has the same power a s " u n g e n ? r a x d , "
" f o r t h e o n e who
i s t r u l y F a t h e r and o n l y [ F a t h e r ] i s from no o t h e r . "
Moreover,
" f a t h e r " i n t r o d u c e s the n o t i o n o f t h e s o n b e c a u s e o f :he ,
(Stafi~cqia~w.;) ." LO
>
relation
Eunomixs w i l l p i c k u p e n t h i s synonymy and try
t u r n i t o n i t s head m h i s Aoo?ooia Acoloaiae, a s my a n a l y s i s
o f Nyssen's h a n d l i n g of r e l a t i o n a l i t y l a t e r i n r h i s c h a p t e r w i l l
demonscrate. B a s i l ' s statement t k a ~r5.e r a m s "Father h a s =he same power
a s u n g e n e r a t e d " ( ~ ~ ~ a ~ p ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ i o o i ~ 6 u i is ~noc a p i ~ ~ q ~ ~ e a s y to
understand.
B a s i l is careful n o t to s a y c h a t t h e two
words h a v e t h e same meaning just becaus? t h e y r e f e r t c =he s a m e
(a
" B a s i l , A o a i n s t Eunomius h e r e a f t e r ) 1 , 5 ; 516d-517a. ET m i n e f o l l o w i n g t h e c r i t i c a l t e x t e s t a b l i s h e d i n B a s i l o f Caesarea, C o n t r e Eunome s u i v i de Eunorne, " A o o l o a i e " , i n t r o d u c t i o n , t r a n s l a t i o n and n o t e s b y 8. Sesboug with the c c l l a b o r a t i o n of G.-M. d e Durand a n d L o u i s D o u t r e l e a u f o r t h e c r i t i c a l text and i n t r o d u c t i o n , 2 V O ~ S . , SC 2 9 9 , 305 (Paris: C e r f , 1982-1983). was c o m p l e t e d in 364, a t t h e b e g i n n i n g of B a s i l ' s t h e o l o g i c a l a c t i v i t y ( s e e my " P r o s d o o n a n d H v ~ o s t a s i s i n B a s i l o f C a e s a r e a ' s A a a i n s t Eunomius a n d t h e E p i s t l e s , " C h r i s t i a n a e 51, no. 4 (1997): 3 7 4 f.)
Viailiae
i5Wrongly translated b y 8. S e s b o i i e as "Le vocable Pere a l e m e m e s e n s q u e c e l u i d ' i n e n g e n d r e " ( S C 2 9 9 : 1 7 7 ) and S . G . Hall a s " F a t h e r a n d u n b e g o t t e n h a v e t h e same m e a n i n q " C (J I , 553) [emphases m i n e ) .
r e a l i t y ; i n s t e a d , h e s a y s t h a ~t h e y h a v e t h e " s a m e p o w e r . " t h i s he adds a n o t h e r q u a l i f i c a t i c n :
To
~ h es t a t 2 m e n t h o l d s true f o r
God a l o n e , because u n l i k e human f a t h e r s , God i s t h e a b s o l u t e To s a y t h a t " f a t h e r " a n d
F a t h e r , c o m i n g f r o m no o t h e r .
" u n g e n e r a t e d " a r e s y n o n y m o u s i n all c a m s ( i n c l u d i n g t h e human case) i s wrong,
for two reasons: en ths m e h a n d , all human
f a t h e r s a r e generated; on c h e o t h e r h a n d , i t i s a s if " u n e m p l o y e d " a n d "man" ar? s y n o n y n o u s ; ~ s cc e c a u s e c h e y r e f s r t o e.g.
G3orge.
EunornLgs d e a r l y do?s n o t g r a s p B a s i l ' s f i n e
o x p l a n a t i o n , a s o n e c a n see f r o m h i s A p o l o a i a A ~ o l o q i a ew h e r e h e r e k r s t o c h e cwo c e r m s with no q u a l i f i c a t i o n s w h a t s o e v e r , a n d p u s h e s B a s i l ' s stacsnent i n a a i r e c c i o n . d n i c h c h ? l a c ~ t rw o u l d n a v e f o u n d unacc2ptable: "mrnes w i t h t h e same p o w e r a l s o mean the same t h i n g . " "
Gregory o f Myssa xill b e v e r y
C ~ C ~ O UCoo, S
s a y i n g t h a t " f a t h e r " and "unqeneraied" a n be s a i d ~c be synonyrno~s" i n on2 s c s z . " '
Greqcry p r c v i d e s additional
e x p l a n a c i c n s w h i c h I d e a l with l a t s r .
T u r n i n g a g a i n t o r e l a t i o n s h i p , " F a t h e r " i s n o t only more s u i t a b l e than "ungenerated,"
b u t i t a l s o i n t r o d u c e s cne n o t i o n of
"son" b e c a u s e of t h e r e l a t i o n .
One can a l s o add that b e c a u s e o f
i t s c o r r e l a t i v e power, by t h e t i m e o f B a s i l , t h e word " f a t h e r "
~ c E u n o m i u s ,A p o l o s i a A o o i o a i a e q u o t e d b y G r e g o r y o f N y s s a , CE I, 5 52 : ra 6 i q ~ a ir r j v P x o v ~ aG u v a p r&v 6voparwv ~ a i l ~ ~orva v - i w s~ a i ~ ~ U ~ L ~J€ QEU K ~ EV.
h a d q u i t e a h i s t o r y o f use i n defeating A r i a n s s u c h a s E u n o m i u s ,
a s w e saw.
B a s i l e l a b o r a t ? ~w h a t h e n e a n s b y r e l a t i o n a t
AE
11,
9 ( 5 8 8 c - 5 8 9 a ) where h e p r e s e n t s his t h e o r y o f a b s o l u ~ eand
r e l a t i v e names."
Some names a r e s a i d a b s o l u t e l y a n d r e f e r t o
~ h e r n s e l v e s , i n d i c a t i n g t h e r e a l i t i e s which a r e t h e i r s u b s t r a t e ; m h e r s a r e s a i d r e l a t i v e l y , i r d i c a r i n q rhe r e l a c i o n r e a i i c i e s i n regard to w h i c h they a r ? s a i d . "human"
EO
cne
He e x e m p l i f i e s w i t h
( a v e p ~ r r o r ) , " h o r s e , " a n d " o x " for t h e f o r m e r , and " s o n , "
" s l a v e , " and " f r i e n d " for t h e l a c i e r .
T h e i n f k e n c e ~t
A r i s c o c l e ' s Catsaories i s sbvlous h e r e . "
B a s i l x t e r n p t s c c shcw
c h a t " o f f s p r i n g ( o r p r o d u c cf g e n e r a t i a n ) " a
) dses n o t
r e f e r t o the S o n ' s s u b s t a n c e b u t t o h i s r e l a t i o n t o t h e F a t h e r . " O f f s p r i n g " i s a r e l a t i v e n o t a n a b s o l u t e name.
Therefors, it
d o e s n o t r 2 f e r t o the s u b s t a n c e , but i n d i c a t e s t h e attachment o f t h e r e a l i t y designated a s "offspring" t o another r e a l i i y .
Then
S a s i l h u r r i e s t o add t h a t a c z u a l l y n e i i h e r do a b s c l u t e names
r e f e r t o t h s s u b s t a n c 2 , buc a t c n e m o s t to the substratum ( b ~ ~ ~ ~, it hp a ~ t i~s ,' ~tne ~ )p r) o p e r t i e s ccnsldered i n t h e s u b s t a n c e .
" S t e a d notices that Plato's u n w r i t t e n d o c t r i n e s seem t o have c o n t a i n e d a p r i m i t i v e c a t e g o r i a l t h e o r y : r e a l i t i e s are d i v i d e d i n t o A b s o l u t e s , Opposites, and Relatives (Simplicius, Phvs. 2 4 7 . 3 0 ff; Sextus E m p i r i c u s , a d v . Math. x . 2 6 3 - 5 ) . Stead s u g g e s t s t h a t , even i f A r i s t o t l e ' s t h e o r y o f c a t e g o r i e s i s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t f r o m P l a t o ' s , t h e l a t t e r may s h e d some l i g h t on t h e o r i g i n o f A r i s t o t l e ' s own t h e o r y ( S t e a d , D i v i n e S u b s t a n c e , 5 3 )
.
"See C h a p t e r Two a b o v e a n d B . Sesboue, " I n t r o d u c t i o n " t c AE ( S C 2 9 9 : 8 1 ff). -
A little later,
h o w e v e r , B a s i l refers t o r e l a t i o n i n terms a s t h e -.
a p o TL ~ n39 e p w and undersrands i t a s t h e e q u i v a l e n r r o f ~ P G L S -.-
This may b e t r a y t h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h e S m i c category o f relation. From o t h e r t z x t s o n e l 2 a r n s t h a t f o r B a s i l , "fath3r" a n d " s o n " express o n l y i h 2 relation o f one t o t h e o t i x r (rrpo.;aMqXa o ~ e a ~ ~"Father ) . is ihe sne
who p r a v i d 2 s c o r h e o c h e r r;he
principle of his b e i n g i n a similar nature;
s o n i s the o n e who
h a s r e c e i v e d from t h e o t h e r ~ h r o u g hg e n e r a t i o n r h e p r i n c i p l c cf
h i s b e i n g . " - - Divine ? e n e r a r l c n , h c w e v e r , i a n e c c r n a l mystery i n a c c e s s i b l e c o human c o m p r e h e n s i o n .
-
f a t h e r h o o d and s o n s h i p a r e p r o p e r t i e s
I f divinity i s common,
( i S i i y a ~ a ) ,a n d c h e r o l e of
p r o p e x i e s i s t o show a l c e r i t y w i t h i n c h e i d e n t i t y o f s u b s t a n c e . T h e combination of c s m c n 2nd ? a r t k u l a r c i i s c i n c u i s h e s i h 2
p e r s o n s of t h e F a t h e r and t h e S o n from m e another.
'
In a later work such as Cn the 3 o l v S c i r i t (DSS hereafter], written ca. 375, B a s i l uses a relational a r g u m e n t r e m i n i s c e n t o f Oriqen's
a
io estabiish he coeiernity sf Father and Son:
"Ii
certainly is not the human concept [of son] t h a t compels
[Eunomius] ca s a y t h a t t h e Son i s p c s t e r i o r c o c h e F a t h e r :
[first
b e c a u s e F a t h e r a n d Son] a r e perceived s i m u l t a n e o u s l y due to the
r e l a t i o n a l i t y , and [second because che t e r m ]
' p o s t e r i o r ' is
applied t o something which i s temporally c l o s e r t o t h e p r e s e n t and, conversely,
[ t h e t e r m ] ' p r i o r ' t o what i s more remote from
t h e present.""
2 . G r e q o r v of N v s s a ' s view of d i v i n e r e l a t i o n a l i t v
N y s s e n ' s v i e w ~f d i v i n e r e l a c i o n s i s q u i t ? s i m i l a r t o h i s p r e d e c e s s o r s ' v i e w s , a s I shall denonstrate nexc:
In C o n t r a
Eunomium I , 1 5 5 ff. G r e g o r y d e a l s w i t h a n i s s u e against w h i c h t h e A r i a n s f o u g h t b i t t e r l y , n a m e l y c a l l i n g God " F a t h e r . "
The Arians
knew t h a t t h e i r a c c e c t a n c s ef t h e a r q u m e n c f r o m r e l a c i m s would
VI, 14; 9 8 b .
Basil o f C a e s a r e a , Sur le S a i n t Esprit, 26 e d . B e n o l r Pruche ( P a r i s : Cerf, 1 9 6 8 ) SC 1 7 b i s , 2 8 8 f. ET mine. "'DSS
E . T . of I (GNO 1, p p . 1-225) b y Stuart George Hall i n E l " C o n t r a E u n o m i u m " I en l a ~ r o d u c c i o nl i t e r a r i a de G r e a o r i o de N i s a . V I C o l o a u i o International s o b r e C r e q o r i o de Nisa, e d . by L u c a s F. Mateo-Seco and J u a n L . B a s t e r o (Pamplona: U n i v e r s i d a d d e N a v a r r a , l988), 19-135. F o r t h e rest cf cE and Ref, I u s e t h e ET
p r o v i d e d i n the NPNF c o l l e c t i o n , 2d s e r i e s , v o l . 5 , t r . N i l i i a m Moore and Henry A . Wilson (Grand R a p i d s , M I : Eerdmans, l892), 101-314. Both t r a n s l a t i o n s w i l l b e s l i g h t l y a l t e r e d i f they do n o t reflect t h e c r i t i c a l e d i t i o n o f Jaeger. Perhaps t h e h a n d i e s t r e f e r e n c i n g f o r m a t w i l l be t h e f o l l o w i n g : CE 11, 1 4 5 , w h e r e "11" i n d i c a t e s t h s second book o f Contra Eunomiurn a n d "145" t h e p a s s a g e number i n t h a t p a r t i c u l a r book, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e J a e g e r e d i t i o n . I n t h e c a s e o f t h e t h i r d book of CE, t h e a r e f e r e n c e w i l l have t h e f o r m a t 111, 2 , 5 7 , where "2" i n d i c a t e s t h e second tome o f t h e third book, a n d "57" t h e p a s s a g e n u m b e r i n t h a t p a r t i c u l a r tome, a c c o r d i n g t o the J a e g e r edition. A s f o r t h e R e f u t a t i o n : Ref 5 5 , where "55" r e p r e s e n t s t h e p a s s a g e number i n t h e J a e g e r e d i t i o n .
r e s u l t i n t h e i r d e f e a t , b e c a u s e i t v c u l d i m p l y t h a t God t h e F a t h e r had a d i v i n e Son.
G r e g o r y summarizes Eunomiusr d o c t r i n e
o f t h e Trinity, b y stating t h a t Eunomius replaces t h e r e v e a l e d b i b l i c a l names F a t h e r , Son a n d H o l y S p i r i t
(Plc 28:19) w i t h o t t e r
i r i t l e s aild, i n s t e a d o f " t h e E x h e r , " h e s p e a k s of and most a m h e n t i c b e i n g , "
"the highest
i n s t e a d cf " t h e S o n , " of " t h e c n s
whish exiscs because of thac [highest] b e i n g , " and i n s t e a d o f " t h e Holy S p i r i c , " of "a c h i r a w h i s h i s i n n o way a l i g n e d w i t h t h e m b u t subj3cc [to ~ h xs k r
~ W O .] I
'
I
~- .
~ A tkh a nea s i u s a n d
B a s i l b e f o r e h i m , G r e g o r y b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e r e a s o r . why Eunomius i n v e n t s new titles i s t h a t " f a t h e r " a n d " s o n " are c o r r e l a t i v e s w h i c h i m p l y e a c h o t h e r ; t h e i r u s e would compel Eunomius to
recognize t h a t f a t h e r a n d s o n h a v e t h e s a m e n a t u r e .
It is
e x a c t l y t h i s i m p l i c a t i o n t h a t Eunomius w a x s t o a v o i d a t a n y
c o s t : "ail h u m a n s , " s a y s Gregory, "when r h e y h e a r :he ' f a t h e r 1 and ' s o n ' ,
~icles
i;nmediar=.ly r ~ s n g n i z of r o m c h e very names
t h e i r i n r i m a t e a n d n a t u r a l r e l a t i o n co each o c h e r (6w~loj~lapbg
aMqha o ~ i o t v.)
Communit y o f n a c u r e ( d i u c w ~ouyyev€.;) i s i n ~ v tia b l y
suggested b y t h e s e t i t l e s . "'- T h e n a t u r a l r e l a t i o n t h a t the
names " f a t h e r " a n d " s o n " i n d i c a t e i s a p r o o f f o r the d i v i n i t y of
the Son w h i c h Eunomius e n d e a v o r s t o d e n y . Eunornius a n d other A r i a n s a n d Anomoeans b e f o r e him a l s o
p r e f e r r e d t o u s e " u n g e n e r a t e d - g e n e r a t e d r r i n s t e a d of " f a t h e r - s o n . " They a r g u e d t h a t " u n g e n e r a t e d " a n d " g m e r a t e d f ' r e f e r r e d t o t h e n a t u r e of t h e F a t h e r a n d t h e Son r e s p e c t i v e l y .
Thus t h e y
b e l i e v e d t h e y could p r o v e t h a t t h e F a t h e r ' s a n d c h e S o n ' s n a t u r e s
were " u n l i k e "
( a v o ( l o ~ o s )o n e a n o t h e r : t h e F a t h e r was s u r e l y God
a n d h i s n a t u r e was u n g e n e r a t e d ; s i n c e t h e S o n ' s n a t u r e was generatsd,
his i m p l i e d t h a t t h e Son was n o c God.
I mentioned
a b o v e B a s i l ' s r e a c t i o n t o c h i s a t t i t u d e when h e w r o t e t h a t " u n g e n e r a t e d " i s u n b i b l i c a l a n d a d v i s e d h i s b r o t h e r G r e g o r y and t h e i r s u p p o r t e r s to p r e s e r v e the p i o u s m e a n i n g ' '
of " u n g e n e r a t e d "
i n t h e i r s o u l , b u t n o t t o f a v o r t h e a c t u a l word, a s t h e w o r d " f a t h e r " would s u f f i c i e n t l y express t h e s e n s e of " u n g e n e r a t e d " i n God a n d w o u l d i n t r o d u c e t h e n o t i o n o f Son b e c a u s e of t h e r e l a t i o n
Eunornius d e v i s e d a n o c h e r c o u n t a r - a r g u m e n i
i r y i n q LO t u r n on
i t s h e a d t h e C a p p a d o c i a n case t h a ~" F a t h e r " a n d " U n g e n e r a t e d "
were u s e d in r e f e r e n c e t o the f i r s t d i v i n e p e r s o n .
According t o
Gregory, E u n o m i u s w r o t e : " I f ' F a t h e r ' a n d ' U n g e n e r a t e d '
are the
-.
:'EuoPP~ia i s a p o l y s e m a n t i c word i n G r e g o r y ' s w r i t i n g s , meaning " p i e t y , " " r i g h t f a i t h " ( h e n c e " o r t h o d o x y " ) , " f a i t h f u l n e s s t o t h e t r a d i t i o n , " a n d e v e n " t r u t h " ( s e e J . Ibafiez a n d F . Mendoza, " N a t u r a l e z a de l a ' e u s e b e i a ' e n G r e g o r i o d e Nisa," i n Greaor von Nvssa u n d d i e P h i l o s o ~ h i e : Zweites I n t e r n a t i o n a l e s K o l l o q u i u m u b e r G r e a o r v o n N v s s a ( F r e c k e n h o r s t b e i Munster, 1 8 . 2 3 Seotember 1 9 7 2 1 , e d s . H e i n r i c h D o r r i e e t a l . [ L e i d e n : B r i l l , 19761, 261-277) . ~ CE I, 548; -
~ ,
I, ~ 5 , 6~ 3 - 4 5 i(516d-517a) l q u o t e d by G r e g o r y a t cf. CE I, 558.
same i n p o w e r , a n d i f names w i t h the sane power a l s o mean the .
-
s a m e t h i n g , a n d ' U n g e n e r a c e d ' o n t h e i r own s h o w i n g c - means t o b e God f r o m n o o t h e r ,
ic n e c e s s a r i l y f o l l o w s that ' F a t h e r ' a l s o
m e a n s t o be God from n o o t h e r , a n d n o t that h e h a s g e n e r a t e d t h e S o n . ""-
E u n o m i u s e i t h e r c a r i c a t u r e s o r d o e s n o t f u l l y comprehend
B a s i l ' s argument here.
B a s i l d i d n o t s a y that names w i t h c h e
same power w o u l d mean the same thing.
Gregory counters E u n o m i u s '
a s s a r t i o n w i t h a n extensive a r g u m e n r : o f rhe m e a n i n g o f t h e name
"Father." .Among other c h i n g s , he interweaves i n this a r q u r n e n c a t h e o r y o f a b s o l u t e and r e l a t i v e names s i m i l a r m, b u t l e s s s o p h i s t i c a t e d t h a n , t h e o n e B a s i l proposed i n h i s A q a i n s t Eunomius 11, 9,
11-27
(588c-589a)
by s a y i n g t h a t "ungenerated"
.
Gregory begins h i s argument
a n d " f a t h e r " refer t o t h e s a m e
r e a l i c y , t h e p e r s o n o f God t h e F a t h e r ; c h e r e f o r s , " i n o n e s e n s e " !~a.ra T L v a 6 t a ~ w t a v ) t h e two words c a n b e said to be
synonymous."-
However, he continues, b o t h w o r d s have o t h e r c o n n o t a t i o n s a s well; t h e i r b e i n g synonymous i n one sense does n o t imply their b e i n g synonymous i n a l l : W e c a l l the Emperor b o t h S o v e r e i g n and A b s o l u t e , and a l s o C h i e f o f his s u b j e c t s , a n d i t i s n c t f a l s e t o s a y o f h i m t h a t the w o r d ' E m p e r o r ' a l s o means ' A b s o l u t e ' ; n o r do w e s a y t h a t i t i s l o g i c a l l y n e c e s s a r y , i f s o v e r e i g n t y and a b s e n c e
"The e a l u s i o n i s t o t h e p a s s a g e q u o t e d e a r l i e r from Basil,
AE -.
I, 5 (Sf6D-517A)
.
O-Apud Gregory o f Nyssa,
a
I, 552.
of a s u p e r i o r a r e i n d i c a t e d b y t h i s w o r d , t h a r h i s a u t h o r i t y o v e r his s u b j e c c s i s n o l o n g e r s i g n i f i e d b y h i s being Emperor. "'
Similarly, since God 'he
F a t h e r is n o t t h e son of a n y o t h e r
f a t h e r b e f o r e h i m , he i s a l s o ungenerated.':'
One c a n s a y that
God t h e F a t h e r i s a n a b s o l u t e father, " t h e F a t h e r . '
This,
however, d o e s n o t i m p l y t h a t w e m u s t "wrench the meaning of
' F a t h e r ' away from
.
h i s r e l a t i o n t o the Son (rrpog TOL)uiov axioms) "*'
Gregory t u r n s his a t t e n t i o n t o this r e l a t i o n n e x t .
In a n o t h e r e x a m p l e used to r e f u t e Eunomius, G r e g o r y s a y s t h a t Eunomiusf own father was b o t h a " f a t h e r t v a n d a "human. "" But n e i t h e r t i t l e e x c l u d e s the o t h e r : being a f a t h e r does not e x c l u d e being a human o r v i c e v e r s a .
One s h o u l d n o t e t h a t i n t h e
a b o v e examples, Gregory utilizes bcch a b s o l u t e names (sovereign,
h u m a n ) a n d r e l a t i v e names (chief, f a t h e r !
.
He t n e r t f o r e e x p l a i n s
his t h e o r y o f names: "Who d o e s noE know t h a t some nouns a r e absolute a n d u n r e l a t e d ( U T ~ O X V T ~TE
K U ~~ B X E T Q ) ,others
e x p r e s s a relation irrpdg n v a o)(iow) ? " "
are used to
He e x e m p l i f i e s d i r e c t lv
'CE I, 5 6 3 ff. G r e g o r y exposes h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f r e l i g i o u s languaqe a n d t h e h e r m e n e u t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s u n d e r g i r d i n g h i s e x e g e s i s . - He b e l i e v e s that t h e "names" r e v e a l e d i n S c r i p t u r e a b o u t God c o m p l e m e n t t h e d i m a n d i m p e r f e c t c o m p r e h e n s i o n o f t h e d i v i n e n a t u r e that r e a s o n s u p p l i e s
with names attributed to God in Scripture.
Absolute names, or
names said absolutely, are those which "describe by rhemseives some complete idea about God," such as "'imperishable', 'eternal' ,
' immortal', and the like. " G
Relative names "refer
only to some beneficial relationship, like 'help', 'shield', 'succour'. . . .
If you remove the need for help, z h e significant
fcrce of the name is lost. " " '
In this context mention has to be
made of another text (Ref 121-125) where Gregory deals with relative names attributsd to God such as "almighty," "lord," "physician, " "shepherd."
H?re Gregory speaks of relation in
Stoic terms ( ~ npoqri b r r w ~ i p i :~ ~ ) Those then who enquire precisely into t h e meaning of the term 'almighty' find that it declares nothing else concerning the divine power than that that activicy (or energy) which controls created rhings and is indicated by c h e word 'almighty' stands in a certain relacion to something ( ~ i nptis , ~i xu.; & E L I ' ) . For as he w o u l d n o c b e called a physician, save on account of the sick . . . so neither would he be styled almighty, did not all creation stand in
us with ( E 11, 130). For a recent discussion of Gregory's understanding of religious language, see Frances M. Young, Biblical Exeaesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 1 4 0 - 1 4 3 . Nevertheless, I disagree with her statement that "The terms used 'relatively' are invariably those that relate to the oikonomia, to God's relationship with the world" (p. 143). As one can see here, Gregory endeavors to convince Eunomius that names such as "Father" and "Son," which r e f r r to the theolosia, that is, God's intra-trinitarian life, are relative names also.
need of one to regulate it and keep it in being.
--
Nevertheless, Gregory does not seem to favor the Stoic category of relation.
The phrase npoq ~i nus €XELV occurs only two m c r e tines
in a l l of his works, a c CE TI, 116 (NPNF 2 . 5 1 2 6 2 ) and CE 11, 392 (NPNF 2 , 5 : 2 8 9 )
.
In both places the Stoic c a t e g o r y of r e l a c i o n i s
used to express the relation of a body to other objects and the relation between cr5ated things, respectively.
Gregory does n c t
attach any special significance to this phrase. However, he envisions a chird kind of names, "wnich a r s used b o r h independently and with their relatedness, such as 'God' and
'gocd' and others like them."
..
-
392 t r a n s f o r m s such names f r o m
absolure into relative by atcaching p o s s e s s i v e adjectives to them, e. g. "my God" or "your good."
In the example of absolute
names which c a n be c u r n 2 d i ~ t or e l a t i v e names b y merely attaching to chem possessive adjectives, Gregory shows that he is either
unaware of, o r does not care about, Ariscotle's argument that nc substances can be called relatives (expressed clearly at Cat. 8bl5-2).
'-
Thus:
The universal God often becomes p e r s o n a l to the one who calls upon him, in the way we may hear the h o l y ones m a k i n g the supreme nacure p e r m n a l to them. "Holy is t h e Lord God" (Rev 1:8) is as far as it goes unrelated ( ~ O ~ T O .V ) But i f someone adds " o u r " (Rev 4 : l l ) , he no longer allows the name
- :~ e f 125; NPNF 2 . 5 : 1 2 0 .
--See m y discussion of the issue in Chapter Two.
t o b e u n d e r s t o o d b y i t s e l f ; h e h a s made t h e meaning p e r s o n a l i n r e l a t i n g i t t o h i m s e l f . A g a i n , t h e S p i r i t cries, l l a b b a , F a t h e r ! " (Rorn 8 : 1 5 ) ; h e r o ~ h word e is i n d e p e n d e n t of t h e But w e a r e a l s o commanded t o c a l l particular relationship. t h e F a t h e r in h e a w n "mr F a t h e r " ( M t 6 ~ 9 ) ; t h i s a g a i n i s ~ h ree l a t i o n a l m e a n i n g i i ~ E T aqpaaia) L ~ . 30 j u s t as t h e p e r s o n who m a k e s t h e u n i v e r s a l God h i s own in no w a y o b s c u r e s h i s p o s i t i o n a s supreme o v e r a l l , s o t h e r e i s no r e a s o n why he F a t h e r , h a v i n g a p p c i n t e d the one o r i g i n a t i n g f r o m himself a s t h e F i r s t b o r n o f a i l c r e a t i o n , s h o u l d not simultaneously i n d i c a t e by t h e ~ i c l e" F a r h e r " t h a t h e has u e n e r a t e d che S o n , a n d b y t h e same word explarn c h a r he .e x i s t s from n o superlor cause. '
T h e r e i s i n t h i s p a s s a g e t h e beginning of a ~heologyo f a d o p t i o n : t h e S o n of God--who
i s s o n by n a t u r e - - c a l l s
o n u s , who a r e
different i n n a t u r a from God, t o become sons of God by a d o p c i o n . Sod the F a t h e r b e c o m e s our F a t h e r . theology of a d o p t i o n .
-
8
'
One i s rerr-inded of O r i g e n ' s
Bat w a s G r e g o r y ' s v i e w o f a d o p t i o n
r e a l l y i n f l u e n c e d b y Origen?
1 s h a l l deal w i t h t h i s i s s u e l a t e r
in t h i s c h a p t 3 r .
c a k e s i s s u e w i t h E u n o m i u s ' u n w i X i n g n e s s to c a l l t h e t h r e e d i v i n e
persons Father, Son a n d Holy S p i r i t .
He tells u s that Eunomius
c a l l s t h e F a t h e r " c r e a t o r " and " d e m i u r g e " of t h e Son, the Son "work,
c r e a t u r e a n d p r o d u c t , " and the Spirit " c r e a t u r e of the
c r e a t u r e , work o f the w o r k . " "
-.'See
Gregory i s of t h e o p i n i o n t h a t we
e s p . O r i g e n , Corn. J n . X X X I I , C . Cels. 111. 2 8 . 5 6 , On P r a v e r 2 0 , etc. and t h e i r t h o r o u g h a n a l y s i s i n W i d d i c o m b e , Fatherhood, 93-118.
have t o p a y g r e a t e r actention c o t h e t i t l e s F a t h e r , S o n , a n d H o l y
S p i r i c , s i n c e t h e y were r e v e a l e d b y r h e L o r d h i m s e l f .
This i s
a n o t h e r way o f s a y i n g t h a t , a l t h c u g n S c r i p t u r e u s e s o t h e r t i t l e s i n r e g a r d t o God,
F a t h e r , Son and Holy S p i r i t d e s c r i b e t h e t r i u n e
God more a p p r o p r i a t e l y .
For, " i f understood i n its n a t u r a l sense
(bia fis apoobuoGs qpaoiaq) , each o f t h e s e t i t l e s i s for Christians a
canon o f truth a n d a l a w o f piety." Y h e name ' F a r h e r '
'
Then, Gregory e l a b o r a t e s :
i s noc u n d e r s t o c d with r e f e r m c e t o icself
alone, but a l s o by its proper s i g n i f i c a t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h e r e l a t i o n c o t h e S o n : a p b ~-61r
i t h tq
i o ~ v ." !
T h e name " F a t h e r "
t e l l s u s t h a t God i s n o t o c l y o n e p e r s o n , b u t at k a s t t w o , and
indeed t h r e e , because o f
he r e l a t i o n a l i t y t h e s e names e x p r e s s .
T h e f a i t h i n t h e t r i u n e God f o r m s the c a n o n of t r u t h f o r
Christians.
A t t h i s p o i n c G r e g o r y uses i n reference to Gcd a
p a r a d o x i c a l p h r a s e which ne seems t o l i k e a n d w h i c h we a l s o e n c o u n t e r e d in Ad Pecrum 4 . 8 7 - 8 8 n a m e l y that God, b e c a u s e o f t h e o n e n a t u r e and three p e r s o n s , can b e d e s c r i b e d a s " d i v i d e d w i t h o u t s e p a r a t i o n and u n i t e d w i t h o u t c o n f u s i o n . "
'
Yet what d o e s t h i s r e i a t i o n a l i t y o f t h e d i v i n e p e r s o n s mean
for G r e g o r y ?
F i r s t o f a l l , i t means ( a s i t m e a n t from O r i g e n
onwards) t h a t , s i n c e God t h e Father i s i m m u t a b l e and e t e r n a l l y
--
'Ref - 5.
- -. Ref 6, -
--
'Ref - 6,
NPNF 2 . 5 : 1 0 2 .
NPNF 2.5:102.
i d e n c i c a i t o h i m s e l f , h e h a s a l w a y s had a Son.
Conversely,
Son h a s a l w a y s had a n e t e r n a l a n d d i v i n e Father.
the
T h e S o n tac i s
immurable and d i v i n e p r e c i s a l y b e c a u s e o f c h e r e l a t i o n a l i t y w i c h -
-
t h e Father. '
O t h e r w i s e , c h a n g e f r o m t h e b e t t e r LO t h e worse or
from t h e worse t o t h e b e t t e r wuuid h a v e bee^ implisd; b u t c h a n g e a n d a l c e r a t i s n i n God a r e u n a c c e p t a b l e . - -
S e c o n d , r e l a t i o n a l i t y means t h a t t h e S o n , "who & i n t h e bosom of c h e F a t h e r 1 ' (Jn 1:18), i s from a l l e c e r n i c y contemplated i n t h a Father.-'
LO
be
T h e p r e s e n t t e n s e of c h e verb
"LO
be" u s e d b y t h e e v a n g e l i s t s u g g e s t s , in G r e g o r y ' s view, t h a c t h e
S o n h a s a l w a y s b e e n i n t h t bosom o f ~ h Fe a c h s r , n o t c h a r he came t o be t h e r e .
T h e S o n b e i n g c o n t e r n p l a c e d i n c he bosom o f ~ h e
F a t h e r means that he i s c o n t e m p l a t e d a s "power a n d wisdom o f God"
(i Cor 1 : 2 4 ) , "truth, l i g h t , and s a n c t i f i c a t i o n " ( 1 Cor 1 : 3 O ) , ( E p n 2 : 141, " i i f a " a n d o t h e r similar names.-.-
"peace"
A c c o r d i n g l y , denial o f t h e S o n ' s e x i s t e n c e i m p l i e s d e n i a l o f a l l t h e s e goods i n the bosom of t h e F a t h e r , t h a t i s to s a y that God d i d n o t a l w a y s p o s s e s s them? T h e S p i r i t i s a l s o a c o r r e l a t i v e term o f b o t h t h e F a t h e r a n d
-
"Ref -7 . -
"~ e f 8. ..
' -R e f 8.
%ef - 9. " ~ e 9f .
r h e Son.
I n u s i n g b i b l i c a l p h r a s e s , Gregory r e f c s t o t h e S p i r i t
a s good and hoiy, p r i n c e l y , p r i n c i p a l , q u i c k e n i n g , g o v e r n i n g and s a n c t i f y i n g o f all c r e a t i o n . "
H e c o n c e i v e s "no g a p between
C h r i s t and h i s a n o i n t i n g , b e t w e e n t h e k i n g a n d h i s kingdom, b e t v e e n w i s d o m and b he S p i r i c of wisdom, b e t w e e n truth and t h e S p i r i t cf truth, between power a n d t h a S p i r i t o f power.".' T h e r e f o r r , h e c o n c l u d e s t h a i , s i n c e c h e Soc i s e t e r n a l l y c o r x e m p l a ~ e c ! i n t h e F a t h e r a n d t h e Spirit i s t h e Son's S p i r i t ,
the S p i r i ~t o o is eternally contemplated i n the Father.-p Ali t h e s e r e f l e c t i o n s about r e l a t i o n a l i t y e n a b l e u s t o understand t h a t che c h r e e d i v i n e p e r s o n s are s t r o n g l y u n i t e d w i t h e a c h
o c h e r , b u t i t t h e same time they a r e r o b e d i s t i n q u i s n 2 d fr3m each o t h e r .
"
Then, G r e g o r y i n t e r p r e t s M t 28:!9,
name sf c h e F a t h e r and of ~ h eSon and ;f
" b a p t i z i n g t h e m in t h e the
uclv Spirit."..
He
"'Ref - 11. 'Ref
12.
""Ref 1 2 . .-
' Ref 1 3 . "For a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of G r e g o r y ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of M t 2 8 : 1 9 a n d i t s p a t r i s t i c a n t e c e d e n t s , see M i c h e l J. van P a r y s , "Exegese e t theologie d a n s les l i v r e s C o n t r e Eunome de G r e g o i r e d e Nysse: t e x t e s scripturaires controverses e t elaboration
t h e o l o g i q u e " i n ~ c r i t u r ee t c u l t u r e o h i l o s o p h i a u e dans l a en see de G r e a o i r e de Nvsse. Actes du C o l l o a u e de C h e v e t o a n e ( 2 2 - 2 6 se~ternbre1 9 6 9 1 , ed. M a r g u e r i t e Harl (Leiden: B r i l l , 1971) , 186192.
c h i n k s c h a t C h r i s t s t o p s s h o r t o f t e l l i n g u s w h a t t h e name i s , b e c a u s e i t refers t o t h e d i v i n e s u b s t a n c e w h i c h f o r u s i s .
i n e f f a b l e and i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e . "
These r e f l e c t i o n s persuade
Gregory t o return t o t h e i s s u e o f r e l a t i o n a l i ~ y . He t h u s s a y s thzC
1 1 ;-
L
is plain c h a t t h e t i ~ l eo f F a t h e r does n o t p r e s e n t c o u s
r h e substance, b u t o n l y i n d i c a t e s t h e r e l a t i o n t o t h e S o n . " "
Let u s a l s o remember w h a t G r e g o r y s t a t e d j u s t p r e v i o u s l y : " t h e name ' P a r h e r ' i s n o t u n d e r s t o o d w i ~ hr e f e r e n c e t o i t s e i f a l o n e , b u t a l s o b y i t s p r o p e r s i g n i f i c a t i o n i n d i c a t e s the r e l a t i o n r_hd Son (np&
TOP L ~ O VOXCOW)
. " ':
LO
H i s c o n c l u s i o n i s twofold: on the
o n e h a n d , t h e name " F a t h e r " refers t o t h e first d i v i n e p e r s o n ; or.
- 'R e f 14 ff. .-
'-Ref 1 6 , NPNF 2 . 5 : LO? : J a v ~ p i wyap 6 3 4 706 ~ a ~ p ~oAsj a t 06ks oiloia~i o ~ ~i a p a ~ ~ a ~a AiXm a j , npos T ~ Vu ~ O OX~(JI.L) L~ C i m o q p a i i ~ ~ ~This . should n o t make u s l a b e l t h e Cappadocian n o t i o n o f r e l a t i o n a s e i t h e r n o n - s u b s i s c e n t 3r s u b s i s t e n t r t l a r i o n , because t h i s was n o t the case. Stead himself chinks chat questions r e i a t e d t o d i s t i n c ~ i o n sbetween G o d ' s s u b s t a n c e and h i s p r o p e r t i e s were n o t c l e a r l y f o r m u l a t e d b y t h e C h r i s t i a n writers o f t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y (cf. h i s D i v i n e S u b s t a n c e , 1 6 4 ff) . A l t h o u g h a r g u i n g t h a t God i s c o m p l e t e l y s i m p l e , h a s no " a c c i d e n t s , " a n d n e e d s n o t h i n a t o c o m p l e t e h i s s u b s t a n c e , w h i c h i s i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e (De d e c r e t i s . 221, A t h a n a s i u s s t i l l s u g g e s t s a v a r i e t y o f terms w h i c h enable u s t o " s i g n i f y " h i s s u b s t a n c e , s u c h a s "Sad a n d F a t h e r and L o r d . " O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e Anomoeans c o n t e n d t h a t " u n g e n e r a t e d n e s s " is completely adequate t o express t h e divine nature. Another A r i a n a r g u m e n t was t h a t , s i n c e God h a s no a c c i d e n t s , e v e r y t h i n g t h a t c a n be s a i d a b o u t h i m b e l o n g s t o h i s s u b s t a n c e , a n d "Son" i s e x c l u d e d f r o m i t . The C a p p a d o c i a n s reply t h a t " u n g e n e r a t e d n e s s " a n d " g e n e r a t e d n e s s " a r e n o t i n t e r n a l t o t h e s u b s t a n c e o f God, b u t are d i s t i n g u i s h i n g p r o p e r t i e s ( h i p a ~ a ) . In A r i s t o t e l i a n t e r m s , t h e y are n o t p r o p e r t h s b u t d i f f e r e n t i a e , m a r k i n g o f f i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h i n a genus ( S t e a d , Divine S u b s t a n c e , 165 n . 1 4 ) . -I
' :~ e f 6,
NPNF 2 . 5 : 1 0 2 .
- -
t h e o t h e r hand,
i t p o i n t s t o a n o t h s r p e r s o n , t h e Son.
This is a
r e a s o n t o c o n c l u d e t h a t , when using correlatives s u c h a s "Father,
I'
" S o n , " a n d " S p i r i t , " G r e g o r y d o e s n o t h a v e i n mind non-
subsistent relations. T h i s w h o l e d i s c u s s i o n i s placed i n che c c n t z x t ( R 2 f 1 4 - 1 7 ) 3 f what i s s u f f i c i e n t for u s Zo come t o r h e knowledge o f the
c r u t h a n d be saved ( 1 Tim 2 4 ) .
I n v i e w 3 f c h i s o b j e c t i v e , God
h a s not c o n s i d e r e d ir n e c e s s a r y f o r u s r o knew c h e d i v i n e substance.
I t i s sufficient for u s t o know c h a t God i s " t h e
a b s o l u t e l y e x i s t e n t ( ~ OVTWS 6 61)) , togecher w i t h whom, b y t h e n o t i o n o f r e l a t i o n ( b t a fis OXETLIC~)Si t w o i a ~ ) , c h e m a j e s t y of t h e Son
is a l s o m a n i f e s t e d , w h e r e a s the Son, as said p r e v i o u s l y , shows h i m s e l f i n s e p a r a b l y u n i t 2 d wirn cne Spiric o f l i f e a n d t r u c h ,
i n a s m u c h a s h e i s h i m s e l f life and c r u c h . " ' -
I n G r e g o r y ' s view
t h i s i s che m o s t yerfect w a s h i n g sf p i e c y , a n d b e y o n d i t ,
n o t h i n g d s e i s necessary 51 XI
szl-;aticn.
.
Like B a s i l a n d O r i g e n b e f o r e h i m , G r e g o r y connects t h e i d e a o f c o r r e l a t i v i t y between t h e F a t h e r a n d t h e Son w i t h c h a t of He s a y s t h a t f o x God t o b e t h e F a t h e r o f s u c h a
God's goodness.
Son i s g o o d . ' '
I f Eunomius and h i s s u p p o r t e r s d e n y t h a t God i s a
" ~ e f 1 7 , NPNF ? . 5 : 1 0 3 . -"Ref - 17.
'YE - I, 5 8 4 : KUMV ~ D T v3v L K U ~Tlj p ~ y a k i o q nTOG &oir rrp&~ovTO roiou-iou y e v k ~ 0 ana.r€pa. ~ Gregory's language i s h i g h l y s i m i l a r t o Sasil's 11, p . 5 9 3 A-B q u o t e d b y G r e g o r y a t 111, 6 , 5 6 :
(u
Father, they imply that God's goodness did not always exist in its fullness, but was only acquirec after he begot the Son.
An
even more dramatic Lmplicaticn would be chat before beqecting -he Son, God would have had "neither wisdom nor power nor truth nor life nor any of those chings by which in his various aspects the Only-begotten Son has b o t h his being and his titles."': As
Widdicombf noticed in his comments on Origen, "it is fundamental to his [Origen's] thought that since i h e accribute of goodness is
central to God's nacure, God acts eternally to realize chat whish is good.""
The same holds True for the Cappadocian view of God.
It is possible i h a t , whan writing
a
I, 584 f f , S r e g o r y
recalled Origen's argument from ihe Commentarv on Genesis of which only a fragment has some down to us in Eusebius' Contra Marcellurn.
The Corn. on Gen. fragment is the only text known c o
us in which Origen makes a n explicit comparison between the
fatherhood of God and the fatherhcod of men,
'
C r i g e n s a y s ihat
u n l i k e men who become fathers, but a r ? at cne time unable to be
fathers, God has always been Father.
Gregory argues in a more
comprehensive manner, speaking of the f a c t that for humans "it is
K ~ X O V S E T OTOLOUTOU r r a t 6 0 s ~ b a'rra~ipa) i and Origen's ( D e orinci~iis, I . 2 . 9 and Comment a rv on Genesis : ~aAovaui-ov d v a i rrari.pa TOLOUTOV uio6)
''E I, 584. '%ddicombe,
Fatherhood, 7 1 .
'-~iddicombe, Fatherhood, 7 0 .
201
.
i m p r a c t i c a b l e f o r a n y o n e to a c q u i r e the h a b i t o f a number o f f u n c t i o n s a t t h e same rrirne, b u t
[ t h e y ] rnusr: t a k e u p e a c h o f the
i n t e r e s t s i n order and one a1 a time."'"
Unlike humans, God d o e s
n o t have a t o n e time u n g e n e r a t e d n e s s , t h e n a c q u i r e s t h e power,
than i m p e r i s h a b i l i t y , t h e n wisdom, t h e n f a t h e r h o o d , then e t e r n i t y , b u ~h a s a 1 1 of t h e s e and many o t h e r attributes a l w a y s ima a t m e same t u n e . "
h e r e f o r e , chs F a t h e r i s always F a t h e r
a n d w i t h h i m t h e S o n i s a l s o a l w a y s i m p l i e d because o f the
c o r r d a t i v i t l i o f t h e two terms.
..---
A n o t h e r p l a c e w h e r e G r e g o r y compares d i v i n e a n d human fatherhood is
E 111,
2 , 16i ff.
T h i s cime h e explicitly
mentions t h a c the view o r i g i n a t e s w i t h his b r o t h e r Basil.
The
latter s p o k e o f two m e a n i n g s o f t h e word " s o n " : a ) t h e b e i n g formed by p a s s i c n
(fi TE h a ild80uy)
a n d b i t h e :rue
relationship to
the begetter i f i ~ p b ~ ~ b ~ y e y e ~ j ~ ) ~ ~I n d ~discourses ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ upon ~ ( j ~ ~ ' ; ) . t h i n g s d i v i n e B a s i l d i d n o t admit che f c r m e r sense b e c a u s e it was "unssemly and c a r n a l , " b u t d i d admit ch2 l a t t e r s e n s e a s i t bore h
.
w i t n e s s t o t h e g l o r y of t h e O n l y - b e g o t t e n . - - -
Eunornius,
contends
G r 2 g o r y f d i s h o n o r s t h e Son b y t h e n o v e l t i e s w h i c h h e t r i e s introduce i n theology.
A t t h i s p o i n t G r e g o r y calls B a s i l
"CE - I, 585. -
-
''G I , 5 8 6 ff. :-Q I, 5 9 3 . -.
-&-CE - 111, 2 , 161; NPNF 2 . 5 : 1 7 1 .
,
LO
admiringly "a fcllower of Apostle Paul" and Eunomius derogatorily "ihe new Stoic and Epicurean," borrowing an image from A c ~ s1 7 : 2 i
There, in the Areopagus,
which describes Paul's visit to A c h m s .
Paul met "Stoics and Epicureans" who, like all t h e Athenians of
chis account, "spent their tim2 in nothing else but either c o tell o r to hear som? new ihing."
From this poinr of view,
Eunomius is "the new Stoic and Epicurean" because, asks Gregory rhetorically, "what could be found newer than chis--a Son of an energy, and a Father of a creature, and a new god springing up from nothinq, and jcod
ai
variance w i ~ h~ m d ? "- - These a r e the
consequences of Eunomius' teaching abouc God and they are indeed disastrous n o t only for t h e Son, whom Eunomius disparages, but also for the Father and the entire godhead.
3 . Biblical Views of Divin2 Relationalitv in Greaorv's Works
Chapters 14-15 and 20 of c h e Gospel according to John contain important statements about the relationship among the three
divine persons, as well as b e t w e e n God and humans. refers to them in a number of p a s s a g e s in
explaining the divine relationality.
places next.
John 14:9-10 reads: "9.
a
Gregory
and Ref when
I will consider these Jesus said to him [i.e.,
to Philip], Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know
CE I
2, 164; NPNF 2.5:171. 203
me, Philip?
H e who h a s s e e n m e h a s s e e n t h e F a t h e r ; how c a n you
s a y , Show u s t h e Father?
10.
Do you zot b e l i e v e t h a t I am i n
t h e F a t h e r a n d t h e F a t h e r i s i n me?" I n r e f u t i n g E u n o m i u s t view t h a t a l l t h e names g i v e n t o God, except " u n g e n e r a c e d ,
.
..
" a r e mere human conceptions ( i n i v o i a ~,)- - '
Gregory has r e c o u r s e to J n 1 4 : 1 0 :
No one, I i m a g i n e , c a n b e s o d e n s e l y s t u p i d a s t o b e i g n o r a n t c h a t God t h e Only-begotten, who i s i n t h e F a t h e r ( J n 14:10), a n d who sees t h e F a t h e r i n h i m s e l f , i s i n n o need o f a n y name o r t i t l e t o make him known, n o r i s t h e m y s t e r y o f t h e Holy Spiric, whc s e a r c h e s che deep t h i n g s of Gad (1 C o r 2:10), brought t o our k n o w l e d g e b y a n o m i n a l a p p e l l a t i c n , n o r car? t h e i n c x p o r s a l r ~ a t u r es f s u p r a m u n d a n e powers name God by m i t e and tongue. ' This i s i n d e e d a p o p h a t i c t h e o l o g y a t its peak.
The two b i b l i c a l
verses (Jn I4:10 a n d I Cow 2 1 0 ) Gregory q u o t e s t o g e t h e r b o t h i n his c o n t e x t a n d d s e w h e r e .
relations.
.
a r e irnpcrrant f o r his vitw of d i v i n e
T h e former r e f e r s t o t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e
F a t h e r and t h e o n a s w e s a w , ihe l a t t e r t o the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e H o l y S p i r i t a n d c h e other two p e r s o n s ( " t h e S p i r i t searches sverything, w e n
he d 2 p t h s o f G o d " ) .
e x p r e s s t h e deep i n t i m a c y e x i s t i n g among
Both verses
he d i v i n e p e r s o n s .
Each p e r s o n dwells i n t h e o t h e r t w o a n d knows t h e m p e r f e c t l y . . .-
-'Eunomius, A D O ~ . 8, 1-6. Cf. also B a s i l ' s r e f u t a t i o n o f t h e same a r g u m e n t a t 1, 5.133-137 a n d my d i s c u s s i o n i n " P r o s d p o n a n d H V D O S ~ ~ Si n~ SB a s i l of C a e s a r e a t s A a a i n s t E u n o m i u s and t h e E p i s t l e s , " Viailiae C h r i s t i a n a e 51 ( 1 9 9 7 ) : 378.
a
""CE - 11, 390; N P N F 2.5:289. - .--'CE - 11, 216-218, N P N F 2 . 5 : 2 7 2 .
T h i s i s t h e supreme degree o f r e l a t i o n a l i t y a n d communion, a n d G r e g o r y c o n t e n d s t h a t because they a r e s p i r i t u a l , c h e d i v i n e p e r s o n s need n o t e x p r e s s t h e i r knowledge o r f e e l i n g s a b o u t e a c h
o t n e r , t h a t i s , they do noc c o m m u n i c a t e v i t h e a c h o t h e r i n t h e way we humans d o .
Nor do rhe " s u p r a r n u n d a n s powers" n e e d t o nams
God " b y voice a n d tongus."
Thz w o v e r s e s a l s o o c c u r t o g e t h e r a t t h i s p a s s a g e i s a l s o v e r y telling.
CE
11, 216-218, a n d
G r e g o r y deals here w i t h t h e
way i n w h i c h t h e d i v i n e p e r s o n s c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h e a c h o t h e r .
a r g u m e n r c a n be s t l m m a r i z e d a s follows,
His
We h u m a n s eomrnunicace
w i t h o n e a n o t h e r in ihe f o l l o w i n g manner: o n e u t i e r s one's c h o u q h t s b y means o f v o i c e o r w r i t i n g or o t h e r g e s t u r e s ( s u c h a s
an e x p r e s s i o n of t h e e y e
G r
a rncvmsr-x of : h e
other one h 2 a r s s r r e a d s zhlrn.
3. mediiim
h a n d ) , a n d che
p i o w ! is necessary,
" f o r v o i c e t o b e produced," continues Gregory,
"unless it takes
c o ~ s i s t e n c ei n t h e a i r . ":'" The a i r i s t h e medium i n this case. Yet what is the nedium b e t w e e n t h e F a t h e r a n d the Son'?
I f there
i s s u c h a m e d i u m b e t w 3 e n them a t a l l , t h e n i t s h o u l d b e e i t h e r
created o r u n c r e a t e d .
I t c a n n o t be c r e a t e d , s i n c e t h e F a t h e r a n d
t h e Son c o m m u n i c a t e d w i t h e a c h o t h e r even before t h e creation o f t h e world.
If i t i s u n c r e a t e d ,
then i t s h o u l d perhaps be e i t h e r
g e n e r a t e d o r u n g e n e r a t e d ; b u t w e know c h a t t h e O n l y - b e g o t t e n
a l o n e i s g e n e r a t e d and t h e F a t h e r a l o n e i s u n g e n e r a t e d .
Therefore, Gregory concludes that s u c h a medium d ~ e snot exist in the divine case.
Hence, "where separation is not conceived o f ,
che c l o s e s t connection ( T O o u v q ~ l i v o v ) Is confessed.
And what is
so connected needs no medium for v o i c e or s p e e c h . " ' -
Now by
"connection" he means "what is in all respects inseparable
(&I
m i o i v a ~ w p ~ a ~,' oIv )and in the case of a spiritual n a c u r e connection d o e s n o t mean c o r p o r e a l connection, b u r "the union a n d b h n d i n g
of spiritual with spiritual ~ h r o u g hi d e n t i i r y cf wills."- +
Accordingly, .here Father and c h e Son.
is nc d i v e r g s n c f of will between the
" I f t h e F a c h e r w i l l s anything, t h e Son who
is in ths Father (Jn 14:lO) kncws t h e Father's wiil.":
'
Because
cf this coinherence (mpt~wpjoi~, as it was called l a t e r ) , the Son
has everything c h a t belongs to the F a t h e r and, most importantly, has =he F a t h e r hirnsdf a n d t h e w h o k o f ths Father's will: Therefore, "the Son is himself cne Father's wili" words to learn what c h e Father's will is.
He
-'
and needs no
himself is also the
Word of the Father. An e q u a l l y s t r o n g relation exists between the Holy Spirit
':-cE - TI, 2 1 4 ; N P N F 2 . 5 : 2 7 1 .
---CE - 11, 2 1 6 ; NPNF 2 . 5 : 2 7 2 : -.. CE I 2 1 6 ; NPNF 2 . 5 : 2 7 2 .
-
+
7
~oirrra-ipb~o~ov~o~~~qpai~~iau
and t h e o t h e r two d i v i n e p e r s o n s .
B a s i n g h i m s e l f o n 1 Cor 2:10,
G r e g o r y s a y s t h a t t h e Holy S p i r i t r e q u i r e s n o i n s t r u c t i o n t o know w h a t God w i l l s , a s h t is t h e c n e who s e a r c h e s the d e e p c h i n g s o f Sod.
G r e g o r y d o e s not e l a b c r a t 2 sn wha:
he means exactly, but he
p r o b a b l y r e f e r s t o t h e f a c t t h a t c h e S p i r i t knows e v e r y ~ h i n g , including t h e Father's w i l l ,
a s perfectly a s t h e Son d o e s .
S o m e t i m e s Gregory a s s o c i a t e s Jn i4:LO w i t h Jn 14:9 ( " w h c h a s seen me h a s s e e n t h e F a t h e r " ) .
These two verses complement each
o c h e r in w p r e s s i n g t h e s t r o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p becween t h e F a t h e r and t h e S o n , a n d G r 2 g o r y uses t h i s complementarity a g a i n s t
Eunornius.
I n CE 111, 2 ,
136-150 ne s r q u s s againsc E u n o m i u s t h a z
t h e r e i s no v a r i a n c e i n t h e s u b s t a n c e cf
he F a t h e r a n d t h e S o n ,
" f o r whac rnucual r e l a t i c n i s s o c l o s e l y a n d c o n c o r d a n t l y
e n g r a f t e d a n d f i t t e d t o g e t h e r a s c hat m e a n i n g o f r e l a t i o n to t h e F a t h e r expressed b y the word ' S o n 1 ? " . : - iie t h e n r e p e a t s c h e i d e a t h a t t h e t w o terms a r e c o r r e l a t i v e s and b r i n g s i n some b i b l i c a l
q u o t e s t o c l a r i f y what t h i s c o r r e l a t i v i t y means.
Thus, Phil 2 : 6 t e l l s u s t h a t t h e S o n is " i n t h e f c r m o f God."
Gregory e x p l a i n s t h i s p h r a s e u s i n g the analogy of a p i e c e
o f wax s t a m p e d b y a s i g n e t : when t h e f i g u r e e n g r a v e d i s f i t t e d a g a i n to t h e s i g n e t , i c a c c o r d s with t h a t w h i c h s u r r o u n d s i t , T h e one who i s " i n t h e form o f Sod" h a s b e e n formed b y t h e
i m p r e s s i o n o f t h e F a t h e r on i t a n d accordingly i s " t h e i m p r i n t
3
.
-
- YE 111, 2 ,
1 4 3 ; NPNF 2.5:168 f.
the Father's substance"
(Heb 1: 3 ) .
G r e g o r y also a r g u e s c h a t t h e
"form (popbi) o f God" m e a n s t h e s u b s t a n c e iouoia) o f God, b e c a u s e when i t i s s a i d t h a t Christ " t o o k t h e form of zi s e r v a n t "
(Phil
2 : 7 ) , t h e s u b s r a n c e o f a s e r v a n c was a l s o involved, not o n l y c h e
form.--' H e c o n c l u d e s t h a t " i n t h e form o f God" ( P h i l 2:6), a n d " t n t h e Father" (Jn l 4 : l @ ) , a n d he "on
seal"
[whom! c h e F a t h e r s e c h i s
[Jn 6 9 6 ) ( w h e n c e "he who h a s s e n m e h a s s e e n the F a t h e r , "
Jn 14: 9), a s w e l l a s "the image of goodness" b r i g h t n e s s of g l o r y "
(2 Car 4: 4 1 a n d " c h e
(Heb 1:3), and a i l o t h e r s i m i l a r t i t l e s
g i v e n t o t h e Son t e s t i f y t h a t t h e S o n ' s s u b s t a n c e i s n o t o u t o f harmony w i t h t h e F a t h e r f s s u b s t a n c e .
.
,
-.'
I w o u l d a l s o add t h a t
c h e s s p h r a s e s a l l o w u s t o g a z e i n c o r h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e ~ w e e nc h e
two d i v i n e p e r s o n s .
L a t u i n t h e same t h i r d book of CE, G r e g o r y g i v e s additional d e t a i l s about r e l x i z n a l l c y . the Father
-,
,nz Szr. has 311 t h e a t t r i b u i e s o f
(cf. J n l6:15), e x c e p t f o r being u n g e n e r a t e d .
The Son
i s God, eternal, e x i s t e n t a t a l l times, i n c o r r u p t i b l e , h a s no b e g i n n i n g and no end, is in t h e F a t h e r a l t o g e t h e r a n d s o i s t h e F a t h e r i n him.
..
?
--I
G r e g o r y then mentions a g a i n Jn 14:10, a v e r s e
h e much c h e r i s h e s , i n order t o e x p l a i n h i s understanding of i t . I n h i s view,
this v e r s e e x p r e s s e s " t h e c o m p l e t e absence of
..-
- -Y E111, 2 , 1 4 7 ; NPNF 2 . 5 : 1 6 9 . "'CE 111, 2 , 1 4 9 f.; NPNF 2 . 5 : 1 6 9 . ..-
--'CE - 111, 6 , 9-11; NPNF 2 . 5 : 201. 208
d i v e r g e n c e i n the image, a s c o m p a r e d with him whosz image h e is -
If : - c
M o r e o v e r , J n 1 4 9 s h o u l d b e s t b e u n d e r s t o o d , according t o ..-
G r e a o r y , i n the sense o f Heb 1:3.-- T h e application w h i c h G r e g o r y s u g g e s t s y i e l d s a new image o f b i b l i c a l i n s p i r a t i o n of z h e r e l a t i o n s h i p I h a v e b e e n analyzing: the S o n g l o r i f i e s che
Father a n d i s b e i n g glorifisd b y t h e F x h e r .
The majesty of the F a t h s r is e x p r e s s l y imaged i n t h e g r e a t n e s s o f t h e power o f t h e Son, t h a t one may b e b e l i e v e d t o be a s g r e a t as the other is known tg be . . . . [ A l l 1 that g l o r y w h i c h ttiz F a t h e r i s s h e d s i t s b r i l l i a n c y from i t s w h o l e extent b y m e a n s o f t h e. . b r i g h t n e s s t h a t comes f r o m i t , t h a t i s , b y the true light. --'"
Gregory m e n t i o n s J n 14:9 a n d ?1:13 i n yet a n o t h e r c o n t e x r . He s a y s t h a t a l a r g e number o f m p r e s s i o n s
found i n S c r i p t u r e i n
reference t o the Son a r e not used f o r the created world: "For t h e
c r e a t i o n was n o t i n t h e b e g i n n i n g , and was n o t with God, and was n o t God, n o r life, n o r l i g h t , n o r r e s a r r e c t i o n ,
nor c h e r e s t o f
t h e d i v i n 2 n a m e s , a s t r u ~ h , righi~ousness,s a n c t i f i c a t i o n ,
stc. . . f l : : '
N e i t h e r a r e " t h e more e x a l t e d w c r d s " contained in Jn
14:9-10 used i n reference to the c r z a t i o n .
T h e u s e of these
a x p r e s s i o n s i n r e f e r e n c e to th2 S o n a l o n e t e s t i f i e s , a c c o r d i n g t o G r e g o r y , t h a t t h e Son i s n o t created.
..
--"E - 111, 6, 11; NPNF 2.5:201.
..+-
CE
111, 6 , 1 2 ; NPNF 2.5:201.
"YE - 111, 6, 13-14; NPNF 2 . 5 : 2 0 2 . "'CE 111, 6 , 64; NPNF 2 . 5 : 2 0 8 . 205
Therefore, i t follows that
t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n the F a c h e r and the Son is clearly
distinct from the relationship between God the Father and creation.
Widdicombe notices s o m e t h i n g similar in Origen, namely
that "[Origenj does n o r use t h e i d e a o f t h e e t e r n a l e x i s t e r x e o f
che rational crea~ionto prove th? e t e r n i t y of God's fatherhood,
"'"
although h e does use t h e idea o f t h e Son's e ~ s r n a l
existence ro the same e n d .
"I am i n t h e F a t h e r and t h e F a ~ h e ri s i n m e "
( J n 14:10),
according to Gregory, is a l s o equivalent co s a y i n g that :he .
Son
.
is in t h e bosom of t h e F a t h e r . - - - This g i v e s Gregory the o p p c r ~ u n i t yto p r o d u c e a n o t h e r syllogism q a i n s c E u n o m i u s .
Whm
t h e Son, a s Eunomius s a y s , "was noc, " what d i d the bcsorn scntain?
One should assume chat the bosom was e i c h x full o r e m p t y .
If
it
was full, i t s h o u l d h a v e b e e n f i l l e d b y t h 2 S o n ; s o , the S o n
If it was empcy when the Son was not ( ko C h . j v ) , and
existsd.
t h e n became full when the Son began t o exist, then God the Father
underwent a c h a n g e , in t h e sense
Lhat
"he p a s s e d from the s t a t e
o f v o i d and d e f i c i e n c y t c t h e state o f fullness and
perfect i o n .
"
'--
But this ccnclusion is unacceptable; therefore,
Eunomius and the w h c l e A r i a n tradition i s mistaken in its c l a i m there was a point i n t i m e when t h e Son did not exist. --
-
.
---Widdicombe,F a t h e r h c e d , 7 5 .
'"CE - 111, 8,
4 1 ; NPNF 2 . 5 : 2 2 5 f.
--
-CE - 111, 8, 42; NPNF 2 . 5 : 2 2 6 .
3
210
The R e f u t a t i o n o f E u n o m i u s ' C o n f e s s i o n b r i n g s additional c l a r i f i c a ~ i o n scf dn 14:10 a n d ather r e l a i i o n a l t e x t s ,
One
l e a r n s t h a t J n 1 4 3 0 a l s o means that "the o n e i s i n h i s e n t i r e t y
i n the o t h e r i n h i s e n t i r e t y ( d X o ~ P v o X @ ) ,t h e F a t h e r n o t s u p e r a b o u n d i n g i n the S o n , t h e S o n n c t b e i n g d e f i z i e n t i n r h e F a t h e r . " - - ' T h e r e a r e o t h e r s i m i l a r v e r s e s w h i c h Gregory quoces a t t h i s p o i n t : " T h e Son s h o u l d b e h o n o r e d a s
he F a t h e r i s
h c n o r e d " (cf. Jn 5 : 2 3 ) , "he who h a s seen me h a s seen the F a t h e r "
(Jn i4:9), " n o one knows cn? S c n e x c q x ',he F a t h e r , a n d no o n e knows t h e F a t h e r e x c e p t t h e S o n "
(Mt 11:27). H e i n s i s t s t h a c
t h o s e who a c c e p t t h e s e v e r s e s a s genuine s h o u l d a c c e p t t h a t c h e r e
is no h i n t i n t h e m o f a n y v a r i a t i o n of g l o r y , or of s u b s t a n c e , o r a n y t h i n q else, between t h e F a c h e r and c h e Son.
. . ''
The
r e l a t i o n s h i p between the F a t h e r and t h e Scn i s t h u s e x p r e s s e d i n
e q u a l g l c r y , s a m e n s s s o f substance, a n d p e r f e c t k n o w l e d g e of t a c h b y t h e z t h e ~ . A l i t ~ l el a t e r , G r e g o r y a d d s ~ n a tthe Son does n o t d i v i d e the g l o r y w i t h t h e F a t h e r ,
divinity.
---
b u t e a c h has the whole g l o r y of
The f a c t that t h e w h o l e p a s s a g e p r e s e n t l y u n d e r
s c r u t i n y refers t o r e l a t i o n s h i p i s p r o v e d b y G r e g o r y ' s e a r l i e r s t a t e m e n t in t h e same writing: " F o r without t h e Son t h e F a t h e r h a s n e i t h e r existence n o r name, a n y more t h a n the powerful
MPNF 2 . 5 : 1 0 5 . NPNF 2 . 5 : 1 0 5 . NPNF 2 . 5 : 1 0 7 .
,
--
w x h o u t power, o r t h e wise w i t h o u t wisdom. "--'It is also worth nocing that for Gregory, identiry of glcry indicates community of .
-
nati1re.-- The l a t t e r scatenent i s not difficult to understand, given the date of Ref's composition after the Council of Constantinople (AD 381) which proclaimed t b a c che 9 o l y Spirit, "alcng with the Father and c h s Son, is worshiped a n d glorified,"
thus avoiding the use of an unbiblical word such as the homoousios to state the community of nature becween t h e divine persons. T h u s far I have dealt rather strisrly w i t h intra-trinitarian
relations.
Nevertheless, b o t h the Gospels and Gregory a f Nyssa
also consider the relationship b e w e e n God and humans.
I shall
now turn my accencion c o ~ h ?I z t c t r z y y sf r e l a c i o n s h i p , because it will provide a
divine persons.
clear understand of Gregory's concepts of
The n e x t two sections a r e corollaries to the
issue of divine relationality.
4. Homecomina vs. Adoption and c h e Will of God
Scriptural t e x t s bearing witness to the secsnd t y p e of relationship, between God a n d humans, a r e both prior to and after
--"Ref - 2 6 ; NPNF 2 . 5 : 1 0 5 .
,-.
.- -
NPN F 2 . 5 :107 : ~ o w w v i a vq~+ i o ~ w q . -'R e f 4 2 ;
is€& h a fig
~ a r flv a 66eav r a u ~ o q m TI)L~ ~
the resurrection and they occur in Jn 14-15 and 20 (and parallels).
The B i b l i a patristica s2es an allusion to Jn 14:6
("I am the way, and the truth, and th2 life; no one comes to the Father except through me") in
,-.
I, 3 3 5 . - - = K H R , Gregory
combines Jn 1 4 : 6 with Jn 1 : 3 ("all things came to be through
h m " ) and writ2s that, on the one hand, he causo of c u r l i f s is "the true l i f e which descended to our n a ~ u r e " ; on the other hand, in che ascending direction, it is Christ, " c h e true light, by
whom we were made foreigners ta darkness."- '
The L a t t e r shows
that G r e q o r y has in mind Jn 3 : 6 b, whers Jesus cells his disciples that it is only through him that anyone can cone to the Father.
J e s u s is the only rnediat~rbetween humans and God t h e
Father.
Jn 14:6 b contains a whole iheology of humani~y'sreturn
to God from whom it strayed through sin.
N3xt
I would like
t~
anaiyze Gregory's understanding of what I prefer to call "a
cheology of humanity's exile and h o m e c a n i n g tc God."
This
theology is imporrant isasmuch as it sheds light on divine relationality.
Between bondage and our a d o p t i o n as children, an intermediary station on humanity's way back to God is friendship with God. .--
Christ addresses his disciples in this way: "I do not
--'There are numerous places where Gregory quotes Jn 14:6, but in almost all of them refer to the first part of it. I am interested in the second part.
c a l l y o u s e r v a n t s a n y l o n g e r , b e c a u s e t h e s e r v a n t d o e s n o t know
w h a t the master i s d o i n g ; but 1 h a v e c a l l e d y o u f r i e n d s , because
I h a v e made known tc you e v e r y t h i n g c h a t I h a v e h e a r d f r o m my Father"
( J n 15: 15) .
I n i n t e r p r e t i n g this veIse, G r e g o r y
e n d e a v o r s t o show a g a i n s t E u n o m i u s t h a t the S o n of God who r e d e e m e d u s f r o m b o n d a g e i s n o t u n d e r t h e d o m i n i o n o f t h e Father, n o r i n a s t a r e of s l a v e r y .
O t h e r w i s e , n o t the S o n a l o n e , b u t
a l s o t h e F a t h e r , who is i n t h e Son a n d i s o n e w i t h h i m , m u s t b e a s e r v a n ~ . - ' - T h r o u g h incarnation h e c o o k a l l c h a t w a s o u r s i n o r d e r t o g i v e u s i n r e t u r n w h a t i s his:
"As h e csok d i s e a s e ,
d e a t h , curse, a n d s i n , s o h e t c o k o u r s l a v e r y also, n o t i n s u c h a
way a s h i m s e l f t o h a v e w h a t h e t o o k , b u t s o a s t o p u r g e o u r n a t u r e of s u c h e v i l s , o u r [ d e f e c t s ] b e i n g s w a l l o w e d up and d o n e away w i t h i n h i s s t a i n l e s s n a t u r e . " - ' :
Gregory t h e n r e t u r n s t o
c h e Scn's k ~ o w l e d g eo f t h e F a t h e r , y e t a n o t h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f r e l a t i o n s h i p , e x p r e s s e d clearly i n Jn 1 5 1 5 .
He r e e m p h a s i z e s
t h a t t h e S o n ' s knowledge of c h e F a t h e r i s p e r f e c t ,
a s t h e Son h a s
e v e r y t h i n g that p e r t a i n s t o t h e F a t h e r , a n d e v e n more, h a s t h e Father himself i n himself. It is worth n o t i n g here t h a t ,
on t h e o n e h a n d , G r e g o r y uses
t h e p a i r o f c o r r e l a t i v e terms " f a t h e r - s o n "
t o p r o v e t h a t the
F a t h e r and t h e Son h a v e t h e same n a t u r e ; on t h e o t h e r h a n d , h e - --
--'ICE - 111, 8 ,
. -.
-Y -E 111, 8,
52-53;
NPNF 2 . 5 : 2 2 7 .
54; N P N F 2 . 5 : 2 2 7 . 214
u s e s a n o t h e r p a i r of c o r r e l a t i v e s ,
"lord-slave,"
t o prove t h a t a
lord a n d a s l a v e h a v e d i f f e r e n t n a t u r e s ( l i k e God and c r e a t i o n ) .
Eunomlus t h o u g h t t h a t t h e two p a i r s may w o r k againsc each a t h e r a n d t h u s h e ~ r i e dr o u s e the l a t t e r a g a i n s c t h e f o r m e r t o p r o v e h i s p o i n c t h a t t h e Son i s n o t d i v i n e .
1 shall turn to this issue
shcrtly.
A n o c h e r biblical psricope d e a l i n g x i c h t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n God a n d humans i s J o h n 20:17: "Do n o t h o l d o n t o m e ,
b e c a u s e I h a v e n o t yet a s c e n d e d to t h e F a ~ h e r . But go t o my b r o t h e r s and s a y to chem, 1 am a s c e n d i n g t o my F a t h e r a n d y o u r Father,
t o my Sod a n d y o u r God.
" - '
T h e text f i g u r e d p r o m i n e n t l y
i n t h e Asian c o n t r o v e r s y , because t h e A r i a n s i n t e r p r e t e d i t a s proclaiming
he transcendence o f t h ? L h g e n e r a i e d a v e r t h e O n l y -
begotten.-"
T h e s e w o r d s w r e a d d r l s s e d b y :he
r e s u r r e c t e d Chrisc
t o Mary M a g d a l e n e , t h e woman who was t h e first human b e i n g t o see him.
A c c o r d i n g t o t h i s v e r s e , after t h e Lcrd's resurrection,
humans a r e b r o u g h t i n t h e c i o s e s t r s l a t i o n s h i p pcssible w i t h God. T h e y become t h e S o n ' s b r o t h e r s and t h e F a t h e r ' s c h i l d r e n .
Humans
a r e t h u s t a k e n beyond s l a v e r y , b e y o n d e v e n f r i e n d s h i p , a n d a r e a d o p t e d a s c h i l d r e n by God.
B u t Eunomius,
t o o , had n o t i c e d J n
. -.
-'-For a s t r i c t l y c h r i s t o l o g i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h i s v e r s e i n Gregory, see Mariette C a n e v e t , G r e a o i r e de Nvsse e t l ' h e r m e n e u t i c r u e b i b l i a u e : ~ t u d edes r a p p o r t s e n t r e le lancracre e t l a c o n n a i s s a n c e de D i e u ( P a r i s : ~ t u d e sa u g u s t i n i e n n e s , 1 9 8 3 ) , 243. . -. -"See Gregory o f N a r i a n z u s ,
215
a.2 9 ,
18 a n d
a.30,
7-8.
2 0 : 1 7 a n d t r i e d t o t u r n t h e new a r g u m e n t from r e l a c i o n s h i p c n its
He w r o t e :
head.
E i t h e r by c h e r e l a t i v e r n e a n i y (6td fls OXCTLK$ q p a o i a s ) z m p l o y e d t h e r e i s e x p x s s ? d w h a t is common L O rhe substance a l s o becween the disciples a n d the F a t h e r , cr else w e must n o t by t h i s p h r a s e bring e v e n t h e Lord i n t o communion i n t h e F a t h e r ' s n a t u r e , and, e v e n a s t h e f a c t t h a t God over a l l i s named a s their Gcd i m p l i e s that t h e d i s c i p l e s a r e his s e r v a n t s , so by p a r i t y of r e a s o n i n g , i t is a c k n o w l e d g e d , b y t h e w o r d s in q u e s t i o n , that the Son a l s o i s t h e s ' r v a n r 3 f
God. : ::
T h e c o n c l u s i o n Eunomius w a n t s t o impose i s t h a t , a c c o r d i n g t o J n 20:17, God.
t h e Son i s a s e r v a n t by n a c u r e .
T h e r e f o r e , the Son i s n o t
G r e g o r y ' s f i r s t r e a c ~ i o nL G Eunsmius i s
La
say r h a c , first
o f a l l , r h e words sadressed r o Y a r y ( " 1 h a v e c o c yec a s c e n d e d t o my F a t h e r " ) do not r e f e r to t h e d i v i n i t y of
buc to his h u m a n i t y .
he O n l y - b e g o t t e n ,
T h e n , "following t h 5 g u i d a n c e o f t h e
f a t h e r s , " h e p r o c e e d s t o e x p l a i n t h e m e a n i n g o f Jn 20:17.
The
a u t h e n t i c i n t s r p r e t a t i o n of c h i s verse c a n o n l y b e rrrrieveci i f t h e verse i s p l a c e d w i t h i n the s c o p e o f the h i s ~ o r yo f salvation.-'
He
first q u o t e s 1 Cor 8:6: " ; h e r e
F a t h e r , f r o m whom a r e a l l t h i n g s .
'"~pud
""?
i s one Sod, ~ h s
As s u c h , God t h e F a t h e r i s
111, 10, 8; NPNF 2 . 5 : 2 4 1 .
.-
-"When p r e s e n t i n g G r e g o r y ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f 2 n 20:17 in van Parys f a i l s t o n o t i c e t h e main p o i n t of t h e w h o l e a r g u m e n t , n a m e l y t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e name " f a t h e r " ( p p . 1 7 3 - 1 7 5 ) . B u t h e e n d e a v o r s t o trace the h i s t o r y of t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h i s verse i n " t h e f a t h e r s " from O r i g e n t o Gregory of N a z i a n z u s (see M . J . van P a r y s , "Exegese e t t h e o l o g i e , " 1 7 1 - 1 7 9 ) .
CE, -
. .-
A ' o I n Ref 82-83 and I n Res. I (GNO 9 . 1 , p . 304, 10-306, 1) Gregory a s s o c i a t e s J n 20:17 w i t h Rorn 8 : 2 9 ( C h r i s t i s t h e " f i r s t -
b y n a t u r e ( ~ f j 4 6 0 ~ 1F)a t h e r o f e x i s t e n t rrhings, i n t h e sense t h a t
ic i s he who h a s g i v e n them e x i s t e n c e : "human nature (av8pwrrivv ~UOLS!
...
had f o r t h e a u t h o r
( r o ~ r j ~ q so)f i t s own c o n s t i t u t i o n .
none o t h e r t h a n t h e F a t h e r o f a 1 i . " - '
sense "Father" means " a u t h o r . "
-
This i s
LO s a y
that i n cne
B u t t h e n Gregory speculates t h a t
t h e r e i s y e t a n o t h e r s e n s e , a r e l a t i o n a l o n e , i n w h i c h God c a n be r e g a r d e d a s F a t h e r o f h u m a n i t y : h e s a y s c h a t " t h ? name of Godhead ( ~ E O T ~ Si )t
s e l f , w h e ~ h e ri t i n d i c a t e s t h e a u t h o r i t y o f o v e r s i g h t
o r of f o r e s i g h t ( i r o r r r ~ K f pii T T P O L ~ O ~ T L K +P ~ O U ( S ~ U ,V ) i m p r r r t s a c e r t a i n relation
CQ
hurnani t y .
"::-
T h i s i s anccher a l l u s i o n t o ~ h e
from 8 e a o p a ~ ( = t o gaze
supposed e t y m o l o g i c a l d e r i v a t i o n of
a t , t o s e e ) ; c o n s e q u e n t l y , 0e6s would a l s o be r e l a t e d t o o t h e r verbs e x p r e s s i n g t h e idea o f s i g h t o r seeing, such as " f o r e s i g h t " and " c v e r s i g h t " .
T h u s , Gcc a n d =he h ~ r n a n r z c e i r e in a r e l a t i o n
o f o v e r s e e r c o ~ h cbjeci e 2verseen.
Yet humans moved from b e i n g i n t h i s d i v i n e F a t h e r ' s image t o b e i n g i n the i m a g e o f t h e " f a t h e r o f sin."-" t h e s i m i l a r i t y o f w i l l (&a 4 s ~
a
T-+? ~
I t is " i n virtue of
~ap o a i p e a ~ o vp o ~ d r q ~ o"s ) t h a t
humans become sons o f t h e f a t h e r o f sin,""nd
h o n o r t h o s e who
born among many b r o t h e r s " ) . .- - '
CE
111, 1 0 , 10; NPNF 2 . 5 : 2 4 1 .
"'CE 111, 1 0 , 10; NPNF 2 . 5 : 2 4 1 . .- E - I , 1 0 , 10; NPNF 2 . 5 : 2 4 1 :
-
: 4 3 ~111, ~
10, 10; NPNF 2 . 5 : 2 4 1 .
rraqpfigapp~ias.
. ,.
"by nature were no gods" ( G a l 1 :8). - - - Gregory regards this whole
departure of the humanity from the good Father as an exile ( ~ 6 ~~OLKELU~~~ 111, V ~ Llo, , 11).
It is an exile of cosmic
proportions LO which God reacted accordingly: "The Good Shepherd
of
he whole rational creation left in :he
heights of heaven his
unsinning and supramundane flock and, moved by love, went after the sheep which had gone astray. evsn s u r human nature."-'- In comparing what God left behind, c h e ninecy-nine ccher s h e e p , c o come after the lost one. Gregory believes that humanity is an insignificant and infinitesimal part a f the whole racional creation.
Yet it seemed important t c God to do this, because it
was impossible for estranged humanity io return by itself to the heavenly place.
The good tidings Christ proclsimed to the human
race is precisely that he came down to earch to take it back r o heaven.
A K r h l s poi-t G r e g o r y has r e c o u r s ? c o an image of
adoption suggested by Is 8:18: "For behold, I and the children whom God has given me. "'." But Gregory recalls 20:17.
hat his discussion startsd from J n
He, therefore, turns to the paramount role women played
"'The argumsnt about the similarity of will w i t h the father of sin is based on the explanations Gregory provides at 111, 1, 114 ff. which I present in the section dealing with adoption in G .
"'cE- 111, 10, 11; NPNF 2 . 5 : 2 4 1 . '"CE - 111, 10, 14; NPNF 2.5241.
in the history of salvation, as Mary Magdalene was the first human being to witness to the rssurrected Chrisc.
In agreement
with the author of 1 Tim, Gregory says "the woman, being deceived, was in transgression."
God chose a woman to be the
first w i m e s s of the rssurrsccion,
that she might retrieve by her faith in the resurrection the overthrow caused by her disobedience, and that as, by making herself at the beginning a minister (Sta~ovo~! and advocate to her husband of the counsels of the serpent, she brought into human life the beginning sf evil, and its train of . , conssquences, so, by conveying-" tc his disciples the words of him who slew the dragon, she might become to humans t h e guide to faith, whereby with good reason the first proclamation of death is annulled. - - '
1 ;
Giver! the fact that I will discuss gsnder language in G r e g o r y of Nyssa later,
ii
is interesting : o note that he underscores th?
role of Mary Magdalene as a ministez to the r e s c of the humanity the good news about Christ's
This,
important part of che humanity's homecoming.
In sum,
He
develops a whole theology around this image, and one cannot but notice his enthusiasn when
b e f o r e his readers.
'"'Jaeger gives Gm~opiaacsa (conveying) and no variants in the a p ~ a r a t u scriticus. The English translator in t h e NPNF 2 . 5 : 2 4 2 p r e f e r s to read 6ia~ov~joaoa(ministering). His argument is quite persuasive, that G~auopicraoa is a misprint of G~a~owjaaoa g i v e n that Gregory u s e s "minister1'i n r e f e r e n c e to Mary o n the same p a g e *
"'CE 111, 10, 16; NPNF 2 . 5 : 2 4 2 . 219
I s h a l l d e m o n s t r a t e below,
chis i m a g e i s more e l a b o r a t e t h a n
a n o t h e r image e x p r e s s i v e of s a l v a t i o n h i s t o r y - - o u r c h i l d r e n of God--which
adoption a s
Origen s o p o w e r f u l l y had d e v e l o p e d .
T h e important i s s u e of the w i l l o f God a p p e a r s i n a c o n t e x t
i n which G r e g o r y compares human a n d d i v i n e sonship, ~ h u ss p e a k i n g
o f o u r a d o p t i o n a s c h i l d r e n o f God. T h e noun " a d o p t i o n " ( u i o e ~ o i a )
a n d i t s c o g n a t e s a r e v e r y i n f r e q u e n t i n E.
An i m p o r t a n t passage
where G r e g o r y deals with c u r a d o p t i m a s c h i l d r e n o f God i s HI, 2 ,
ili f f .
T h e c o n t s x t i s yet a ~ o c h e rr e f u t a t i o n o f
Eunornius' visw t h a t t h e c o r r e l a t i v e term " s o n " d o e s n o t i m p l y a common n a t u r e b z t w e e n t h e f a t h e r and the s o n . aroumentum ad horninern,
f i r s c strengthening t h e a d v e r s a r y ' s p c i n t
s o t h a t h e c a n t h e n c r u s h i t more f o r c e f u l l y . says,
G r e g o r y u s e s an
on b e h a l f o f Eunomius a n d .he
t h e p h r a s e " c h i l d cf w r a t h "
Gregory himself
Eunomians, c h a t i n Scripture
i E p h 2 3 1 i s used a s well a s "son of
perdition ;Jn 1 7 : 12; Mt 3 3 , " p r o d u c t o f a v i p e r " (Mt 3 3 , "sons of l i g h t "
(Jn ? 2 : 3 6 ) a n d " s o n s of t h e d a y " ( 1 Thes 5 : 5 ) .
B u t i n s u c h p h r a s e s no community o f n a t u r e i s a p p a r e n t .
Now comes t h e e x p l a n a t i o n .
G r e g o r y says that h e is aware
that divine S c r i p t u r e uses " s o n t ' i n two senses: a ) i n o n e s e n s e
this a p p e l l a t i o n i s d e r i v e d "from n a t u r e "
(€K
$6o~ws), b ) i n other
s e n s e s , i t i s " a d v e n t i t i o u s and a r t i f i c i a l " (iaio~~uaonjv ~ a i
ff; NPNF
&rinq.rov)
o r the " r e s u l t o f c h o i c e "
(€K
- .n p o a ~ p i m ~ .s-' )
For the
first s e n s e o f t h e w o r d , h e e x e m p l i f i e s w i t h t h e p h r a s e s " s o n s o f humans" a n d " s o n s of rams,
a n d " c h i l d r e n of God.
l1
"
f o r t h e s e c o n d w k h "sons o f power"
Gregory s a y s :
F o r when they a r e called ' s c n s o f E l i ' , i h e y a r e d e c l a r e d t o have a n a t u r a l r e l a t i o n s h i p ( K ~ T UT ~ ~+uoiv L J cruyy~vis), but in b e i n g c a l l e d ' s o n s o f B e l i a l ' , they a r e r e p r o v e d for the wickedness of t h e i r choice i q g r r p o a ~ p i o ~ w $a s n o l o n g e r e m u l a t i n g t h e i r father i n t h e i r l i f e , b y a d d i c t i n g their own
p u r p o s e t o sin.':'
G r e g o r y c l a r i f i e s a t t h i s p o i n t c h a t w h i c h e v e r way w e choose r o
be, we do s o freely, b u t our human n a t u r e r e m a i n s w i t h i n i t s n a t u r a l confines: " I t i s in o u r power (€6'L
LG
become s o n s
e i t h e r o f n i g h t o r o f d a y , xhile o u r n a i u r e yet r e m a i n s , s o f a r
G r e g o r y warns t h a t the e x p l a n a t i o n he h a s just produced h o l d s t r u e f o r the " l o w e r
mtlure"
( ~ c k w biml;), -
b u t he adds c h a r
our nature (or perhaps " s u b s t a n c e l ' j r e m a i n s w h a t i t i s . Therefore,
i n t h e c a s e o f human b e i n g s , t h e word " s o n " i s a p p l i e d
~ s ) w e a r e r e f e r r e d t o a s s o n s of m e t a p h o r i c a l l y ( € K ~ E T ~ Q o ~when
E- I
, 1, 116; NPNF 2.5: 148.
"'CE - 111, 1, 117; NPNF 2 . 5 : 1 4 8 .
"'cE- 111, 1, 118; NPNF 2 . 5 : 1 4 8 . "'He p r o d u c e s a s i m i l a r argument about l o w e r a n d h i g h e r n a t u r e s i n Ad Ablabium 4 1 , 18 f f .
.-.
anything else other than humans,-'- because our nature is a border-land (p~@optos,
..
.
111, 1, 121) between virtue and vice. -'-
We can become children of either light or darkness by affinity to the good or to its opposite.
We can choose to change from
children of darkness c o children cf light by "casting cff the
In ocher words,
works of darkness [and] b y decent l i f e . " - "
I :
is
chrough moral effort that we can attain a superior state. However, since the scatus of " s o n s sf
Gcdrl
is che s u p r m e state
t h a t we can r e a c h , it is ncr only chrough our own efforts that we
achieve this.
It is the Son of God proper who helps us in this
by joining us to him by s p i r i t u a l genera~ion:
. .
.,
Thus, Christ
b e s t o w s upon us the adopcion (vio€Icoia! as children of God. - - -
Elsewhere, Gregory calls humans "disinherit&
sons" and shows
- -Set Jean D a n i g l c u , "La n ~ i i c nJe c o n f i n s ( r n e c h o r ~ o s i Greqoire 3e Nysse," 3 ~ h e r c h e sde sciencs r e l i o i e u s e 3 3 (1961): 161-187. Sse also Maria C. Pacheco, S. Greaorio de Nissa. CriacSo e tern~o (Braga: Faculdade de Filosofia, 1983), 193-215. Also for discussions of human freedom in Gregory of Nyssa, see Jerome Garth, La conception de la liberte chez Grkooire de Nvsse (Paris: Vrin, 1953); David Amand, Fatalisme et
liberte dans l'antiauite srecaue (Louvain: Bibliorheque de l'universite, 1945), 418-435; Verna Harrison, Grace and Human Freedom according to St. Greqorv of Nvssa (Lewinston, NY: E. Mellen, 1992); Albrecht Dihle, The Theorv of Will in Classical Antiauitv (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1982),
what C h r i s ~has d o n e f o r u s : " t h i s i s w h a t the ' m e d i a t o r ' bet wee^ b he F a t h e r and t h e d i s i n h e r i t e d s o n s m e a n s ,
h e who h a s r e c o n c i l e d
t h r o u g h h i m s e l f ths e n e m i s s with God, ~ h r c u g hhis t r u e a n d u n i q u e
U n l i k e h u m a n s , t h e O n l y - b e g o t t e n d o e s n o t c h a n g e from a n inferior to a superior state. bestow a d o p t i o n upcn him. the Only-begotten
Nor dces h e n e e d a n o t h e r S o n t o
Accordingly, Gregory maintains t h a t
i s p r o p e r l y c a l l e d t h e Son o f God, a s h e is t h e
S o n of God b y nature:-
,
-
The d i s t i n c c i a n b e t w e e n " b y nature" a n d
" b y c h o i c e " i s very i m p o r c a n t i n Gregcry's v i e w and he emphasizes it several t i m e s .
Yet t h e case o f t h e S o n of God i s v e r y
d i f f e r e n t from the c a s e of human s o n s : God, b e i n g o n e good, in a s i m p l e a n d u n c o m p o u n d e d n a t u r e , l o o k s ever a he s a m e way, and i s n e v e r c h a n g e d b y the i m p u l s e s o f c h o i c e ( ~ a iq~ s r p o a ~ p i a c w sbppaip! , b u t a l w a y s w i s h e s w h a t h e i s , a n d i s , a s s u r e d l y , w h a t h e w i s h e s ( a ~Ki U ~ b o u k a i i h p i m i v ~ a ion i r r a v ~ w si j ltai f!oilXc~ai) . So hat h e i s i n b o t h r e s p e c t s p r o p e r l y a n d truly c a l l e d S o n of Gcd, s i n c e his nature contains t h e good, and h i s c h o i c e ( ~ p o a i p e o i s )a l s o i s n e v e r s e v e r e d f r o m hat w h i c h i s m o r e excelknt, so that c h i s w o r d i s t m p l o y e d w i t h o u t i n e x a c t n e s s , a s h i s name:" T h e s e s m t e m e n t s a r e b o t h p o w e r f u l a n d i n the P l o t i n i a n tradition.
They a r e powerful because i n t h e d i v i n e case,
sonship-by-nature
and sonship-by-will
d i r e c t i o n of t h e g o o d .
converge i n t h e s a m e
T h e r e i s no c o n t r a d i c t i o n between t h e
-
::"De
~ e r f e c t i o n e ,GNO 8.1:205, 14-21.
'"CE 111, 1, 1 2 3 f . ; NPNP 2 . 5 : 1 4 9 .
'"CE - 111, 1, 125; NPNF 2.5:149. 223
g o o d n e s s o f the d i v i n e n a t u r e a n d t h e g o o d ( o r r a t h e r s u p r e m e l y The a f f i r m a t i o n i s a l s o P l o t i n i a n
g o o d ) chcice t h e Son makes.
because P l o t i n u s , in r e f e r r i n g t o the One a b o u t a h u n d r e d y e a r s b e f o r e G r e g o r y , made a n a l m o s t i d e n t i c a l s t a t e m e n t : t h e One i s
" a l l power, . .
be. " -"
r e a l l y m a s t e r of i t s e l f , b e i n g what i t wills to
The S o n i s t h u s presenred a s a w i l l i n g subjecr.
will a p p e a r s a s b o c h the will
CJ choose
:rpoaipeo~.;;,
SUE h i s
which is
a l w a y s d i r e c t e d t o w a r d c h o o s i n g the g o o d , a n d t h e w i l l t o be w h a t
he w i s h e s (POUXEOLS) t o b e , w h i c h i s a n o n i o l o q i c a l w i l l . G r e g o r y a l s o d e a l s with a d o p t i o n i n CE 111, 5 , 3 .
Here h e
e x p l a i n s Rom 8:16: " i t i s t h e S p i r i t h i m s e l f b e a r i n g w i t n e s s w i t h
c u r s p i r i t t h a t w e a r e c h i l d r e n o f God."
meaning of this verse is c h a t t h e m i n d of the f a i t h f u l "
i ~ f jSialwiu
Gregory s a y s t h a t c h e
H o i y S p i r i t comes LO b e
T ~ L ) T ; L O T & Pb~ e, c a u s e
" i n th?
i n many other
p a s s a g e s the Apostle Paul uses " s p i r i t " ( w e i r p a ) f o r " m i n d " ( r ~ o i l.~ ) N o n e t h e l e s s , a n i m p o r t a n t statement f c l h w s shedding
g r e a t e r L i g h t o n t h e m e a n i n g of a d o p t i o n : "when
[ t h e mind]
r e c e i v e s t h e communion o f t h e [Holy] S p i r i t t h e r e c i p i e n t s a t t a i n t h e d i g n i t y of a d o p t i o n .
1'i6G
T h e l a t t e r s t a t e m e n t i s n o t only
b e a u t i f u l , b u t a l s o gives a more c o m p l e t e p i c t u r e o f what Gregory
means by a d o p t i o n : t h e Holy S p i r i t t o o ( n o t only the Son)
' " P l o t i n u s , Ennead V I . 8 . 9 . 4 5 - 4 6 . I d e a l w i t h the P l o t i n i a n w i l l of t h e One a n d i t s i n f l u e n c e o n G r e g o r y o f N y s s a i n C h a p t e r Two.
'"CE - 111, 5 , 3; NPNF 2 . 5 : 1 9 1 .
c o n t r i b u t e s to o u r a d o p t i o n a s c h i l d r e n o f God.
Unfortunately,
Grzgory does n o t e l a b o r a c s f u n h e r . Yet w e f i n d a b r i e f i n d i c a t i o n e l s e w h e r e .
I n Ref 55 G r e g o r y
w r i t e s t h a t o u r a d o p t i o n a s c h i l d r e n o f God i s a grace of God. W e become c h i l d r e n " b y g r a c e n o t b y n a t u r e "
(XUPLTL ~
.
.
a oili ~ C K J E L1 . -'-
This m e a n s that God o f f e r s a d o p t i o n f r e e l y , b u t also c h a t humans r e m a i n c r e a t e d b e i n g s u n l i k e t h e O n i y - b e g o t c m who i s untreated a n d Son by n a t u r e .
I n r e f l e c t i n g on t h e S e v e n t h B e a t i t u d e ,
G r e g o r y a l s o s a y s t h a t t h e p e a c e m a k e r s w i l l b e crowned w i t h rrhe g r a c e o f a d o p t i o n ( T ~ciokoia.; S ~ a p a~~dav6eqoq) m .-'-
Bccorninq
" c h i l d r e n o f God" i n h i s v i e w i s t o b s treasured a b o v e a n y good . -
f o r t u n e ( ~ C ~ X q p i .a )
-9:
T h e c h i l d r e n o f God i m i t a t e t h e a u t h e n t i c
Son of God, t h e son b y n a t u r e , c h a s i n g e v i l o u t o f human n a t u r s co i n t r o d u c e i n its s t a a c i t h e s o m m u n i m o f che good.
-.'
They show
in their lives G o d ' s l o v e f o r humans, c h a t i s , the p r o p e r c h a r a c t e r of d i v i n e a c t i o n .
-'
To summarize G r e g o r y ' s t h e o l o g y .sf a d o p t i o n , I s h o u l d s a y - h a t i t c o n t a i n s twc e l e m e n t s .
"'Ref - 55; ,
i n o r d e r for humans t o become
NPNF 2.5:109.
--
*OLDe b e a t i t u d i n i b u s 7 , GNO 7 . 2 : 1 5 1 , 2 8 . (Gregorii N y s s e n i , D e b e a t i t u d i n i b u s , ed. J o h n F. C a l l a h a n (Leiden: B r i l l , 1 9 9 2 ) GNO 7 . 2 : 75-170)
. -. -"'Beatit. 7; GNO 7.2:149, 15-16. : ' 4 B e a t i t . 7; GNO 7.2:159, 12-15.
. --
-"Beatit.
7 ; GNO 7.2:149, 1 6 - 1 9 .
adopted children of God: a) they s h o u l d be joined to Christ by spiritual generation'" and b) their mind should receive the .
.-
communion of ~ h Holy e Spirit..'
The issue cf our a d o p ~ i o nas
children of God, as I hinted at the beginning of this section, is not one of Gregory's favorite images of humanity's return to God. To be more accurate, 1 should say t h x Gregory does n o i nave as
elaborate a theology of adopcion as Origen.
He does not, for
example, expand ~ h idea e of the three stages in salvation hiscory: bondage, friendship with God, adoption as children of God.
R a ~ h e r , he prefers L O conc2iv3 of the recurn of the human
race to God more in terms of what I call a "~heolsgyof exile and homecoming."
Gregory's favorite image seems to be t h a t of t h e
Good S h e p h e r d whc g o e s a f t e r c h e lost sheep to bring her back to the f o l d where s h e bc4ongs.
3 f ccurso,
t h e theology of adoption
should not be compiecely overlooked, since, as I have shown, exists but is underdeveloped.
Intsrwoven w i i h the cheoiogy of adoption, a few b r i e f thoughts can be found of Gregory's notion of t h e will of God.
He
conceives of God a s a w i l l i n g s u b j e c t who a l w a y s c h o o s e s the good and wishes to be what he is.
The latter view is not present in
Basil's thought but betrays a Plotinian influence.
5 . A Note on Greaorv of Nvssa's Use of Gender L s n a u a a e in
Reference to God
Like the previous section, this section is a corollary to the issue of divine relationality. closer at the divine persons.
It allows me t o glimpse even In an earlier work such a
CE,
Gregory h i n t s a t t h e f a c t t h a t some m i g h t h e tempted r e i n t r t x k c c gender in God because of such language as " f a c h e r " and "son."
John the Evangelist himself, in his Gospel, says "In the beginning was the Word" (Jn 1 3 ) rather than "In the F a ~ h e rwas the Son," because some "more c a r n a l l y minded," learning o f the
Father, may b e l e d b y its understanding to imagine also by .. consequence a mother. -"" The allusion to Eunomiusl "carnal mind"
is quite transparenc here, e s p e c i a l l y since Gregory adds that, upon hearing c h e word "son" applied c c Cod, sornecne like Euncrnius cannot conceive of impassible generation.
In the seccnd book of
CE, Gregory himself uses feminine i m a g e r y tc refer to God, and h e does not find this inapprspriace.
TF.us, he campares the all-
powerful God condescending to commune with humans t o a tender
mother who joins in the inarticulate utterances of her baby:"'
.- -
As Verna Harrison a c c u r a t e l y noticed in t w o recent articles, Gregory used more explicit feminine language in reference to God
--
-
- -
.* .
- "T E 111, 2 , 19; NPNF 2 . 5 : 1 5 4 . "'CE - 11, 419; NPNF 2 . 5 : 2 9 2 . 227
. -.
i n later works. -
-
T h u s , i n t h e s e v e n t h h o m i l y o f t h e Commentarv
o n t h e S o n o o f Sonos, h e e x p l a i n s t h a t t h e b r i d e g r o o m ' s m o t h e r i n c h e C a n t i c l e a l l e g o r i c a l l y i n d i c a t e s God t h e F a t h e r . t o G r e g o r y , b o t h " m o t h e r " a n d " f a ~ h e r "mean
According
he same c h i n g here, .-.
b e c a u s e there i s n e i t h e r m a l e n o r f e m a i e i n God ( G a l 3 2 8 ) . - -
Elsewhere i n t h e same Commentarv on t h e S o n q G r e g o r y r e f e r s t o God a s t h e m o t h e r o f a l l c r e a t i o n , .
existence. -
-
c h a t i s , t h e c a u s e of its
A s H a r r i s o n n o t e s , because G o d ' s acrrivities
e x t r a a r e r e g a r d e d a s common t o a l l c h r e e p e r s o n s , t h e c e r m " m o t h s r " i n these two c o n r r e x c s may r e f e r t o God i n g e n e r a l :
'
Yet i n On Perfection G r e g o r y speaks c l e a r l y of God t h e F a t h e r a s
t h e " l i f e g i v i n g m o t h e r " of h u m a n i ~ y , t o whom C h r i s c a s m e d i a t o r
r e c o n c i l e s u s f o l l o w i n g t h e fall:
:
To t h i s o n e s h o u l d a d d t h e
f e m i n i n e r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e S s n a n d c h e X o l y Spirit i n t h e same Comrnentarv o n t h e S o n q .
T h e S o n i s i d e n t i f i e d w i c h S o p h i a , the
f e m a l e p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n o f Wisdcrn f o u n d i n the C l d Testamenc book
.-
- V e r n a E . F . H a r r i s o n , " G e n d e r , G e n e r a t i o n , and V i r g i n i t y i n C a p p a d o c i a n T h e o l o g y , " The J o u r n a l o f T h e o i o o i c a l S t u d i e s n . s . 4 7 ( 1 9 9 6 ) : 39-41 a n d i d e m , "Male a n d F e m a l e i n t h e C a p p a d o c i a n T h e o l o g y , " T h e J o u r n a l o f T h e o l o c r i c a l S t u d i e s , n . s . 11 ( 1 9 9 0 ) : 441-471.
. -.
.GNO 6 : 2 1 2 - 2 1 3 ; ET i n S a i n t G r e g o r y of Nyssa, Commentary on t h e S o n q o f S o n u s , t r . C a s i m i r McCambley ( B r o o k l i n e . MA: H e l l e n i c C o l l e g e Press, 1 9 8 7 ) , 1 4 5 f. - - -GNO 6 : 5 6 and 1 8 3 . -' ~ a r r i s o n , " G e n d e r , "
,
1
40.
: ' 4 ~ eperfectione, GNO 8 . 1 : 2 0 5 .
.-a
of Proverbs. - -
The Holy S p i r i t who d e s c e n d s a s a d o v e upon
C h r i s t from h e a v e n a t t h e b a p t i s m i n t h e J o r d a n R i v e r i s r e f e r r e d t o a s a " m o t h e r , " whereas C h r i s t h i m s e l f i s p r e s e n t e d h e r e a s t h e --
daughcer d o v e " b o r n of c h e S p i r i t . " - ' F e m i n i n e l a n g u a g e can b e used t o r e f e r t o e a c h member of t h a Holy T r i n i t y , a s long a s o n e keeps i n mind male nor f e m a l e .
original s c a t e ,
hat God i s n e i t h e r
I n G r e g o r y ' s v i e w , so were h u m a n s in the and so w i l l t h e y b e i n i h s e s c n x o n :
I n 3ef 5
G r e g o r y conrends that t h e n a m e s F a t h e r , Son a n d H o l y S p i r i t a r e b e t t e r t h a n o t h e r s c r i p t u r a l names r e f e r r i n g t o Gcd because t h e y
were r e v e a l e d b y t h e Lord himself: these names a r e " b e t t e r abls t a l e a d u s xo the f a i t h a b o u t t h e e x i s t e n t [ a n d C h r i s t d e c l a r e s ] t h a t i t i s e n o u o h for u s t o h o l d t o t h e ~ i t l e' F a t h e r , S o n , and
H o l y S p i r i t ' i n o r d e r t o a p p r e h e n d t h e absolutely existent, who
is one and yet n o t one" ( e n ~ h a s i smine? .
'
This statemenc does
not s u p p o r t the categorical ccnclusicn ~ k i s 5 .H a r r i s o n r e a c h e s t h a t "the nanes F a t h e r , S o n , and H c l y Spirit in cheir g b v i o u s
meanings constitute t h e i n d i s p e n s a b h f o u n d a t i o n o f Christian
.-
-%NO
,--
6:20-23;
- "GNO 6 : 4 6 8 - 4 6 9 ;
McCambley, 46 f. McCambley, 276.
.--
For a recent d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e p a r a d i s i a c s t a t e a n d t h e d i v i s i o n of sexes in G r e g o r y o f Nyssa, see Peter T h e Bodv and Society: Men. Women a n d S e x u a l R e n u n c i a t i o n C h r i s t i a n i t v ( N e w Y o r k : C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i y Press, 1 9 8 8 ) , ;
:%ef - 5 ; NPNF 2 . 5 : 1 0 2 .
of Adam Brown, in Earlv 293-297.
.-
faith and further cheolcqical reflection" (emphasis mine) . 2s
"Ic
enough" ( a p ~ ~ i vin i Gregory's scatanent means "sufficient,"
whereas "indispensable" in Harrison's statement means ttnecessary." The difference between the two statements is the difference between what is sufficient and what is necessary.
The
context should also be considered: from Ref 5 ona learns t h a t Eunomius refused to call God the Father Father, because he wanted to avoid the implica~ions f r o m relat~cnality. Gregory combats
him by saying that i t would be better for us to stick to hose names which lead us to the right faith, but he does noE exclude c h e pcssibility chat other names could serve the same purpose if
understood correctly.
The Cappadocian Fathers used even a non-
biblical name such as a y i v v q ~ o s for the Father, but because Eunornius tried to misinterpret it, they recommended the use of "Facher" inscead, as being L e s s operi cz misinterpretation.
Ti
is
in t h i s context c h a t one can alsc x e feminine language in r e g a r d t o God.
6. A Note c n ~oorroqr i - q urrapE~wc in the Capoadocian Fathers
In modern languages ~ p o a o sf l s u r r a p & w ~ has been rendered as "mode
of existence" or "mode of subsistence." As we saw, the Cappadocians thought that it is through their modes of existence -
- '~arrison, "Gender,"
41. 230
that t h e d i v i n e p e r s o n s d i f f s r f r o m e a c h o t h e r .
Tils V T T U ~ ~ E W was S
that the
T~OTOS
L o u t h thinks
i l ~ ~ b yd the C a p p a d o c i a n s a n d t n e
w h o l e Greek t h e o l o g i c a l t r a d i t i o n after chem t o r e f e r t o a p e r s o n
(especially a divine person)
.
-
:'-
The p u r p o s e o f t h i s excursus i s
t o d e m o n s t r a t e that t h e C a p p a d o c i a n s never u s e t h e p h r a s e under consideration t o i n d i c a t e a person; r h e t o r i c a l device--a person.
rhe g h r a s e i c s e l f only a s a
oars Dro c o t o - - c a n
be csed t o d e s i g n a c e a
Tporros q s imap&us o c c u r s t h r e e times i n Gregory o f
Nyssa's w r i t i n g s (all in CE). Therefore, I t n i n k it i s i m p o r t a n t to discuss it a t t h i s point.
T h e Cappadocians b e l i e v e c h a t ihe
F a t h e r ' s mode o f e x i s t e n c e i s to be u n g e n e r a c e d a n d g e n e r a t o r , t h e S o n ' s t o be g e n e r a t e d ( o r b e g o t t e n ) , and t h e S p i r i c ' s t o
proceed f o r t h from ~ h e Father. A s P r e s t i g e already noted,
t h e p h r a s e ~ p t j r r o;is~ u~rCIp&us
"seems t o h a v e b e e n r e s c z e d b y Sasil -;r - :;?sarea; f
. rrcm -
the
s c h o o l s o f l o g i c , and s u b s e q u e n t l y sdopred g e n e r a l i y into t h e theological tradition."'-:
Unfortunately,
Prestige was n o t more
s p e c i f i c a b o u t which " s c h o o l s o f l o g i c " h e had i n mind.
The
T h e s a u r u s L i n a u a e Graecae could b r i n g some h e l p i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n , a l t h o u g h o n l y i n t h e c a s e of e x t a n t t e x t s .
Before t h e
""E.. Andrew L o u t h , " T h e y S p e a k t o Us a c r o s s t h e 4. S t Maximos t h e C o n f e s s o r , " The Expositorv T i m e s Centuries. 109, n o . 4 ( J a n u a r y 1 9 9 8 ) : 1 0 3 .
. -.
-"G. L. P r e s t i g e , God i n Patristic T h o u o h t , 2d e d . (London: SPCK, l 9 6 4 ) , 2 4 5 .
Cappadocians, the phrase ~ p o r v.rrap&ws -
(with or without -,he
article 4 s ) occurs in Alexander of ~phrdisias'-and .
.
Themis~ius.-" It does not occur at all in the extant works of Plato, Aristotle, Sextus Empiricus, Plutarch, Pseudo-Plutarch,
Ciement of Alexandria, Origen, Plot inus, ?orphyry, Dexippus, and Gregory of N a z i a n z u s .
Athanasius of
I t occurs
f i v e times in Basil of Caesarea's works (twice in the spurious
work Adversus Eunornium 5 , PG 2 9 : 68O.A- and 631C) and t h r e e times ir. Gregory o f Nyssa's.
I shall presenc
Cappadocians below.
The f a c t c h a t Alexander s f A p h r s d i s i a s used
he o c c u r r e n c e s in c h e
t h e above-mentioned phrase before t h e Cappadocians does not
necessarily mean c h a t c h e lattzr h a d access to Alexander's commentaries.
I t is more plausible that t h s commentaries made
their way into handbooks of logic and philosophy used in various schools at that time.
.
,
Basil r n i p h t h a w ; m e across such a
..
-'-Alexanderof Aphrodisias, In Aristotelis tooicorum libros octo commentaria, ea. M. Wallies, Ccmrnentaria in Aristotelis Graeca 2.2 (Berlin: Reimer, l891), 179.7 and 295.7; In Aristotelis analvticorum priorurn iibrum i commentarium, ed. M. Wallies, Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 2.1 (Berlin: Reimer, 1 8 8 3 ) , 197.2. The fourth o c c u r r e n c e is in In Aristotelis metaphvsica commentaria, ed. M. Hayduck, Commentaria in Aristetelem Graeca 1 (Berlin: Reimer, 1891), 7 2 5 . 7 ; unfortunately, Books E-N of Alexander's Commentarv on Aristotlets Metaphvsics (pp. 440-837) are considered spurious. . .-
-"Themistius, puae fertur in Arist~telis analvticorum priorum librum i aaraohrasis 29.30, ed. M. Wallies, Commentaria in A r i s t o t e l e m Graeca 2 3 . 3 ( B e r l i n : Reimer, 1 8 8 4 ) .
handbook during his student years."'
Themistius (ca. 317-3881
was a famous rhetorician and statesman residing in Constantinople.
As we saw, he coo uses c h e phrass ~ p o n qq s
u a a p ~ ~ wir! s his paraphases of Aristotle.
Basil, like other
Chrlstlans, may have studied under him, especially since Thernistius seems to nave had the respect of Zhris~ians.-'Prestige understood correctly that the "mode of existence" was part cf the definition of a person noc the persor? itself.-'' As I showed in Chapter TWO, the Cappadocians understood a person in the Neoplatonic sense of a collection of properties.
In t h e i r
view, a person is substance and mode of existence and power and so on and so forth.
Each of these properties makes t h e person
known to us in part, but no property can be called a person a p a r ? from ths other proper~ies.
.. -"Risch enforces my suggesticn, by asserting that, a t least terminologically, the phrase under consideration may come from Alexander of Aphrodisias ( e . 9 . in to^. 295.6f., ed. Wallies) and Dexippus (in cat. 40.28-41.3, ed. A. Busse, Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 4.2 [Berlin: Reirner, 18881 ) (Franz X. Risch, "Kommentar," in Pseudo-Basil, Adversus Eunomium I V - V , introduction, tr. and corn. Franr Xaver Risch [Leiden: B r i l l , 1 9 9 2 1 , 1 2 9 f . ) . The text from Dexippus does not contain the phrase under scrutiny. .--
-"On Thernistius, see Everett Ferguson, "Themistius," in Encvclooedia of E a r l v Christianity, 2d ed., eds. Everett Ferguson et a l . (New York: Garland, l997), 1113; Clifford Ando, "Pagan Apologetics and Christian Intolerance in the Ages of Themistius and Augustine," Journal of E a r l v Christian Studies 4 (Summer 1 9 9 6 ) : 171-207.
God in Patristic Thouaht,
In Epistle 235 addressed to his spiritual son Amphilochius of Iconium, Sasil w r i t e s : "a thing ( ~ i is ) knowable with respect LO
number, and size, and power, and mode of existence, and time . -
of generation, and substancew-' (emphasis added).
In the Contra
Sabellianos, et Arium, et Anomoeos, Basil speaks of the "mode of existence" of the Holy Spirit which should not be mistaken for hat af the creatr-lres,-'" and in ile S ~ i r i t usancrrc the "mode sf
existence" of the Holy Spirit is s a i d to b e ineffable.--' In an
earlier writing such as
a 1,
15 Basil u s e the term batjo~aai~ as
a synonym of b a a p c ~in~the phrase rporro.;
bmoi-dacws.
He says that the
latter phrase shows how God is, not what he &; therefare, the r p b ~ o ~ ~ s u a o o ~does a m ~not s indicate God's nature or s c ; b s r a n c e . - '
The context of the discussion in
1, 15 is roughly
Aristotelian, and B a s i l pretends zo be snbarrasssd because h s
"constrained" to use such language.
T5.e ~ p ( i r i o~i ~$ ~TF~(~T~GCWS
refers here to God the Father's ungensratedness, because the u~generatednessshows how (Godl is (ijm&o?-i)
not what rhel is
.-.
€on). - * -
. -
. 35, 2 (Courtonne 3 : 4 5 ; slightly nodif ied) . ..-
-"De
ET in Deferrari, vol. 3, 3 7 3
S p i r i t ~sancto 18, 46.8 (SC 17:195).
" ~A E 1 , 15; 5 4 5 b .
See also my discussion of 1, 15 in my "Prosdoon and H v ~ o s t a s i sin Basil of Caesarea," 378. A
I now t u r n t o G r e g o r y o f N y s s a .
At
I , 2 1 6 G r e g o r y of
Nyssa writes: I t i s i n o r d e r t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h e d i m i n i s h e d and i n n a t u r a l r a n k i n f e r i o r s t a t u s o f t h e Son and t h e S p i r i c t h a t [Eunomius] says t h a c o n e o r i g i n a t e s f r o m the o t h e r ; and, s o t h a t t h o s ? who l e a r n from t h e way t h i n g s o r i g i n a t e f r o m e a c h o t h e r may n e v e r reach t h e t h o u g h t of t k i r i n t i m a t e c o n n e c t i o n a s a r e s u l t cf s u c h a mode o f existents ( ~ T O Z I T O ~ ~ ~ ~ T O U T ~ O T I O U ~ ~ U h eT Tr ~e ~s i~sEt sW ~t h~ e, p r i n c i p l e o f n a t u r e , b o t h b y s a y i n u that o n e oriainaces from a n o t h e r a n d a s s e r t i n g t h a t the one g e n z r a t e d i s i l i s g i t i r n a t e a s f a x a s c o n c e r n s t h e n a t u r e o f c h s o n e who g e n e r x s d h i m [ e m p h a s i s added] .
The s e c o n d o c c u r r e n c e o f t h e
T~~TTO T S~ UTU~[EWS S
N y s s a ' s CE i s e v m more illuminating.
in G r e g o r y of
It refers t o t h e d i f f e r e n t
"modes of e x i s t e n c e " cf Adam a n d Abel 3s a n a n a l o g y o f what h a p p e n s i n c n e g o d h e a d , c h u s s h o w i n g three t h i n g s : 1) no a l t e r a t i o n of t h e d e f i n i t i o n of h u m a n i t y i s p r o d u c e d b e c a u s e o f Adam's and Abel's d i f f e r e n r modes o f exisrsnce, 2 ) s i m i l a r l y , nc a l t e r a t i o n i s produced i n
he d i v i n e n a t u r e sither b e c a u s e of t h e
e x i s t e n c e of ~ h r e ed i f f e r e m modes a f e x i s t e n c e t h e r e , and 3) e x c e p t f o r t h i s e x a m p l e , humans c a n n o t be s a i d t o have d i f f e r e n t modes o f e x i s t e n c e , b e c a u s e b i o l o g i c a l l y t h e y come i n t o e x i s t e n c e i n t h e same way, namely b y c o n c e p t i o n and b i r t h .
Humans,
t h e r e f o r e , c a n n o t be d i s t i n g u i s h e d from each o t h e r by their modes of existence.
Nyssen's t e x t reads:
s i m i l a r t r e a t m e n t o f " u n g e n e r a t e d n e s s " a s a "mode o f e x i s t e n c e " c a n be f o u n d i n P s e u d o - B a s i l , AE 5 ( F G 2 9 : 6 8 1 ) ( c f . J. N , D . Kelly, E a r l v C h r i s t i a n D o c t r i n e s , 5 t h ed. [ S a n F r a n c i s c o : Harper & Row, 1 9 7 8 1 , 2 6 4 ) ,
The first man a n d t h e o n e s p r u n g from h i m , t h o u g h t h e y g e t t h e i r b e i n g in a d i f f e r e n t way from e a c h o t h e r , the o n e b y t h e c o u p l i n g of p a r e n t s , r h e o t h e r by s h a p i n g from t h e d u s t , are b o t h b e l i e v e d t o b e t w o and i n terms o f s u b s t a n c e a r e n o t s p l i t f r o m each o t h e r . . . . Both former a n d l a t r e r a r e human, a n d t h e w o r d f o r t h e i r b e i n g i s the s a m e f o r r h e m b o t h : e a c h i s m o r t a l , and r a t i o n a l t o o , a n d s i m i l a r l y capable of t h o u g h t and k n o w l e d g e . If t h e n t h e word f o r h u m a n i t y i s n o t a l t e r e d i n t h e case o f A d a m and A b e i b y t h e c h a n g e i n the way t h e y a r e generated, s i n c e n e i t h e r - h e order n o r t h e mode o f t h e i r e x i s t e n c e (TPO~TOS~ f j su ~ l a p t ~ u s ) i m p o r t s a n y c h a n g e i n n a t u r e , b u t b y t h e common c o n s e n t o f s o b e r men t h e i r s t a t e i s the s a m e , a n d n o one w o u l d d e n y t h i s u n l e s s h e i s b a d l y i n n e e d of h e l l e b o r e , w h a t n e c e s s i t y i s t h e r e t o a r g u e t h i .s . u n r e a s o n a b l e c o n c l u s i o n i n t h e c a s e of che d i v i n e nature?-'-[emphasis added] T h e t h i r d and l a s t o c c u r r e n c e o f ~ p 6 r r o ~ ~ f j s u ~ r a ip nE ~Gwr e~g o r y o f
Nyssa i s i n a c o n t e x t w h e r e E u n o r n i u s ' a s s e n i c n i s r e f u t e d t h a t t h e Son o b t a i n e d h i s e x i s t e n c e f r o m t h e mere w i l l of t h e
g e n e r a t o r , n o t from h i s s u b s t a n c e .
Cregorli c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e
"mode s f e x i s t e n c e " o f t h e Son d e f i n i t e l y d i f f e r s from t h e mode o f e x i s t e n c e of t h e c r e a t e d w o r l d .
:'-
To s u m u p , the s c a r c i c y o f t h e phrase
TP~)TIOS T~)SV T ~ U ~ < E Wi~n
t h e Cappadocian w r i t i n g s d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t , a l t h o u g h having a c e r t a i n i m p o r t a n c e , t h i s p h r a s e i s f a r from being a p r o m i n e n t or p r e f e r r e d e x p r e s s i o n cf t h e Cappadocians
'"CE - 111, 2 , 42;
or
. -'' .-
NPNF 2 . 5 3 5 7 .
l a t e r o c c u r r e n c e s o f rporros fls i l r r a p & w in the Greek t h e o l o g y , see the entry o n urrapc~s in t h e ~ a t r i s t i cGreek L e x i c o n , ed. L a m p e , w h i c h was o b v i o u s l y written b y G . L. P r e s t i g e a n d reflects h i s t r e a t m e n t of t h e t o p i c i n God i n Patristic T h o u s h t , 245-249.
Conclusions
I n this c h a p t e r I h a v e p r e s e n t e d G r e g o r y o f N y s s a ' s v i e w o f d i v i n e r e l a t i o n s a s i t emerges m a i n l y from h i s
a and
Ref.
R e f e r e n c e s t o o t h e r w o r k s d e a l i n g w i t h r e l a t i o n s nave a l s o b e e n made.
T h e p a t r i s t i c a n t e c e d e n t s cf t h e d i v i n e r e l a t i o n s h a v e
o e e n d e a l t w l t h , a s was t h e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e p a t r i s t i c c o n c e p t o f r e l a t i o n s a n d t h e A r i s t o t e l i a n c a t e g o r y cf r e l a t i o n . I n h i s concept o f d i v i n e r e l a t i o n s , G r e g o r y of Nyssa d o e s
not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y f r o m s u c h p a t r i s t i c p r e d e c e s s o r s s s t h e Alexandrian theologians
(Oriqen, Cionysius, Alexander,
A t h a n a s i u s ) o r h i s b r o t h e r Basil of Caesarea.
Mcreover, a l l of
t h e m seem t o be i n f l u e n c e d b y A r i s c c t i s ' s c a c e g o r y o f r e l a t i o n w h i c h c h e y a p p l y t o God.
T h u s , a f a t h e r is b c ~ ht h e name o f a
p e r s o n a n d a l s o p o i n u t o s son--a
r e a l i t y t h a t i s different from
t h e F a t h e r , b u t h a s t h e same n a t u r e .
P a t r i s t i c authors developed
t h i s v i e w o f r e l a t i o n i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h o s e who d e n i e d t h e e t e r n i t y o r t h e d i v i n i t y of t h e second d i v i n e p e r s o n , t h e Son. S i m i l a r l y , t h e Holy S p i r i t is i n r e l a t i o n w i t h t h e o t h e r two persons.
T h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e Father, t h e S o n a n d t h e Holy S p i r i t
i s n o t m a n i f e s t e d o n l y b y t h e F a t h e r ' s eternal g e n e r a t i o n o f t h e Son and g u s h i n g f o r t h o f t h e Spirit, c r t h e l a s t two p e r s o n s ' r e c e i v i n g their e x i s t e n c e from t h e F a t h e r .
It has numerous o t h e r
dynamic aspects of biblical inspiration, such as: love, e t e r n a l rejoicing of each person in the presence of the other two, e cwo, perfect knowledge of one glorification of each by ~ h other
another, and p e r f e c t communion. Gregory also has a very e l a b o r a t e theology of t h e humanity's exile and homecoming as an image o f c h e relationship b e i w e e n God and h u m a n s .
If compared to Origen's, Gregory's theology of c h e
humans' adoption as children of God is underdeveloped aichough s ~ l l lquite beautifcl.
As part sf ;he discussion on adoption, I
have p r e s e n t e d a p o s s i b l e Plocinian influence o n Nyssen's view of God's will.
God t h u s appears as a willing subject.
SUMMARY A N D CONCLUSI9NS
I began this dissertation by asking whether i t is necessary to study the concept of divine persons in Gregory of Nyssa's works. My
affirmative answer c o this question has been determined by
both the numerous concepts of person existing today and the lack of an adequate study dealing specifically with Gregory of Nyssa
despite several atrempts of person.
CG
recover a fourth-century C.E. concept
In spite of some rudirnencary concepts of individual
which I presented extensively in Chapter Two, a notion of person did not exist in anciauity p r i o r L O c h e Cappadccian Fathers
(Chapter One) . Chapter One also dealt with the status quaestionis and the methodology used in this dissertation.
By analyzing the six most
relevanc siudies dealing v i ~ hperson in antiquity or in the thought of the Cappadocian Fathers, I concluded that they were either too short or unsatisfactory.
Strsmara's "Unmasking the
Meaning of n p o a m o v " was the most challenging s t u d y for me.
Yet,
Stramara acknowledged about himself: "I am clearly rejecting the
research of numerous scholars concerning the meaning of person in the third and fourth centuries A.D.,
[but] I choose to accept the
research of scholars as found in the Theoloaical Dictionary of the New Testament and the philological studies concerning both
Stoic and Neoplatonic anthropology" ( p . 6 7 5 1 .
In turn I chose to
consider seriously his psychological point of view, disregarding its anachronism.
Despite my most honest in~entions,however, I
had to conclude that Strarnarars arguments aid not actually supporc his contention rhat Gregory promoted a psychoioqical view of the p r s o n understood as a centsr of consciousness.
Chapter Two considered some philosophical concepts which contributed L O a pre-history of zhe concept of person: individuals and relations in Aristotle, individuals in Stoicism, the individual as a collection of properties in Platonism, and the Plotinian will of the One.
1 contsnded that Gregory may have
used these concepts io shape his own concept of person.
So far
ic has n o t been possible for scholars to measure wich c e r ~ a i n t y Gregory's knowledge of philosophy, because he almost never mentioned his sources.
Besides philcscphical sources, however,
Gregory used extensively the Sible and the w r i t i n g s of his Christian predecessors.
Therefore, it cannot be claimed that he
was a convinced Platonist or Aristotelian disguised as a Christian to avoid accusations of heresy.
He
was a Christian who
considered it necessary to use the language and philosophical concepts of his time to speak to his educated contemporaries, most of whom were recent converts to Christianity.
In Chapters Three to Five I analyzed t h e most relevant works in which Gregory of Nyssa deal:
with divine persons.
Here is a
summary o f t h e c o n c e p t of d i v i n e p e r s o n s e m e r g i n g from t h e s e writings.
First, t o r e f e r
LO
a p e r s c n i n g e n e r a l , Gregory u s e s
G r e e k terms s u c h a s : inroa~aois.rrpdawnov. rrepiypa6ouoa ( o r irep~ypobfi).~
E
P
ouoia. ihmj o h a and e v e n d ~ o p o v . S e c o n d , t o d i s t i n g u i s h a d i v i n e p e r s o n f r o m t h e n a t u r e w h i c h t h a t p e r s o n owns i n common w i t h t w o o t h e r p e r s o n s , Gregory u s e s t h e a n a l o g y o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l a n d t h e universal.
T h i s b e t r a y s a n i n f l u e n c e coming f r o m e i t h e r
A r i s t o t l e , o r t h e S t o i c s , a l t h o u g h I s u g g e s t t h a t it may well be a n amalgam o f t h e ~ w os c h o o l s ; it may a l s o be a P o r p h y r i a n infiuencz.
Also,
LO
d i s t i n g u i s h between n a t u r e a n d p e r s o n s ,
Gregory u s e s c h e e x p l a n a t i o n r h x , u n l i k e n a t u r e , p e r s o n s a r e enumerable e n t i t i e s .
T h e c o n c e p t of m d i v i d u a i s a d m i t s of a
separation due to the particularizing properties sbserved i n each.
When i n d i v i d u a l s a r e t a k e n t o g e t h e r , we c a n c o u n c them.
T h i r d , h a v i n g d i s t i n g u i s h e d between p e r s c n s a n d n a t u r e , Gregory moves t o e s t a b l i s h t h e i d e n t i t y o f e a c h d i v i n e p e r s o n and why
each i s u n i q u e .
To d o t h i s , h e a d a p t s f o r C h r i s t i a n usage t h e
Platonic view of an i n d i v i d u a l as a unique c o l l e c t i o n of properties.
A c c o r d i n g t o t h i s a d a p t e d v i e w , e a c h divine p e r s o n
c a n be d e s c r i b e d a s a u n i q u e c o l l e c t i o n of t h e f o l l o w i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : t h e F a t h e r p r o c e e d s from n o o t h e r cause, i . e . , he is ungenerated,
and i s g e n e r a t o r ; t h e Son i s g e n e r a t e d f r o m
t h e Father as t h e Only-begotten,
a n d t h r o u g h h i m s e l f and w i t h
h i m s e l f m a k e s known t h e H o l y S p i r i t who p r o c e e d s f r o m the F a t h e r ;
L
~
m o r e o v e r , all t h i n g s ( i n c l u d i n g t h e Holy S p i r i t ) come i n t o e x i s t e n c e f r o m t h e F a t h e r t h r o u g h t h e Son; t h e Holy S p i r i c i n c u r n h a s h i s b e i n g f r o m t h e F a t h e r , a n d Fs known after t h e Son and w i t h the Son.
T o e x p r e s s t h e p a r t i c u l a r i z i n g n o t e s of e a c h
d i v i n e p e r s o n , Gregory a l s o speaks o f r e l a t i o n s o f o r i g i n o r
c a u s a l relations: t h e F a t h e r i s t h e c a u s e , t h e Son i s from t h e c a u s e o r direccly from t h e f i r s t , a n d t h e S p i r i t i s from t h e
cause ( i . e . f r o m the F a t h e r ) t h r o u g h t h a t w h i c h i s d i r e c t l y f r o m t h e first ( i . e . t h r o u g h t h e S o n ) .
T h e s e causal r e l a t i o n s a r e
b r i e f l y e x p r e s s e d b y t h e now c l a s s i c a l f o r m u l a ( w h i c h G r e g o r y d o e s u s e ) a c c o r d i n g t o w h i c h t h e F a t h e r i s u n g e n e r a t e d , t h e Son generated (or Only-begotten),
the F a t h e r .
a n d t h e S p i r i t p r o c e e d s forth f r o m
Under t h e i n f l u e n c e o f Aristotle's c a t e g o r y o f
r e l a t i o n , Gregcry, like h i s Christian p r e d e c e s s o r s from O r i g e n o n w a r d , p a i d a l o t o f a t t e n t i o n cs t h e r e l a t i o n s among t h e d i v i n e persons.
H e e m p h a s i z e d t h a t t h e term " f a t h e r " i n d i c a t e s t h e
r e l a t i o n to a s o n because t h e cwo terms a r e c o r r e l a t i v e s i m p l y i n g one a n o t h e r .
A t t h e same t i m e ,
the name o f a p e r s o n .
Gregory added t h a t " f a t h e r " i s
T h e S p i r i t is a l s o a c o r r e l a t i v e term o f
b o t h t h e F a t h e r a n d t h e Son, a l t h o u g h t h e S p i r i t ' s c o r r e l a t i v i t y t o t h e o t h e r t w o p e r s o n s i s n o t a s obvious a s t h a t b e t w e e n t h e
F a t h e r and t h e S o n .
Indeed t h e f a c t t h a t t h e S p i r i t p r o c e e d s
from the F a t h e r t h r o u g h t h e Son e x p r e s s e s t h e r e l a t i o n a l i t y among t h e three.
Yet, r e l a t i o n s i n G r e g o r y ' s t h e o l o g y a r e m o r e t h a n s i m p l e
ontolojical causality.
They a r e m a n i f e s t e d i n c h e p e r f e c r
communion among t h e t h r e e divine p e r s o n s .
Comrnunim ( ~ o i v w ~ ~ i as )
che s o l u t i o n Gregory p r o p c s e s t o t h e q u e s t i o n , "What c a u s e s t h e
F a t h e r , Son a n d Holy S p i r i t to be p e r s o p s and n o t mere c o l l e c t i o n s o f p r o p e r t i e s a person?" means t h a t t h 2 S o n , "who
is
R e l a t i o n a l i t y a s communion
i n t h e bosom o f c h e F a t h e r "
(Jn
1:16), i s from a l l e t e r n i t y t o b e c o n t e m p l a c e d in t h e F a t h e r . T h e Son b e i n g c o n t e m p l a t e d i n t h e bosom o f c h e F a t h e r means t h a t h e i s c o n t 2 m p l a t e d a s " p o w e r and wisdom o f God" i l Cor 1: Z G ) ,
" t r u t h , l i g h t , a n d sanctification" ( 1 C o r 1: 3 0 ) , " p e a c e " 2 : l 4 ) , " l i f e " a n d t h e like.
(Eph
As f o r t h e S p i r i t , Gregory r s f e r s t o
him i n b i b l i c a l terms a s g o o d and h o l y , p r i n c e l y , p r i n c i p a l , q u i c k e n i n g , governirq and s a n c t i f y i n g o f a l l c r e a t i o n .
This
a l l o w s h i m c o p r e s e n t the S p i r i t a s a c o r r e i a t i v e o f b o t h t h e f i r s t a n d t h e second p e r s o n :
t h e r e i s " n o g a p b e t w e e n C h r i s t and
h i s a n o i n t i n g , b e t w e e n t h e k i n g a n d h i s k i n g d o m , b e t w e e n wisdom a n d t h e S p i r i t o f w i s d o n , b e t w e e n t r u t h a n d t h e Spirit o f t r n t h ,
b e t w e e n p o w e r a n d the S p i r i t o f p o w e r . "
S i n c e t h e Son i s
e t e r n a l l y c o n t e m p l a t e d i n the F a t h e r a n d t h e S p i r i t i s t h e S o n ' s S p i r i t , t h e S p i r i t t o o i s e t e r n a l l y c o n t e m p l a t e d i n the F a t h e r . A l l three p e r s o n s r e j o i c e eternally i n the presence of each o t h e r
and know e a c h o t h e r p e r f e c t l y .
T h i s i s communion a n d i t a l l o w s
f o r both t h e d i s t i n c t i o n o f each p e r s o n and t h e p e r f e c t u n i t y
among them. Last b u t noc least, God is a willing s u b j e c t .
Gregory
conceives of God a s a willing subjecc who a l w a y s chooses t h e good and wishes to be w h a t he is.
T h e ontological view of t h e will of
God is not p r e s s n t i n Basil's chought b u t b e t r a y s a Plotinian infltrence.
Primary Sources Basil of Caesarea C o n t r e Eunome s u i v i d e Eunome, ' A p o l o a i e ' , tr. and comm. B e r n a r d Sesboce, G e o r g e s - M a t t h i e u d e Durand, a n d L o u i s D o u t r e l e a u , 2 v o l s , SC 299, 3 0 5 . P a r i s : Cerf, 1982.
H o r n i l i e n zum Hexaemeror., e d s . E . Amand de >!.rendiera a n d Stig Y . Rudberg. S e r l i n : Akademie V e r l a g , 1997.
L e t t r e s , ed. a n d t r . Yves Courtonne, 3 v o l s . L e t t r e s , 1 9 5 7 , 1 9 6 1 , i966.
The L e t t e r s ,
t r . Roy
P a r i s : L e s Belles
J. D e f e r r a r i , 4 v c l s . Locdon: W .
qeinernann,
1926, 1928, 1930, 1934. B r i e f e , t r . and comm. W o l f - D i s t e r Hauschild, 3 v o l s . S t u t t g a r i l : A n t o n H i e r s e m a n n , 1490, 1 9 7 3 , 1 9 9 3 . S u r le S a i n t - E s p r i t ,
r e v . ed. 3 . F r u s h e , SC 1 7 b i s .
P a r i s : Cerf,
1368. Pseudo-Basil, Xaver R i s c h .
A d v e r s u s Eunomium IV-V, i n t r . , Leiden: B r i l l , 1992.
t r . and comm. F r a n ;
Gregory of Nazianzus D i s c o u r s 27-31 ( D i s c o u r s c h e o l o a i a u e s ) , ed. and t r . P a u l G a l l a y w i t h the c o l l a b o r a t i o n o f M a u r i c e J o u r j o n , S C 2 5 0 . Paris: C e r f , 1978. F a i t h G i v e s F u l l n e s s t o R e a s o n i n q : The F i v e T h e o l o o i c a l O r a t i o n s o f G r e u o r v N a z i a n z e n , comm. F r e d e r i c k W . N o r r i s , t r . L i o n e l Wickham a n d F r e d e r i c k Williams. L e i d e n : B r i l l , 1 9 9 1 .
Gregory of Nyssa: A d A b l a b i u m Ouod non s i n t t r e s d e i i n G r e a o r i i N v s s e n i O p e r a , v o l . 3, p a r t 1, e d . F r i e d r i c h M u l l e r ( L e i d e n : B r i l l , 1 9 5 8 ) , 35-
5 8 . An E n g l i s h t r a n s l a t i o n p r i o r t o M L i l l e r f s c r i t i c a l e d i t i c n can b e f o u n d i n NPNF, 2 : 5 (New Y o r ~ , NY: T h e C h r i s t i a n L i t e r a t u r e Company, l 8 9 3 ) , 331-336. Ad E u s t a t h i u m de sancta T r i n i c a t e i n G r e a o r i i N v s s e n i O p e r a , v o l .
3 , p a r t 1, e d . F r i e d r i c h M u l l e r ( L e i d e n : B r i l l , 1 9 5 8 ) , 1 - 1 6 . An English t r a n s l a t i o n p r i o r LO M u l l e r ' s c r i t i c a l e d i t i o n can be f o u n d i n NPNF 2:5 (New York, NY: The C h r i s t i a n L i t e r a t u r e Company, 1 8 9 3 1 , 3 2 6 - 3 3 0 . A d G r a e c o s ( e x cornmunibus n o t i o n i b u s ) i n G r e a o r i i N y s s e n i O ~ e r a , v o l . 3, p a r t 1, ed. F r i e d r i c h M i i l l e r ( L e i d e n : B r i l l , l 9 5 8 ) , 1 7 3 . E n g i i s n t r a n s l a t i o n : G r e g o r y o f N y s s a , " A d G r a e c o s : How I t I s t h a t W e S a y T h e r e Are T h r e e Persons i n t h e D i v i n i t y b u t Dc Nor S a y t h a t T h e r e A r e T h r e e Gods" ( T o t h e G r e e k s : C o n c e r n i n g t h e C o m m o n a l i t y of C o n c e p t s ) , " t r . D a n i e l F. S t r a m a r a , j r , T h e Greek
O r t h o d o x T h e o l o g i c a l Review 4 1 , n o . 4 ( 1 9 9 6 ) : 3 8 1 - 3 9 1 . German t r a n s l a t i o n : "Die S c h r i f t Ex cornmunibus n o t i o n i b u s d e s Grsgor von N y s s a , " t r . a n d comm. Hermar? J. V o g t , in T h e o l o a i s c h e O u a r t a l s c h r i f t 1 7 1 (1991): 2 0 4 - 2 1 8 . A d P e t r u m f r a t r e r n d e diffsr2ncia usiae et h v ~ o s t a s ~ oi sn S a i n c Basile, L e t t r e s , 2 d . a n d c r . Yves S s u r i c n n e , v o l . ! ( P a r i s : Les Belles L e t t r e s , 1 9 5 7 1 , 81-92. An E n g l i s h , m r e l i a b l e t r a n s l a t i o n c a n b e f o u n d i n B a s i l , The L e t t e r s , t r . Ray J . D e f e r r a r i , v o l . 1 (London: W . H e i n e r n a m , E X ) , 1 9 6 - 2 2 6 .
C o n t r a Eunomium L i b r i i n G r e o o r i i N v s s t n i O o e r a , v o l s . 1 - 2 , e d . Werner J a e g e r ( L e i d e n : B r i l l , 1960). An E n g l i s h t r a n s l a t i o n o f the whole w o r k p r e d a t i n g Jsegerls c r i t i c a l e d i t i o n c a n b e f o u n d i n Select W r i t i n a s a n d L e t t e r s o f G r e q o r v . B i s h o p of Nvssa, N i c e n e a n d P o s t - N i c e n e F a t h e r s , 2d s e r i e s , v o l . 5 ( N e w York, N Y : The C h r i s t i a n L i t e r a t u r e Company, 1 8 9 3 1 , 33-315. A more r e c e n t E n g l i s h t r a n s l a t i o n i n C o n t r a Eunornium I , E n g l i s h t r a n s l a t i o n b y S t u a r t G e o r g e Hall i n E l " C o n t r a Eunomium I " e n l a p r c d u c c i o n l i t e r a r i a de G r e a o r i o d e N i s a . S i x t h r n t e r n a t i o n a l C o l l o q u i u m on G r e g o r y o f Nyssa, e d s . L u c a s F. M a t e o - S e c c a n d J u a n L . B a s t e r o (Parnplona: U n i v e r s i d a d d e N a v a r r a , 1 9 8 8 ) , 21-135. Italian Contro t r a n s l a t i o n : G r e g o r y o f Nyssa, T e o l o o i a t r i n i t a r i a . Eunomio. C o n f u t a z i o n e della P r o f e s s i n n e d i f e d e d i Eunomio, tr. Claudio Moreschini (Milano: Rusconi, 1994) .
De b e a t i t u d i n i b u s i n G r e o o r i i N v s s e n i O o e r a 7 . 2 , Callahan. Leiden: B r i l l , 1992.
ed. J o h n F.
O t h e r works b y G r e g o r y o f Nyssa i n : Jaeger, Werner e t a l i i , ed.
G r e s o r i i Nvsseni O ~ e r a . Leiden:
Brill, 1958-. Migne, J. P., ed. P a t r o l o a i a e Cursus Completus: Series Graeca, vols. 44-46. Paris, 1858.
Ancient Authors: Alcinoos, Enseionement des doctrines de Platon, ed. and comrn. J o h n Whittaker, French tr. Pierre Louis. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1 9 9 0 .
.
The Handbook of Platonism, ir. and c a m . John Dillon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1 9 9 3 . Alexander of Aphrodisias, De Fato, Greek text and ET in Alexander of Aphrodisias, On Destiny, Addressed to the Emperors, tr. A. Fitzgerald (London: The Scholartis Press, 1931) . Greek also i n Commentaria in Ariscotelem Graeca s u p p l . 2.2, ed. Bruns.
. In Aristotelis Meta~hvsicaCommentaria, ed. M. Hayduck, Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 1. Berlin: Reimer, 1 8 9 1 .
. Alexandri in Aristotelis analvticorum ~ r i o r u mlibrum i commentarium, ed. M. Wallies, Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca ?.I (Berlin: Reimer, 18833 . Partial ET i n Alexander of Aphrodisias, On Aristotle's Prior Analvtics 1.i-7, t r . h n a t h a n Barnes et 3 1 , (Londcn: C u c k w o r t h , 1"P. . In Aris~otelis tooicorum libros octo commentaria, ed. M. Wallies, Commentaria in Aristotelis Graeca 2.2. Berlin: Reimer, 1891. Aristoteles, Cateqories er Liber de Interpretatione, ed. L. Minio-Paluello. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959. Aristotle's "Cateaories' and "De Interpretatione", tr. J. L. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963.
Ackrill.
Aristoteles, Metaphvsica, ed. W. Jaeger. Press, 1957.
Oxford: Clarendon
. The Comulete Works of Aristotle, The Revised Oxford translation, ed. Jonathan Barnes, 2 vols. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984. Athanasius of Alexandria.
Tomus ad Anticchenos 5 (PG 2 6 : 8 0 1 A-
D) . English tr. St. Athanasius, Select Works and L e t ~ e r s ,NPNF 2: 6 (Oxford: Parker, 1 8 9 2 1 , 481-6. Boethius, Anicius Manlius Severinus. Orrera Ornnia, ed. J. P. Migne, PL, vols. 63-64. Turnholt: Brepols, n . d . Cicero, Marcus Tullius. De o f f i c i i s , ed. M. Winterbottom. York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
New
. On Moral Obliga~ion (ET of De officiis), tr. John Higginbotham. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1967. Clement of Alexandria, L e Pedaooque, 2.5.4 6.2, eds . C. Mondesert and H.-I. Marrou, 2d ed., SC 108. Paris: Cerf, 1991. Dexippus. In Aristoteiis Cateaorias Csmmencarium, 2d. Adolf Busse, Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 4 : 2 . Berlin: Reimer, 1888.
.
On .4ristotlsfsC a w c o r i e s , Er. John Dillon. Duckworth, 1990.
Eunomius, The Extant Works, c r . Richard ? a u l Vaggione. Clarendon Press, 1987.
London: Oxford:
John of Damascus, Expositio fidei, ed. Bonifatius K o t t e r . Berlin: H a l t e r de Gruyter, 1973.
.
Exposition of the Orthodox F a i c h , :r. S. D. P. Salmond, NPNF 2 5 . Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdrnans, 1989; originally published in 1898. Origen. Cornmentaire sur Saint Jean, vol. 1 (Books 1-5), ed. Cecile Elanc, SC 120. Paris: Cerf, 1966.
. Commentarv on ihe G o s ~ e la c c o r d i n a to John Books 1-10, tr. Ronald Heine. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1989.
. 150.
Contre Celse, vol. 4 (Books 7 - 8 ) ,
ed. Marcel Borret, SC
P a r i s : Cerf, 1 9 6 9 .
.
Philocalie, 1-20, S u r les ~critures,ed. and tr. Marguerite Harl and La Lettre a Africanus sur l'histoire de Suzanne, tr. Nicholas de Lange, SC 302. Paris: Cerf, 1983.
Peter of C a l l h i c u m , Anti-Tritheist Dossier, eds. R i f a a t Y.
E b i e d , A l b e r t v a n R o e y and L i o n e l 3. Wickham. O r i e n t a l i s t i e k , 1981.
.
Leuven: Department
P e t r i Callinicensis Patriarchae Antiocheni Tractatvs
contra Damianvm, Books 11 and 111, eds. R i f a a t Y. E b i e d , A l b e r t v a n Roey a n d L i o n e l R . Wickham, C o r p s C h r i s t i a n o r v m S e r i e s Graeca v o l s . 2 9 , 3 2 , a n d 3 5 . T u r n h o u t : Brepols, 1 9 9 4 , 1 9 9 6 , and 1998. P l o t i n u s . E n n e a d s , 7 vcls., t r . A. H. A r r n s t r s n q . C l a s s i c a l L i b r a r y , Ncs. 44G-445, 4 4 8 . Cambridge, University P r e s s , 1 9 6 6 - 1 9 8 8 .
. 8 (39)1 ,
The! Loeb
Harvard
Trait6 sur l a l i b e r t e et l a v o l o n t e d e 1 ' U n [ E n n e a d e V I , t r . a n d comm. G e o r g e s L e r o u x . P a r i s : J . V r i n , 1 9 9 0 .
Pseuao-Plutarch.
P l a c i t a ~ n i l o s o ~ h o r u rinn P l u t a r c h i M o r a l i a , ed. Leipziy: Tsubner, 1971.
Jurgen Mau, v o l . 5 . 2 . 1 .
P o r p h y r y , I s a q o q e e t I n A r i s t o t e l i s c a t e s o r i a s , ed. A d o l f Busse, Commentaria i n A r i s t o t e l e r n G r a e c a 4 . 1 . B e r l i n : R e i m e r , 1887. P o r p h y r y t h e P h o e n i c i a n , Isaaoae, t r . Edward W. Warren. P o n t i f i c a l I n s t i t u c e o f M e d i a e v a l S t u d i e s , 1975.
Toronto:
S e x t u s E m p i r i c u s , A d v e r s u s maihematieos. G r e e k text a n d ET i n S e x t u s E r n p i r i c u s , A a a i n s t c h e i o a i c i a n s , t r . R. G . B u r y ( C a m b r i d g e , MA: Harvard University P r e s s , 1935) .
. P v r r h o n i a e h v p o t v ~ o s e sv c l . 1 o f S e x t i E m ~ i r i c io o e r a , e d . H . Mutschmann ( L e i p z i g : T e u b n e r , 1 9 1 2 ) . ET i n S e x t u s E m p i r i c u s , O u t l i n e s of S c e p t i c i s m , r r . J . A n n a s a n d J . B a r n e s ( C a m b r i d g e : Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 9 4 ) . S i r n p l i c i u s of C i l i c i a , I n A r i s t o t e l i s C a t e g o r i a s Comrnentarium, e d . C a r o l K a l b f l e i s c h , C o m m e n t a r i a i n A r i s t o t e l e r n Graeca 8 . B e r l i n : Reirner, 1 9 0 7 . S o c r a t e s S c h o l a s t i c u s . The E c c l e s i a s t i c a l X i s t c r v , c r . A. C. Zenos, NPNF 2:2. N e w York, N Y : T h e C h r i s t i a n L i t e r a t u r e Company,
1890. T e r t u l l i a n , T r e a t i s e A s a i n s t P r a x e a s , e d . , t r . a n d cornm. E r n e s t Evans. London: S P C K , 1 9 4 8 . T h e m i s t i u s C o n s t a n t i n o p o l i t a n u s , Quae f e r t u r i n A r i s t o t e l i s analvticorum p r i o r u r n l i b r u m i ~ a r a o h r a s i s , ed. M . Wallies, Commentaria i n A r i s t o t e l e m Graeca 23.3. B e r l i n : Reimer, 1884.
Modern Authors : Abrarnowski, Luise. "Trinitarische und christologische Hypostasenformeln," Theolooie und Philosophie 54 (1979): 38-49. Amand, David. Fatalisme et liberte dans l'antiauite arecque. Louvain: Bibliotheque de l'universite, 1945. " ~ ~ o n i uEerrniae" s in Paxlvs R e a k n c v c l a ~ a d i eJer classischen Alterturnwissenschaft, vol. 1 3 , cols. 1863-1865. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzlersche, 18%. F\nastos, Milcon V. "Basil's K a ~ aEvvopiou" in Basil of Caesarea: Christian, Humanist, Ascetic. A Sixteen~h-Hundredth Anniversary Svmpcsium, ed. Paul 2 . Fedwick, v d . 1 (Toronto: Pcnrifical Institute of Medieval S c ~ d L a s ,I S 6 1 ' , 6 7 - : 3 5 . Ando, Clifford. "Pagan Apologetics and Christian Intolerance in the Ages of Themistius and Acgustine," Journal of Earlv Christian Studies 4 (Summer 1996) : 171-207. Andresen, Carl. "Zur Entstenung u n d Gsscnichte der trinitarischen Personbegriffes," 2ei~schrifi fur neutrstamentlichs Wissenschafc und die Kunde der alteren Kirche 52 (1961): 1-39, Apostolopoulos, Charalambos. Phaedo Christianus. Studien zur Verbinduna und Abwaauna des Verhaltnisses zwischen dern datonischen Phaidon und dern Dialoq Greoors von Nyssa " ~ b e rdie Seele und die Auferstehuna". f r a n k f u r r an Main: Peter Lang, 1985.
Armstrong, A. H., ed. The Cambridoe Historv of Later Greek and Earlv Medieval Philosoohv. Cambridge: University Press, 1967. "Form, Individual and Person in Plotinus, " Dionvsius (1977) : 49-68.
.
"Two Views of Freedom, " Studia Patristica 18 (1982):
397-406.
Arnou, R. "Arius et la doctrine des relations trinitaires," Greaorianum 14 ( 1 9 3 3 ) : 269-272.
Balds, David L. METOTEIAOEOT: Man's Participation in God's Perfections accordina to St. G r e s o r v of Nvssa. Rome: " I B C " Libreria Herder, 1966.
, "The U n i t y of Human Nature in Basil's and Gregory of Nyssa's P o l e m i c s against Eunomius," Studia ~atristica14 (1976): , "Plenitude humanitacis: The Unity of Human Nature in the Theology of Gregory of Nyssa" in Disci~linanostxa: E s s a v s in Memorv of Robert F. Evans, ed. Donald F. Winslow (Cambridge, MA: The Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 19791, 115-131.
, " G r e q o r von N y s s a (331/340-ca. 395)," Theoloaische Realenzvkhpadie 14 iBerlin: W. dz Gruyter, 1985): 1 7 3 - 1 8 1 . Balthasax, Hans Urs von. Presence and Thouaht: Essav on the Reliaious Philoso~hvof Greaorv of Nvssa, tr. Mark Sebanc. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 19%. Barnes, M i c h e l Rene. "ACvaps and t h e Anti-Monist ic Ontology of Nyssen's Contra Eunomium" in Arianism: Historical and Theoloqicai Reassessments, ed. Roberc C. Gregg (Cambridge, MA: The P h i l a d e p h i a Patristic Foundation, 1985), 3 2 7 - 3 3 4 .
. "The Power of God: The Significance of Dynamis in the Development of Gregory of Nyssa's Polemic against Eunomius of Cyzicus." P h . D . diss., U n i v ~ r s i c yof St. Michael's College, Toronto, i W 2 . . "The Background and Use of Eunomius' Causal Language" in Arianism After Arius: Essavs on th? Develo~mentof the Fourth Centurv Trinitarian Conflicts, eds. Michel R. Barnes and Daniel H. Williams (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 19931, 217-236. . " C o n t e m p o r a r y Reflec~ionson t h e F o u r t h Century: Rethinking Orthodox Trinitarianism' (paper presented at the American Academy of Religion Annual Meeting, Chicago, November 1994).
.
"De Regnon Reconsidered," Ausustinian Studies 26, nc.
2 (1995): 5 1 - 7 9 .
Barnes, Timothy D. Athanasius and Constantius: Theoloav and Politics in the Constantinian Em~ire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993. Barth, Karl. Church Doomatics, 4 vols, tr. G. W. Bromiley. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1 9 5 6 - 1 9 7 5 . Bebis, George S. "Gregory of Nyssa's De vita Movsis: A Philosophical and Theological Analysis," Greek Orthodox
T h e o l o a i c a l R e v i e w 1 2 , n o . 3 ( 1 9 6 7 ) : 369-393. B e r a r d i n o , Angelo d l , e d . E n c v c l o o e d i a o f the E a r l v C h u r c h , t r . 2 vols. N e w York: O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 9 2 .
A. W a l d o r f ,
B e r g j a n , S i l ke-Petra. T h e o d o r e t v o n C v r u s und d e r N e u n i z a n i s m u s : Aspekte d e r a l t k i r c h l i c h e n T r i n i t a t s l e h r e . B e r l i n : W . de G r u y t e r , 19%. B e r t h o l d , George C . , " T h e C a p p a d c c i a n Roots c ~ fMaximus t h e C o n f e s s o r " i n Maximus C o n f e s s o r . Actes d u s v m p o s i u m s u r Maxime le C o n f e s s e u r . Friboura, 2-5 s e ~ t e r n b r ei980, e d s . F e l i x H e i n z e r a n d C h r i s t o p h S c h o n b o r n (Fribourg: c d i t i o n s u n i v e r s i t a i r e s , l 9 8 2 ) , 51-59.
Biblia p a t r i s t i c a : I n d e x des citations et a l l u s i o n s b i b l i q u e s d a n s l a - l i t t e r a t u r e ~ a t r i s c i o u e .V o l . 5 : E a s i l e d e ~ e s a r ~ e , G r e g o i r e de N a z i a n z e , G r 2 g o i r e de Nysse, Pmpniloque d' Iconium. P r o d u c e d b y t h e C e n c r z d ' a n a i y s e et de d o c u m e n t a t i o n p a t r i s t i q u e s . Paris: C e n t r e N a t i o n a l e d e R e c h e r c h e S c i e n t i f i q u e , 1991. B l u m e n t h a l , H . J . " D i d P l o t i n u s B e l i w e i n I d e a s cf I n d i v i d u a l s ? , " P h r o n e s i s 11 (1966): 61-80.
, P h t i n u s ' P s v o h o b a v : Xis Doctrine o f T h e Hague: M a r t i n u s N i j h o f f ,
t h e E m b o d i e d Scul.
1971.
Bohm, T h o m a s . T h e o r i a , U n d e n d l i c h k e i t , P l u f s t i e q : P h i l s s o p h i s c h e I m d i k a t i o n e n z u ' D e V i t a M c v s i s ' von G r e a o r v c n N v s s a . Leiden: B r i l l , 1996. B o r s t , A r n o , M e d i e v a l Worlds : B a r b a r i a n s , H e r e t i c s a n d A r t i s t s i n t h e M i d d l e Aaes, t r . E . H a n s e n . C h i c a g o , I L : T h e U n i v e r s i t y of C h i c a g o Press, 1 9 9 2 . B r a d l e y , James E, a n d R i c h a r d M u l l e r . C h u r c h H i s t o r v : An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o R e s e a r c h , R e f e r e n c e Works, a n d M e t h o d s . Grand R a p i d s , M I : Eerdmans, 1 9 % . B r e n n e c k e , H a n s Christof. "Erwagungen z u den A n f a n g e n d e s N e u n i z a n i s m u s " i n Oecumenica e t p a t r i s t i c a . F e s t s c h r i f t fur Wilhelm S c h n e e m e l c h e r zum 7 5 . G e b u r t s t a q , e d s . Darnas k i n o s P a p a n d r e o u , W o l f g a n g 4. B i e n e r t , Knut S c h a f e r d i e k (Chambesy: Metropolie der Schweiz, l g N ) , 2 4 1 - 2 5 7 . Brown, F e t e r . T h e Body a n d S o c i e c v : Men, Women a n d S e x u a l Renunciation i n Earlv Christianity. New York: C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i y
Press, 1988. Canevet, Mariette. Gr€qoire de Nvsse or l'hermeneutiaue bibliaue: ~ t u d edes ramcrrs e n t r e le Lanaaae ?t la cannaissance de Dieu. Paris: ~ t u d e saugustiniennes, 1993. Cavallin, Anders. Studien zu den Briefen des H1. Basilius. Lund: Gleerupska Universitetsbokhandeln, 1 9 4 4 . Cavarnos, Constantine. The Classical Theorv of aelations: A Study in the Metaphvsics of Piato, Arismtle and Thomism. Belmonc, MA: Instituce for S y z a n c i r x and Modmn Greek Studies, 1975.
Cavarnos, John P. " Gregory of Nyssa on the Nature of the Soul, " Greek Orthodox Theoloqical Review 1, no. 2 (1955): 133-141. Cherniss, Harold F r e d e r i c k . The Platonism of Greaorv of Nvssa. Berkeley, CA: University o f California Press, 1930 { r p r t . New York: B. Franklin, 1971). Chevalier, I r e n e e . S. Auaustin et la cens&e arecaue. Les relations trinitaires. F r i b o u r g en Suisse: L i b r a r i e d e l'UniversitP, 1940. Coakley, Sarah. "Why Three? Scmz F x c h e r Reflections on rhe Origins of the Doctrine of the Trinity," in The Makina and Remakina of Christian Doctrine, e d s . S. Coakley and D. A. Pailin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, l W 3 ! , 35-36. C r o s s , F. L., ed.
The Oxford Dictionarv of ihe Christian Church, 3d edition by Elizabeth Livingstone. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Crouzel, Henri. Oriqen: The Life and Thouqht of the First Great Theoloqian, tr. A. S . Worrali. San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row, 1989. Daley, Brian E. "'A Richer dnion' : Leontius of Byzantium and the Relationship of Human and Divine in Christ," Studia ~atristica24 (1993): 2 3 9 - 6 5 . Danielou, Jean. Platonisme et theoloaie mvstiaue: essai sur la doctrine s~irituellede saint Greaoire de Nvsse. Aubier, France: Montaigne, 1944.
. Review o f Greaorii Nvseni Opera doamatica minora I, ed. F. Muller, Gnomon 3 1 ( 1 9 5 9 : 6 1 2 - 6 1 5 .
Drobner, Hubertus R. Person-Exeaese und Christoloqie bei Auwstinus: Zur Herkunft der Formel 'Una Persona'. Leiden: Brill, 1986. and Christoph K l o c k , eds. Studien z u Greqor von Nvssa und der christlichen Soatantike. Leiden: E J Brill, 1990. Einsenberger, Herbert, ed. Hermeneumata: Festschrift fur Hadwiq Horner. Heidelb2rg: C. Winter, 1990. Eysenck, H. J., W. Arnold, and R. Meili, eds. Psvcholoav. New York: Herder, 1 9 7 2 .
Encvclo~edia of
Fedwick, Paul J. "A Commentary of Gregory of Nyssa or the 38th Letter of Basil of Caesarea," Orientalia Christiana Periodica 44 (1978): 31-51.
. The Church and the Charisma of leaders hi^ in Basil of Caesarea. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Yedieval Studies, 1979.
.
"Abbreviations: 1. The Works of Basil of Caesarea" in Basil of Caesarea: Christian, Humanist, Ascetic. A SixteenthHundredth Anniversarv S v r n ~ o s i u r n , ed. Paul J. Fedwick, v d . 1 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1981), xixxxxi.
. "A Chronology of the L i f s and Works of Basil of Caesarea" in Basil of Caesarea: Christian, Humanist, Ascetic. A Sixteenth-Hundredth Anniversarv Svmposium, e d . Paul J. Fedwick, v o l . 1 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1981), 3-19. . Bibliotheca Basiliana Vniversalis: A Studv of the Manuscript Tradition of the Works of Basil of Caesarea, vol. 1; 2.1; 2.2. Turnhout: Brepols, 1993--. Ferguson, Everett et al., eds. Encvclo~ediaof Earlv Christianitv, 26 ed., 2 vols. New York: Garland, 1997. Florovsky, George. Aspects of Church History, v o l . 4 in the author's Collected Works, ed. Richard S. Haugh. Vaduz: Buchervertriebanstalt, 1987. Frede, Michael. E s s a v s in Ancient Philosoohv. University of Minnesota Press, 1987. Gain,
Minneapolis, MN:
Traductions latines de Peres arecs: La collection
d u manuscrit Laurentianus San Marco 5 6 4 . Editions des lettres de Basile de Cesarhe. Bern: Peter Lang, 1994.
Galth, Jerome. La concemion de la liberte chez Greaoire de Paris: 3 . W i n , 1953.
Nysse.
Gerson, Lloyd P.
Plotinus.
Mew York, NY: Routledge, 1994.
Gill, Christopher, ed. The Person and the Human Mind: Issues in Ancient and Modern Philoso~hv. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990.
. "Is There a C o n c e p ~of Person in Greek Philoscphy?" in Psvchologv, ed. Steven Everson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, l991), 166-93. Glucker, John. "The Origin of uaap~wand unap[~s as Philosophical Terms" in Hvparxis e Hv~ostasisnel Neoolatonismo. Atti del I Colloauio Internazionale del Centro di Ricerca sul Neoolatonismo (Universita desli Studi di Catania. 1-3 ottobre 19921, ed. F. Romano and D. ? . Taormina (Florence: Leo S. O l s s h k i , 1994), 1-23. Goldschmidt, Victor. "'Trrapx~tv e t ubimava~ dans l a philoscphie stoicienne," Revue des etudes qrecoues 85 (1972): 336-340 Gonzalez, Severino. La formula MIA 'OI'EIA TPEIZ 'YllOETAXEIZ sn san Greaorio de N i s a . Rome: Gregorianum, 1 5 3 9 . .
.
Gribomonc, Jean. " I n r r a n s i g ~ . n . c eand Irenlzlsm in Saint Basil's 'De Spiritu Sancto', " Word and Spirit 1 (1579): 109-136. Grillrneier, Aloys. "Das Scandalurn oecumenicum des Nestorius in kirchlich-dogmatischer und theologieqeschichtlicher Sicht," Scholastik 36 (1961): 321-356. Grube, George M. A.
Plato's Thought.
London: Methuen, 1935.
Halleux, Andre de. " 'Hypostase' et 'personne' dans la formation du dogme trinitaire ( c a . 375-381)," Revue d'histoire ecclesiastioue 79 ( 1 9 8 4 ) : 313-369, 625-070.
. "Personalisme ou essentialisme trinitaire chez les Peres cappadociens? Une mauvaise controverse," Revue theolooiaue de Louvain 17 (1986): 129-155, 265-292. Hammerstaedt, Jurgen. "Der trinitarische Gebrauch des Hypostasisbegrif fs bei Origenes, " Jahrbuch f u r Antike und Christenturn 34 (1991): 12-20.
. "Zur E c h t h e i t von B a s i l i u s b r k f 3 8 , " T e s s e r a e : F e s t s c h r i f t f u r J o s e f Engemann. J a h r b u c h f u r A n t i k e und C h r i s t e n t u m 1 8 (1991): 4 1 6 - 4 1 9 . .
" H y p o s t a s i s ( ' r ; ~ o a ~ u a ~i ns ) R "eallexikon fur Antike und C h r i s t e n t u m v o l . 1 6 ( S t u t t g a r t : A . H i e r s e m a n n , 1 9 9 4 ) , e o l s . 986-1035.
Hanson, R , P . C - T h e S e a r c h f o r t h e C h r i s t i a n D o c t r i n e of God: Edinburgh: T 6 T C l a r k , 1988. T h e Arian C o n t r o v e r s v 318-381. X a r l , M a r g u e r i t e . " A p r o p o s d ' u n p a s s a g e d u C o n t r e Eunome d e G r e g o i r e d e Nysse: a p o r r o i a e t l e s t i t r e s d u C h r i s t e n t h i o l o g i e t r i n i t a i r e , " Recherches de S c i e n c e R e l i a i e u s e s 5 5 , nc. 2 ( 1 9 6 7 ) : 217-226.
, e d . E c r i t u r e s t c u l t u r e ~ h i l o s o p h i q u ed a n s l a p e n s e e de G r e q o i r e de Nvss?: Actes d u c o i l o a u e d e C h s v e t o q n e ( 2 2 - 2 6 s e p t e r n b r e 19691 . L e i d e n : Brill, 1 9 7 1 .
. "References philosophiques et r2ferences bibliques du l a n g a g e d e Grigoire d e N y s s e d a n s ses O r a t i o n e s i n C a n t i c u m c a n t i c o r u m l ' i n HERMENEUMATA. F e s t s c h r i f t fur H a d w i a H o m e r , e d b y H e r b e r t E i s e n b e r g e r ( H e i d e l b e r g : C. W i n t e r , 1 9 9 0 ) , 1 1 7 - 1 3 1 . H a r n a c k , A d o l f . L s h r b u c h dsr D o a m s n a e s c h i c h t e , v o l . 2 , 4 t h e d . T h b i n g e n : J. C . B . Mohr, 1 9 0 9 . H a r r i s o n , Verna Z . F. Grace a n d Human Freedom a c c o r d i n a t o S t . G r e q o r v cf N v s s a . L e w i n s t o n , N Y : E . M e l l e n Press, 1 9 9 2 .
, "Gender, G e n e r a t i o n , a n d V i r g i n i t y i n C a p p a d o c i a n T h e o l o g y , " T h e J o u r n a l o f T h e o l o a i c a l Studies n . s . 4 7 ( 1 9 9 6 ) : 3868. , " M a l e a n d F e m a l e i n t h e C a p p a d o c i a n T h e o l ~ g y ,T~h e J o u r n a l of T h e o l o q i c a l S t u d i e s , n . s . 4 1 ( 1 9 9 0 ) : 4 4 1 - 4 7 1 . H o l l , Karl. A m p h i f o c h i u s v o n I k o n i u m i n s e i n e r n V e r h a l t n i s zu d e n o r o n e n K a ~ a a d o z i e r n . T i i b i n g e n : J . C . B . Wohr, 1 9 0 4 ( r p r t . Darmstadt: W i s s e n s c h a f t l i c h e B u c h g e s e l l s c h a f t , 1 9 6 9 ) . Hubner, R e i n h a r d . " G r e g o r v o n N y s s a a l s V e r f a s s e r d e r sog. EJ. 38 des Basilius. Zum u n t e r s c h i e d l i c h e n V e r s t a n d n i s d e r o u s i a b e i d e n kappadozischen B r u d e r n " i n E ~ e k t a s i s . Melanses p a t r i s t i a u e s o f f e r t s au Cardinal J e a n D a n i e l a u , eds. J. F o n t a i n e a n d C h . K a n n e n g i e s s e r (Paris: B e a u c h e s n e , 1 9 ? 2 ) , 4 6 3 - 4 9 0 .
. Die E i n h e i t des L e i b e s C h r i s t i bei G r e s o r v o n N v s s a : U n t e s u c h u n a e n zum U r s ~ r u n ader ' p h v s i s c h e n ' E r l o s u n q l e h r e . Leiden: B r i l l , 1974. .
" B a s i l i u s v o n Caesarea und d a s h o m o o u s i o s " i n C h r i s t i a n Essavs i n T r i b u r e F a i t h a n d G r e e k P h i l o s o ~ h vi n L a t e A n t i a u i i v . to G . C . S t e a d , e d . L i o n e l R . N i c k h a m e t al. ( L e i d e n : E. J. B r i l l , 19931, ?0-91. " H y p o s t a s i s " i n A P a r r i s t i c G r e e k L e x i c o n , e d . G . W . H . Lampe ( O x f o r d : Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, l96l), c o l s . 1 4 5 4 - 6 1 . Ibafiez, J a n d F. M e n d o z a . "Naturaleza d e l a ' s u s e b e i a ' e n G r e g o r i o d e N i s a , " i n G r e a o r von N v s s a u n d d i e P h i l o s o ~ h i e : Zwzites I n c e r n a t i m a l e s K o i l o a u i u r n tiber G r e a o r v o n N v s s a ( F r e c k e n h o r s t b e i M u n s t e r , 18.-23 S e p t e m b e r 19721, eds. H e i n r i c h D o r r i e e t a l . ( L e i d e n : B r i l l , 19761, 261-277.
. " E l v a l o r d e l t e r m i n o ' h y p o s t a s i s ' e n e l l i b r o I Contra Eunomium d e G r e g o r i o d e Nisa" i n E l " C o n t r a Eunomium I " e n l a p r o d u c c i o n l i t e r a r i a d e G r 2 q o r i o d e Nisa. S i x t h I n t e r n a t i o n s 1 C o l l o q u i u m o n G r e g o r y of N y s s a , t d s . L u c a s F . M a t 2 o - S e c o a n d J u a n L . Bastero ( P a r n p l o n a : U n i v e r s i d a d de N a v a r r a , 1 9 8 8 3 , 3 2 9 - 3 3 7 . J a e q e r , Werner W. Greaor v o n N v s s a ' s L e h r e vom H e i l i a e n Geist. i e i d e n : S r i l l , 1966. Kahn, C h a r l e s H . " Q u e s t i o n s and C a t e g o r i e s : A r i s m t l e ' s D o c t r i n e cf C a t e g o r i c s i n he Light of Modern 3 e s e a r c h , " i n O u e s c i o n s , e d . H e n r y Hit ( D o r d r e c k : Reidel, 1978), 227-278.
, " D i s c o v e r i n g t h e W i l l : From A r i s t o c l e t o A u g u s t i n e " i n The O u e s t i o n o f 'Ecclecticism' i n L a t e r G r e e k P h i l o s o ~ h v , eds. J o h n M . D i l l o n a n d A . A . L o n g ( B e r k e l e y , CA: U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1988), 2 3 4 - 5 9 . Kasper, W a l t e r . T h e God of J e s u s C h r i s t , t r . M a t t h e w J. O'Connell. New Y o r k : C r o s s r o a d , 1 9 8 9 . Kees, R e i n h a r d J a k o b . Die L e h r e v o n d e r O i k o n o m i a G o t t e s i n d e r O r a t i o Catechetica G r e o o r s v o n N y s s a . L e i d e n : B r i l l , 1 9 9 5 . K e i t h , Graham. " O u r K n o w l e d g e o f God: T h e R e l e v a n c e o f t h e Debate B e t w e e n E u n o m i u s a n d t h e C a p p a d o c i a n s , " T v n d a l e B u l l e t i n 4 1 (May 1 9 9 0 ) : 6 0 - 8 8 . K e l l y , J. N . D. Longman, 1 9 7 2 .
E a r l v C h r i s t i a n C r e e d s , 3d e d .
New Y o r k , N Y :
, Earlv Christian Doctrines, Harper a n d Row, 1978.
5 t h ed,
San Francisco:
A H i s t o r v o f Neo-Arianism, 2 v o l s . Kopecek, Thomas A . C a m b r i d g e , MA: The P h i l a d e l p h i a P a t r i s t i c F o u n d a t i o n , 1 9 7 9 .
LaCugna, C a t h e r i n e Mowry. God for U s : The T r i n i t v and C h r i s t i a n Life. S a n F r a n c i s c o , CA: H a r p e r , 1991, Lampe, G . W . H . , ed. A P a t r i s t i c Greek L e x i c o n . University Press, 1 9 6 1 .
Oxford: Oxford
Leroux, Georges. "Introduction" to Plotin, T r a i t s s u r l a liberte et l a v o l o n t e de l l U n [ E n n e a d e V I , 8 ( 3 9 ? 1 , t r . and comrn. G e o r g e s L e r o u x ( P a r i s : J . V r i n , l W O ) , 23-123. Lienhard, Joseph T. "The ' A r i a n ' C o n t r o v e r s y : Some C a t e g o r i e s R e c o n s i d e r e d , " T h e o l o q i c a l S t u d i e s , n . s . , 48 ( 1 9 8 7 ) : 4 1 5 - 3 7 .
. " E a s i l o f Caesarea, Marcellus o f A n c y r i , ' S a b e i i u s ' , " C h u r c h t i i s r o r y 5 s (1989): i51-161.
and
- . "Did A t h a n a s i u s Reject M a r c e l l u s ? " i n A r i a n i s m A f t e r A r i u s : E s s a v s on t h e D e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e F o u r t h - C e n t u r y T r i n i t a r i a n C o n f l i c t s , eds. M i c h e l R . B a r n e s a n d D a n i e l H . W i l l i a m s (Edinburqh: T & T C l a r k , 1 9 9 3 ) , 65-80.
L i l l a , S a l v a t o r e , " P l a t o n i s m and t h e F a t h e r s " i n E n c v c l o p e d i a o f t h e E a r l v C h u r c h , ed. A n g e l o d i B e r a r d i n c , c r . A . X a l f o r d , v o l . 2 ( O x f o r d : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 9 2 1 , 689-698. Lloyd, A. C. " N e o p l a t o n i s t L o g i c anti Aristotelian P h r o n e s i s 1 (1956): 146-159.
.
T h e Anatomv o f N e o o l a t o n i s r n .
log^ 1 1 , "
O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n Press,
1990.
L u c k e , J o h n . An E s s a v C o n c e r n i n a Human U n d e r s t a n d i n q , ed. Peter Nidaitch. O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n Press, 1 9 7 5 ; o r i g i n a l l y p u b l i s h e d i n 1690. Long, A . A. "Language a n d Thought i n S t o i c i s m " i n Problems i n Stoicism, ed. A . A . Long ( L o n d o n : A t h l e t o n , 1 9 7 1 ) , 75-113.
.
H e l l e n s i t i c Philosoohv: Stoics. 2d e d i t i o n . London: D u c k w o r t h , 1 9 8 6 .
Long, A . A. a n d D . N . S e d l e y .
Eoicureans. Sceptics,
T h e H e l l e n i s t i c P h i l o s o ~ h e r s ,2
vols.
Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1987.
Lorenz, R u d o l f . " D i e E u s t a t h i u s von A n t l o c h i e n z u g e s c h r i e b e n e S c h r i f t gegen Photin," Z e i t s c h r i f t f u r neutestamenrliche W i s s e n s c h a f t und d i e Kunde d e r alteren K i r c h e 7 1 (1980): 1 0 9 - 1 2 8 . Louth, Andrew. "They S p e a k t o TJs across r h e C e n t u r i e s . 1. S t Maximos the C c n f e s s o r , " T h e E x p o s i t o r v T i m e s 1 0 9 , n o . 4 ( J a n u a r y 1998) : 100-3. Lynch, J o h n . " P r o s d p o n i n G r e g o r y o f N y s s a : I\ T h e o l o g i c a l Word I r . T r s n s i r i m , " Thsoloaical Studias 40 ( 1 9 7 9 ) : 728-738. Madden, John D . " T h e A u t h e n t i c i c y of E a r l y D e f i n i t i o n s of Will ( T h e l C s i s ) " i n Maximus C o n f e s s o r . Actss d u s v r n ~ o s i u ms u r Maxime l e Confesseur. F r i b o u r q , 2-5 s e o t e m b r e 1 9 8 0 , e d s . Felix H e i n z e r and C h r i s t o p h Schdnborn ( F r i b o u r g S u i s s e : ~ d i c i o n s u n i v e r s i t a i r e s , 1982) , 61-79, May, G e r h a r d .
"Die C h r o n o l o g i e d e s L e b s n s unc d e r Warke d e s G r e q o r von N y s s a " i n k c r i m r e et c u l t u r e o h i l o s o ~ h i a u ed a n s l a
p e n g & e de ~ r & o i r e d e N v s s e . Actes d u C c l l o q u e d e C h e v e t o a n e ( 2 2 - 2 6 septembre 1 9 6 9 ) , e d . M a r g u e r i t e H a r l ( L e i d e n : E . J. B r i l l , M e i j e r i n g , E . P . "Die D i s k u s s i c n uber den W i i i s n u n d das Wesen G o t t e r , t h e o l o g i e g e s c h i c h t l i c h b e l e u c h t e t , " i n ~ l t a l i s ee t l ' e r n o i r e a u IVe s i e c l e , e d . A l b r e c h t D i h l e ( G e n e v a : F o n d a t i o n H a r d t , l 9 8 9 ) , 35-65 M e i s s n e r , H e n r i e t t a H . Rhetorik u n d T h e o l o a i e : Der D i a l o q Greoors v o n Nvssa De anirna e t r e s u r r e c t i o n e . F r a n k f u r t am Mein: P. Lang, 1 9 9 1 . M e r e d i t h , A n t h o n y . " G r e g o r y of Nyssa and P l o t i n u s , " S t u d i a P a t r i s t i c a 1 7 / 3 (1982) : 1120-26.
.
"The D i v i n e S i m p l i c i t y . C o n t r a Eunornium 1 . 2 2 3 - 2 4 1 " i n E l " C o n t r a Eunomium I " e n l a o r o d u c c i o n l i t e r a r i a d e G r e a o r i o d e Nisa. S i x t h I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o i l o q u i u m o n G r e g o r y o f N y s s a , e d s . L u c a s F. M a t e o - S e c o a n d J u a n L . B a s t e r o (Pamplona: U n i v e r s i d a d d e Navarra, 1 9 8 8 ) , 3 3 9 - 3 5 1 .
.
T h e Cap~adocians. C r e s t w o o d , NY: S t . Vladimir's Seminary P r e s s , 19%.
Meridier, Louis. L I I n f l u e n c e de la seconde sophistiaue s u r l ' o e u v r e de Greaoire d e Nvsse. P a r i s : Hachette, 1906.
M e r k i , H u b e r t . 'Ouoiwo~c8 ~ 4 . Von d e n o l a t o n i s c h e n A n o l e i c h u n q a n G o t t z u r G o t r a h n l i c h k e i t b e i G r e o o r von Nvssa. Fribcurg: P a u l s d r u c k , 1952. M e y e n d o r f f , J o h n . "St. B a s i l , M e s s a l i a n i s m a n d Byzantine C h r i s t i a n i t y , " Saint Vladirnir's T h e o l o q i c a l O u a r t e r l v 2 4 , no. 4 ( 1 9 8 0 ) : 219-234.
" H y p o s t a s e " i n D i c ~ i o n n a i r ede C h e o l o a i e C a t h o l i a u e , 2d. E . Arnann ~t a l . , v o l . 7:'i (Paris: p r i m e d for L e m u z e y e t Ane, 1 9 2 7 1 , c o l . 3 6 9 - 4 3 7 .
Michel, A .
. " R e l a t i o n s d i v i n e s , " D i c t i o n n a i r e de t h e o l o q i e c a t h o l i a u e ( P a r i s : p r i n t e d f o r L e t o u z e y et An&, 1 9 3 7 ) , c o l s . 2135-2156. .
.
M i l a n o , Andrea. P e r s a n a i n t m l o a i a . .?.lie a r i ~ l del ~ i s i o n i f i c a t o d i m r s o n a ne? z r i s c i a n e s i r n o antico. M a p k s : D e h o n i a n e , 198?. M o r a l e s , Fabio. "Relational Attributes i n Aristotle, 39, no. 3 ( 1 9 9 4 ) : 55-274.
"
Phronesis
Muhlenberg, Ekkehard. Die L h e n d l i c h k e i t G o t t e s b e i G r e a o r von N v s s a . G r e a ~ r sK r i t i k am Gottesbeqriff d e r k l a s s i s c h e n M e t m h v s i k . G o c t i n g e n : Vandenhoeck h R u p r e c n t , 1966.
, "Synergism i n Gregory o f N y s s a , " Z e i t s c h r i f t f u r neutestamentliche N i s s e n s c h a f t 6 8 ( 1 9 7 7 ) : 93-122. M u l r o o n e y , S e a n . " B o e t h i u s c n ' P e r s o n ' . " P h . D . diss., L ' n i v e r s i t y of T o r o n t o , 1 9 9 4 . Nedoncelle, Maurice. "Prosdpon and p e r s o n a dans l ' a n t i q u i t e c l a s s i q u e , " Revue d e s sciences r e l i o i e u s e s 2 2 ( 1 9 4 8 ) : 2 7 7 - 9 9 . T h e N e w Oxford Annotated 3 i b l e w i t h the A p c c r v p h a l / D e u t e r o c a n o n i c a l Books, t h e N e w Revised S t a n d a r d V e r s i o n , e d s . B r u c e M e t z g e r a n d R o l a n d Murphy. Oxford: O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1991.
Olson, Eric T., The Human A n i m a l : P e r s o n a l Identitv w i t h o u t Psvcholoav. Oxford: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 9 7 . Pacheco, M a r i a C . S . G r e a o r i o de N i s s a . Braga: F a c u l d a d e d e F i l o s o f i a , 1 9 8 3 . Parf it, Derek.
Reasons a n d P e r s o n s .
Criacac e tempo.
Oxford: C l a r e n d o n P r e s s ,
1984.
Parys, Jan van. Grjaoire de Nvsse, Refutation de la orofession de foi drEunome, introduction, tr. and index, 2 vols. Ph. D. diss., Uni-~ersityof Faris-Sorbonne, i968. Parys, Michel J. van. "Exeg€se et theologie trinitaire: P r o v 22 chez fes Peres cappadociens," in Ecriture et culture ~ h i l o s o ~ h i a udans e la pensee de Greqoire de Nysse: Acres du cdloque de Cheveroane 122-26 s e ~ t e m b r e1969), ed. Marguerite Harl (Leiden: Brill, l97l), 169-193. Patterson, L. G., PIethodius of 01-mcus: Divine Sovereiantv, Human Freedom, and Life in Christ. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of .America Press, 1997. Pelikan, J a r o s l a v . Chris~ianirvand Classical C u l t r ~ r e : The Metamorphosis of Natural Theoloav in the Christian Encouncer with Hellenism. New Haven, CT: Yaie University Press, 1993. Pepin, Jean. ""Trrap[~get h o o ~ a o ~en s Cappadocel' i r k H v p a r x i s 2 Hv~ostasis nel NeoplatonFsmo. Acti del I Colloauio In~ernazionaledel Centro di Ricerca sul Neo~latonismo (Universita deali Studi di Catania, 1-3 octobre 1 9 9 2 1 , eds. F. Romano and D. P. Taormina (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, l994), 5978. Peroli, Enrico. I1 olatonismo e I'antro~oloaiafilosofica d i Greqorio di Nisa: con oarticolare r i f 2 r L r n e n t o aali influssi cii Platone, Plotino e Porflrio. Yilano: Vita e pensiero, 1993.
.
Soul, "
"Gregory of Nyssa and the Neoplatonic Doctrine of the Viqiliae Christianae 51 (1997): 117-139.
Phillips, John F., "Stoic 'Common Notions' in Plotinus, " Dionysius 11 (1987): 3 3 - 5 2 . Plantinga, Cornelius, Jr. "Gregory of Nyssa and the Social Analogy of the Trinity, " The Thomist 50 (1986): 3 2 5 - 3 5 2 . Pottier, Bernard. Dieu et le Christ selon Greqoire de Nvsse: Etude svstematiaue d u "Contre Eunome" avec traduction inedite des extraits d1Eunome. Namur: Culture et Verite, 1994.
Pouchet, Robert. Basile le Grand et son univers d'amis d'apres sa corres~ondance. Une strateaie de communion. Rome: Augustinianum, 1 9 9 2 .
Prestige, G. L. 1952.
God in Patristic Thouaht, 2d ed.
London: SPCK,
Regnon, Theodore d e . ~ t u d e sde theologie positive sur la sainte Trinite, four volumes bound as three. Paris: Victor Retaux, l892/1898, Rist, John M. "Forms of Individuals Quarterlv n.s., 13 (1963): 223-31.
. Eras and Psvche: Toronto, 1 9 6 4 .
Plotinus,
"
Classical
Studies i n Flato, Plotinus a n d Oriaen.
. Plotinus: The Road io Realiw. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. .
Stoic Philosoohv.
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1 9 6 9 .
. "Ideas of Individuals in ?lotinus: A Reply to Dr. Blumenthal," Revue internationaie de philcso~hie 24 (19?0): 298"Prohairesis: Proclus, Plotinus et alii" in De Jambliaue a Proclus, ed. B. D. Larsen (Vandoeuvres-Geneva: F o n d a t ion Hardt, l975), 1 0 3 - 1 1 7 .
"Basil's ' N e o p l a ~ c n i s n ' : 1:s 3ackground and Nature" in Basil of Caesarea : Christian, Humanist, Ascetic. A SixteenthHundredth Anniversarv Svmposium, ed. Paul J. Fedwick, vol. 1 (Toronto: Pontifical Institutt of Mtdieval Studies, 1981), 1 3 7 220.
.
Human Value: A Studv in Ancient Philoso~hical Ethics. Leiden: Brill, 1 9 8 2 .
.
Review of The Theorv of Will in Classical Antiauitv, by
A l b r e c h t Dihls, i n Phoenix 37 (1983): 275-7.
The Mind of Aristotle: A Studv in Philosophical Growth. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1 9 8 9 .
.
"Plotinus and Chrisiian Philosophy" in The Cambridae Companion t o Plot inus, ed. Lloyd P. Gerson (Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 19961, 386-413.
Ritter, Adolf Martin. "Gregor von Nyssa In suam ordinationem eine Quelle fur die Geschichte des Konzils von Konstantinopel 381?,"
Zeitschrift fur Kirchenqeschichte 79, no. 3 (1968): 3 0 8 - 3 2 8 . Robertson, David G. "Stoic and Aristotelian Notions of Substance in Sasil of C a e s a r e a , " Viuiliae Christianae 52 (1399): 393-417. Rousseau, Philip. Basil of Caesarea. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994.
Rudman, Stanley Conceats of Person and Christian Ethics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Runia, David T. Philo In Earlv C h r i s ~ i a nLiterature: A Survev. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1993.
Schonborn, Christoph von. "La 'letcre 38 de s a i n t Basile' et problbrne christologique de l'iconoclasme," Revue des sciences philoso~hiouesec theolooiaues 60 (1976): 446-450.
12
Seifert, Josef. Das Leib-Seele-Problem und die aeqenwartiqe philosophische Diskussion. Ein svstematisch-kritische Analvse, 2d ed. Darmstadt : Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1 9 8 9. Sirnonetti, Manlio. La crisi ariana nel IV secolo. Augustinianum, 1375.
Rome:
Spoerl, Kelley McCarchy, " T h e Schism a t Ancioch since Cavailera" in Arianism after Arius. Essays on the Develoament of the Fourth C e n t u r v T r i n i t a r i a n Conflicts, e d s . Michel 8. Barnes and Daniei H. Williams (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, E W ) , 101-126. Stead, Christopher. "Cnioloqy and Terrninolcqy in Greqory of Nyssa" in Creqor von Y v s s a 2nd die ?hilosophie: Zweites internationales Kolloauium Uber Greaor von Nvssa (F'reckenhorst b e i Munster 18-23 September 1 9 7 2 ) , ed. Heinrich D o r r i e et a l . (Leiden: Brill, l976), 107-119.
.
Divine Substance, Oxford: Clarendon, 1977.
. "Individual Personality i n Origen and ihe Cappadocian Fathers" in Arche e telos: l'antrcooloaia di Oriaene e di Greaorio di Nissa. Analisi storico-reliuiosa, eds. Ugo Bianchi and Henri Zrouzel (Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 1981), 170-191.
. "The Freedom of the Will and the Arian Controversy" in Platonismus und Christentum. Festschrift f u r Heinrich D6rrie ( J a h r b u c h fur Antike und Christentum 10; Munster: Aschendorffsche Verlagbuchhandlung, 19S3), 245-257.
. "Why Not Three Gods? The Logic o f G r e g o r y o f N y s s a t s T r i n i t a r i a n D o c t r i n e " i n S t u d i e n zu Greqor von Nvssa und d e r c h r i s t l i c h e S ~ a t a n t i k e , eds. H u b e r t u s D r o b n e r a n d C h r i s t o p h K l o c k ( L e i d e n : B r i l l , 19401, 149-163. . " L o g i c a n d the A p p l i c a t i o n o f Names t o God" in El " C o n t r a Eunomium I" e n l a production l i t e r a r i a de G r e q o r i o de N i s a . Sixth I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o l l o q u i u m o n G r e g o r y o f N y s s a , eds. L u c a s F . Matzo-Seco a n d J u a n L. B a s t e r o (Pamplona: U n i v e r s i d a a de N a v a r r a , 1988), 3 0 3 - 3 2 0 .
. Philoso~hvin C h r i s t i a n A n t i a u i t v . Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 9 4 .
Cambridge:
S t e v e n s o n , J . , e d . C r e e d s , C o u n c i l s and C o n t r o v e r s i e s : Documents I l l u s t r a ~ i n qche H i s c o r v o f t h e Church AD 3 3 7 - 4 6 1 , r e v . ed. W . H . C . F r e n d . London: S P C K , 1 9 8 9 .
S t r a m a r a jr., D a n i e l F . "Unmasking t h e Meaning of ~ I ~ O ~ I T T O V : P r o s b p o n as P e r s o n i n t h e Works o f Gregcry of Nyssa." Ph.D. d i s s . , S t . L o u i s U n i v e r s i t y , S t . L c u i s , YO, 1 9 9 6 . S t r a n g e , Steven K . " P l o t i n u s , P o r p h y r y , a n d the N e o p l a t o n i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e ' C a t ~ g o r i s s " ' i n A u f s t i e a l ~ n dN i e d e r a a n q der Romischen Welt, e d . Wolfgang Haase (Serlin: Walter d e G r u y t e r , i987), 955-74. S t r i t z k y , M a r i a - B a r b a r a yon, Zurn P r o b l e m d e r Erkenntnis bei Greuor von N v s s a . M u n s t e r : . J . s c h e n d o r f f , 1573. Studer, Basil. "Hypostas?" i n 3 i s t o r i s c h e . s W c r t s r b u c h d e r P h i l o s o e h i e , r e v . sd. J c a c h i n .?.itter, ~ o l .3 . E a s e l : Sthwabe, 1974.
.
"Der P e r s o n - B e g r i f f i n der f r u h e n k i r c h e n a r n t l i c h e n T r i n i t a t s - L e h r e , " T h e o l o u i e und P h i l o s o ~ n i e5 7 ( 1 9 8 2 ) : 1 6 1 - 7 7 .
.
T r i n i t v a n d I n c a r n a t i o n : T h e F a i t h o f t h e Early C h u r c h , t r . M . W e s t e r h o f if. C o l i e g e v i l l e , M N : The L i t u r g i c a l Press, 1 9 9 3 . T a n n e r , Norman P . , ed. Decrees of t h e E c u m e n i c a l C o u n c i l s , I . London: S h e d & Ward, 1 9 9 0 .
vol.
Tanner, R . G . " S t o i c I n f l u e n c e on t h e Logic of S t . Gregory o f Nyssa, " S t u d i a P a t r i s t i c a 1 8 / 3 ( 1 9 8 9 ) : 557-84.
Telepneff, Gregory.
"The C o n c e p t of t h e P e r s o n i n the C h r i s t i a n
Hellenism of the Greek Church Farhers: A Study of Origen, St. Gregory t h e Theologian and St. Maximos the Confessor." Ph.D. diss., Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, 1992. Thesaurus L i n q u a e Graecae CD-Rorn., Uniwrsicy of California, 19%.
version D. Irvine, CA:
Todd, Robert B. "The Stoic C ~ m m o n? l c c i o n s : F, 2e-Examination and Reincerpretation," Svrnbolae Osloenses 48 (1973): 47-75. Troiano, Marina Silvia. "11 e o n c 3 n o di numerazione delle ipostasi in Basilio di Cesarea," Vetera Chriscianorum 24 (1987): 337-352.
.
"La polemica sull'origine dei nomi nell' Adversus Eunomium di Basilio: l'e~inoia,"in Basilio di Cesarea: la sua ota, la sua oDera e ii basilianesirno in Sicilia. Atti del Congresso Internazionale (Messina 3-6 XI1 1979), vol. I (Messina: Centro d i Studi Umanistici, 19831 : 523-531. Turcescu, Lucian, "Prosa~onand Hv~ostasis in Basil of Caesarsa's Aaainst Eunomius and the fpis:l?stl' Ylailiae Christianae 51, no. 4 (1937): 3 7 4 - 3 9 5 . Ullmann, W. "Der logische und d e r theolcgische Sinn des Unendlichkeitsbegriffes in der Gotteslehre Gregors von Nyssa," Biidraaen 48 (1987): 150-171. Vaggione, R i c h a r d Paul, "Of Monks and Lounge Lizards: 'Arians',
Polemics and Asceticism in the 2ornan East," in Arianism after Arius. Essavs on the Develooment of the Fourth Centruv Trinitarian Conflicts, eds. Michel R. Barnes and Daniel H. Williams (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, N W ) , 181-216.
Vogel, Coixalia J. d e . "The Concept of Personality in Greek and Christian Thought," in Studies in Philoso~hvand the Historv of Philoso~hv,ed. John K. Ryan (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1963), 2 0 - 6 0 . V o l k e r , Walther. "Zur Gotteslehre Gregors von Nyssa," Vioiliae Christianae 9 (1955): 1 0 3 - 1 2 8 .
.
Greaor von Nvssa als M v s t i k e r .
Wiesbaden: F. Steiner,
1955.
Wallis, R. T. 1972.
Neo-Platonism.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,
Westra, Laura. 6.8. Lewiston, Whittaker, John. !1969): 9 1 - 1 0 4 . Widdicombe, Athanasius.
P l o t i n u s a n d Freedom. A M e d i t a t i o n on Enneads N Y : T h e Edwin Mellen Press, 1 9 9 0 .
"'Ea&ava
1106
mi oloias, " V i o i l i a e C h r i s t i a n a e 2 3
P e t e r . T h e F a t h e r h o o d of God f r o m O r i q e n t o Oxford: C l a r e n d o n , 1 9 9 4 .
"The L o g i c o f A r i a n i s m , " J s u r n a l o f T h e o l o a i c a l Williams, Rowan. S t u d i e s n . s . 34 ( 1 9 8 3 ) : 56-91.
.
Arius: Heresv - and T r a d i t i o n .
London:
D a r t o n , Longman
&
Todd, 1 9 8 7 . Winden, J. C . M . v a n . R e v i e w o f A p o s t o l o p o u l o s ' Phaedo C h r i s t i a n u s , V i q i l i a e Chriscianae 11 ( 1 9 8 7 1 : 1 3 1 - 1 3 7 . Wict, R. E . " H y p o s t a s i s , " I n A m i c i t i a a C o r o l l a : A Volume of Essavs P r e s e n t e d t o James R e n d e l H a r r i s , e d . H . G . Wood ( L o n d o n : U n i v e r s i t y of London P r e s s , 1 9 3 3 ) , 3 1 9 - 4 3 .
Young, F r a n c e s M. B i b l i c a l Exeaesis and t h e Forrnacicr! o f C h r i s t i a n Culture. C a m b r i d g e : C a n b r i d g e University Press, 1997. Z a h n , Theodor.
Harzellus von Ancvra.
Gotha: n
.
, ~1867.
" L e s petits t r a i t s s t r i n i ~ a i r t sde G r e g o i r e de Z iegler, T h i e r r y . Nysse. T e m o i n s d ' u n i t i n e r a i r e t h 6 o l o q i q u e ( 3 7 9 - 3 8 3 ) , " 2 v o l s . P h . D. d i s s . , U n i v e r s i t y o f Human Sciences o f S t r a s b o u r g , 1 9 8 7 .
Ziziculas, j o h n D. B e i n q a s Communion. Crestwccd, N Y : V l a d i m i r ' s S e m i n a r y Press, 1 9 8 5 .
St.
