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 sectioning

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 and 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 I*( of Canada Bibliotheque nationale du Canada

Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Services services bibliographiques

395 Wellington Street 395, rue Weil+ngton OttawaON K1AON4 Ottawa ON K1 A ON4 Canada Canada

Your irk Volre relbrenm

Our fib Notre reference

The author has granted a non- exclusive licence allowing the National Library of Canada to reproduce, loan, distribute or sell copies of t h ~ s thesis in microform, paper or electronic formats.

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 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.

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 pre-

history 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,

however , 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 which Gregory dea ls 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 O ~ , periaraohousa (or periqraphs) ,

merike ousia, i d i k g ousia and even atornon. Second, to

distinguish a divine person from the nature which that person

owns in common wi th 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 . A l s o , t o d i s t i n g u i s h be~wee~.

n a c u r e and p e r s o n s , Gregory be l ieves 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 . Th i rd , t o e s t a b l i s h t h e i d ~ n r i r y o f

e a c h d i v i n s person and why each i s u n i q u e , Gregory a a z p ~ s f 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 unique

c o l l e c t i o n o f p r o p e r t i e s . F o u r t h , 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 of each d i v i n e p e r s o n , Gregory 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 rom the cause o r

directly f rom 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 ) th rough 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 of 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

p e r s o n s a r e r e l a t i o n a l e n t i t i e s . F i f t h , 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 mean more than 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 perfect communion e x i s t i n g among che t h r e e

d i v i n e p e r s o n s . T h i s communion a l l o w s f o r bo th t h e d i s t i n c t i o n

of each person and t h e p e r f e c t u n i t y among them. 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 persons . Last b u t

n o t l e a s t Gregory c o n c e i v e s o f God a s a willing subject who

always chooses t h e good and wishes t o be what h e i s . The

o n t o l o g i c a l view of t h e w i l l o f God betrays a F l o t i n i i n

i n f l u e n c e .

Acknowledgements

My s p e c i a l t h a n k s go to my ~ w o c 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 by t h e committee r e a d e r s as well a s t h a c of 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 and 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 ways . T h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n could not have been i n i t i a t e d a n d eompkted without t h e cons tanc 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 of S t u d y i n g t h e Concept of 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 Smdy 1

C h a p t e r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . STATUS QUAESTIONIS ANC P!ETHCDOLOGY 13

. . . . . . . . . . 1 Did a No~ion of Person 3xisc in Antiquity? 12 1 . The Status Quaestionis in Pagan and Christian T h o u g h t 24 2 . Mechodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

2 . PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPTS THAT SHAPED GREGORY OF NYSSA'S VIEW OF AM INDIVIDUAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

I . I n d i v i d u a l s i n A r i s t o t l e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 2 . R e l a t i o n i n Aristctle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5 3 . I n d i v i d u a l s in Stoicism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6 4 . The individual as 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 34 5 . The F l o t i n i a n wili cf the One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Conchsicns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

3 . THE L E S S E R TRINIT.4RIAN 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 2 . Further Differences between oucria arid u~oo~aois . . . . . 111 3 . Definitions of u ~ r & ~ ~ a o i q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 4 . Divine Persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

4 . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 3 . 2 . Tc Ablabium On Not T h r e e Gods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 7 . . . . 2 . 1 The c o n c e p t o f enumeration of individuals 143

2.2 Causal differences among che divine persons . . 147 . 3 . To the Greeks Based on the Common Notions . . . . . . . . . 150 4 . Eustathius of Antioch. G r e g o r y of Nyssa and t h e i r

................... possible philosophical sources 163

5 . AGAINST EUNOMIUS AND THE REFUTATION OF THE CONFESSION OF FAITH OF EUNOMIUS

1 . Patristic antecedents of divine relationality . . . . . . 2 . Gregory 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 reference to God 6 . A note on ~pdnop Ti)s c ~ u p & ~ ~ in he Cappadccian Fathers

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY ANG CONCLUSIGNS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABBREVIATIONS

GCS GNO Loeb LXX NPNF PG SC

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 Septuag inc The Nicene and P o s t - N i c e n ? F a t h e r s P a t r o l o g i a G r a e c a Sources c h r e t i e n n e s

INTRODUCTION

T h e Necessity of S t u d y i n a t h e Concep 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 Nvssa a n d t h e S c o ~ e o f t h e P r e s e n t S t u d v

T h e concept and 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 as : 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 ? The a n s w e r s t o these q u e s t i o n s depend on o n e ' s concept

cf person. T h e r e a r e two dominan 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 p e r s o n a s a c e n t e r o f

z o n s c i o u s n e s s . T h i s v iew, known a s t h e P s y c h o l o g i c a l Approach c o

per son , 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. N o n e t h e l e s s , it 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 wrote:

" [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 ; wh ich , 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 Be ing , 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 as it 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 does o n l y by t h a t c o n s c i o u s n e s s , which is i n s e p a r a b l e from

t h i n k i n g , and as it 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 memor ies ,

r e a s o n , a n d c o n s c i o u s n e s s a r e i r r e t r i e v a b l y l o s t . ; The

' John Locke , An Essay Concernina Human U n d e r s ~ a n d i n q , ea. 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 25blishe.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 Approach: H . - r . Grice, " P e r s o n a l I d e n t i t y , " Mind 50 ( l 9 4 l ) , 330-350; John Hospers , 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 , (Englewood 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 v 8 4 ( 1 9 8 7 ) : 53-83; idem, " F i s s i o n and t h e Facts," P h i l o s o ~ h i c a l P 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 The 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, 1976 ) ; J. L . Mackie, P rob lems f rom Locke (Oxfo rd : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1 9 7 6 ) ; Thomas Nage l , The V i e w f rom Nowhere ( N e w York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , l 9 8 6 ) , 40; Ha ro ld Noonan, P e r s o n a l I d e n t i t v (London: Rou t l edge , 1989 ) , 13 ; 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 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard 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 l Eieview 8 0 ( 1 9 7 1 ) : 3-27; idsm, Reasons a m P e r s o n s ( 3 x f o r d : C l a r endon P r e s s , 1 9 8 4 ) , 207 ; John P e r r y , "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 v 69 ( 1 9 7 2 ) : 463-488; J o h n P o l l o c k , How ts Bui ld a P e r s o n : A Proleaomenon (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: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1972 ) , 1 0 4 f . ; Anthony 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 v 59 ( 1 9 6 2 ) : 393-403; Jay F. Rosenbe rg , T h i n k i n a C l e a r l v About Dea th (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, 223; 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 Death?" 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 Books, l 9 6 7 ) , 73; Sydney Shoemaker , " P e r s o n s a n d T h e i r P a s t s , " Amer ican 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 Account" 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 (Oxfo rd : B a s i l B l ackwe l l , 1984), 90; P . F. S t r a w s o n , "Comments on Some A s p e c t s o f P e t e r Unger ' s I d e n t i t v , C o n s c i o u s n e s s and Va lue , " P h i l o s o p h v and Phenomeno loo i ca l Resea r ch 5 2 (1992) : 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 ) , chapter 5; David Wiggins , "Locke, B u t l e r , and 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

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 be able co 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 d and cannot be replaced. You have become, as t h e zl~nical idiom 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 co damage from lack of blood than the cerebrum is, and they somerimes hold out and continue functioning even when the cerebrum has been destroyed. Those are the xgans 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 anych ing 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,

'~ric T. 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 di lemma: How c a n t h e r e b e one 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 , i t a p p e a r s t o these

~ h e o l o g i a n s t 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 w h i c h z h e y a r e i n c l i n e d t o c a l l " p a r s o n . "

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 ? " This was t h e

zase f o r exampie W I X Karl B a r t h . ' 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 neve 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 h e 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 pe r son

same t o be unders tood 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 s e s o l u t i o n s d e p e n d o n

t h e r e s p o n s e s LO 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 re : 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 someone else? I n o t h e r

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 and

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 Doamat ics , t r . G. W . B ro rn i l ey ( 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 , 4 4 .

'Church Dournat ics 1.1, 355.

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 by

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~hv of 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. *4ra2 Inwacjm ! Dordrecht: Reidel, 1 9 8 5 ) ; idem, "And Yet They Are Not Three Gods but One Godtt in Philosophv and the Christian F a i c h , ed. Thomas Morris (Notre Dame, 1N: University of Not re lame Press, 1988 ) ; 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 Beinas , ed. D. Cockburn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 111; Judith Jarvis Thomson, " Parthood and Identity Across Time, " Journal of Philoso~hv 80 (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~hv of 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, 19731 ) .

c o g e n t summary of one s u c h alternate t h e o l o g i c a l view which i s

b a s e d on what i s kncwn a s t h e Cappadoc i an c o n c e p t o f p e r s o n and

l a t e r Greek Or thodcu 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 iew

rests on a n u n d e r s i a n d i r i g of 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

o f p e r s o n s - i n - r e i a i l o n . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e p r o p o n e n t s o f 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 ~ y c 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 , which 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 "Cappadoc izn ' a t h e r s " of the f o u r t h c e n t u r y . A l though

many p r o m i n e n t t h ? o h g i a n s have 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 om be ing 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 . Moreovs r , my own research i n t c

the t h e o l o g i e s o f :he above-ment ioned c o n t e m p o r a r y 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 ( O x f o r d : Oxfo rd U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 9 3 ) , 3 5 - 3 6 . 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 Cambr idge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 9 7 ) , 171-189.

R e f l e c t i o n s on The Makinq and and D . A . P a i l i n

C f . a l s o S t a n l e y (Cambridge, MA:

' ~ e o n a r d o B o f f , T r i n i c v and 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 Wi l son -Kas tne r , F a i t h , Feminism and 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, 1983) ; C o l i n E . Gunton, T h e P r o m i s e o f T r l n x a r i a n Theo logv , 2d ed. (Ed inbu rgh : T&T C l a r k , 1997 ) ; John D. Z i z i o u l a s , Be inq a s Communion (Cres twood , N Y : S t . V l a d i m i r ' s Semina ry Press, 1 9 8 5 ) ; C h r i s t o s Yannaras , The Freedom o f M o r a l i r v (C re s twood , N Y : S t . V l a d i m i r ' s Seminary Press, 1 9 8 4 ) ; C a ~ h e r i n e Mowry LaCugna, God f o r U s : The T r i n i t v and 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 of 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 person 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 re 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 one 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

three p e r s o n s does ncc imp ly t h r e e gods; 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 of t h e u n i q u e God.

I n t h e p r e s e c c s cudy I p r o p o s e 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 Cappadoc i an F z t h e r s , namely 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 of he t r i n i t a r i a n dogma. More

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 . S i n c e h e

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 l s k i l l s t h e m o s t ,

a n a n a l y s i s of h l s wcrks will prov ide m e w i t h t h e mos t

i n t e r e s t i n g rnaterlal a b o u t t h e concepc o f d i v i n e p e r s o n s . A s

some o f G r e g o r y ' s c c p h n a c i o n s were l s a r n e d f rom 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 rom t h e i r ccrnmon f r i e n d , G r e g o r y of

Naz ianzus , o c c a s i o n a i l y I s h a l l a l s o refer t o t h e t e a c h i n g s of

t h e 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

and 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 Grego ry of Nyssa. I would 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 inasmuch 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 p e r s o n s . C o n v e r s e l y , i n t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n 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 concep 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 pe r se would certainly require considering such

i s s u e s as free wrll, human freedom, g e n d e r , t h e image of God i n

humans, and t h e body-soul problem. Some o f t h e s e i s s u e s have

a l r e a d y b e e n dealc wi th , ' " 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

d i s s e r t a t m n .

: See David 6. a a l a s , METOYEIA OEOI': Man's P a r t i c i ~ a t i o n i 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 . Cavarnos , " Gregory of Nyssa o n t h e N a t u r e of t h s S O U L , " Greek Orthodox 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 Desa lvo , 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 GregorFo 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 Theorv of W i l l i n C lass i ca l A n t i q u i t v ( B e r k e l e y , CA: Ur.l . :- trsi ty of "al i fornia Press, 1 9 8 2 ) ; J+rorne Salth, L a c o n c e o t l s n de l a liberr* c h e z G r e q o i r e de Nvsse ( P a r i s : 3. Vr in , 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 (Lewins ton , N Y : E . M e l l e n Press, 1 9 9 2 ) ; eadem, "Gender , G e n e r a t i o n , a n d V i r g i n i t y in Cappadoc ian Theoiogy*," 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 Cappadoc ian Theology ," T h e J o u r n a l of T h e o l o ~ i c a l S 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 Fathers" i n E n c v c l o ~ e d i a of t h e E a r l v Church, sd. Angelo d i B e r a r d i n o , tr. A. Walford, v o l . 2 (Oxford: Oxfo rd U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1392) , 689-698; E k k e h a r d Muhlenberg, "Synerg ism i n Gregory 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 , Methodius of O l v r n ~ u s : D iv ine 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 di G r e a o r i o d i Nisa: con 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 (Milano: Vita e p e n s i e r o , 1 9 9 3 ) ; Maria-Barbara 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 : Aschendorf f , 1 9 7 3 ) .

CXAPTER I

STATUS QUAESTIONIS 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

che 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 methodology of

t h i s d i s s e r c a t i o n . 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

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 be ; 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 which

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 works p r e s e n t e d

c u r s o r i l y . ; b ) sczc;Fes t h a t d e a l w i t h e i ~ h e r rrpdawarrov o r u.rro~~acns,

'The mos 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 : S e v e r i n o G o n z a l e z , La fo rmu la tMI.4'O'CCIATPEIC'Y~O~T~EI~ e n san G r e ~ o r i o d e N i s a iRome: Gregor ianum, 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, 1952 ) ; C a r l Andresen , " Z u r Encs t ehung ~ n d Gzsch i chce d e r t r i n i t a r i s c h e n P e r s o n b e g r i f f e s , " Z 2 i t s c h r i f t f u r 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 u n d d i e Kunde d e r a i t e r e n K i r c h e 52 ( 1 9 6 1 ) : 1-39; G . W . H . Lampe, e d . A P a t r i s t i c G r e e k Lexicon, s . v . "'~'riocsraa~~~' a n d "Q~oowrrov" (Oxford: Oxford V r x - ~ e r s i t y Press, 1 9 6 1 ) ; B a s i l S t u d e r , "Hypos t a se " in H i s t x i s c h e s Wor t e rbuch der P h i l o s o p h i e , r e v . e d . Joachim Rit te r , v o l . 3 (Basei: Schwabe, 1974 ) ; 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: Augus t i n i anum, 1975 ) ; 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 e 54 ( 1 9 7 9 ) : 38-49; John Lynch, " P r o s b p c n i n Grego ry o f Nyssa: 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; Basi 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 e 5 7 ( 1 9 8 2 ) : 161-77; Andrea Mi lano , P e r s o n a 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: Dehoniane , 1 9 8 4 ) ; Andre 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 les Peres c a p p a d o c i e n s ? Une mauva 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 Louvain 1 7 ( 8 6 : 129-55, 265-92; Mar 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 Cappadocians ' ; c ) s t u d i e s that deal with

npocrwrrov and uroa~uo~s i n t h e Cappadoc ians , showing how they shaped

t h e t r i n i t a r i a n nczion of p e r s o n s . ' Al though 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

a o n c e t c o d i numeraz lone d e l l ? i p o s t a s i i n B a s i l i o d i C e s a r e a , " Ve te r a C h r i s t i a n o r u r n 2 4 (19873: 337-52; J. Ibade t and 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 Col loquium on Greaorv o f Nvssa, e d s - Lucas F . Mateo-Seco and 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 Nava r r a , 19881 , 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 and 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 of N a t u r a l Theo loav 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 , Ph i lo sophv 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 Pep in , ""Trrap& e t Qrrcia~aais e n Cappadoce" i n H v p a r x i s e H v ~ o s t a s i s nel 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 and D . ?. Taormina ( F l o r e n c e : Leo S . O l s c h k i , 1994) , 5 5 - 5 .

-Fo 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 Es savs P r e s e n t e d t o James Rende l H a r r i s , ed. H. G. Wood (London: University of London Press, l933), 319-43; Maurice N e d o n c e l l e , "Prosdpon and 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 des 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 , " '18~ooiaoi$: 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 (No. 3 ) : 35-92 ( r e p r i n t e d in idem, P l a t o n i c a Minora [Munchen: W . F i n k , 19761, 12-69) .

'A. Miche l , "Rypos t a se 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; Ji irgen Hammerstaeaz, "Hyposi las is [ ' U T ~ ~ T U ~ L S ) " i n R e a l l e x i k o n fiir An t ike 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. Hiersemann, 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 sonne ' d a n s l a f o r m a t i o n du 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 ) : 313-369 , 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 answer t h e quescion w h e t h s r a concep t o f pe r son e x i s t e d be fore

t h e Cappadocians.

1. Did a Not ion of 3erson E x i s t i n A n t i q u i t v ?

There i s a whole ccnc2mporary d e b a t e on whe the r t h e a n c i e n t s had

a n o t i o n o f 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 and why I

t h i n k t h a t t h e a n c i a x s bid wt have a n o t i o n of p e r s o n before

the Cappadocians I need 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 easy - .ask, a s proved 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 . .' I n

attempting t o do s o , I wanc :J 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 be x c e p t e d a s a x i o m a t i c f o r pos s ib 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 he d e b a t e . A w o r k i n g

d e f i n i t i o n t h a t wxid s a t i s f , a i l t h e s e c r i t e r i a i s p r o b a b l y t h e

. . . f o l l o w i n g : a p e r s c c i s "an : x u v i s i b l e , un ique 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 Encvclooedia of Psvcholoqv, eds. H. J. Eysenck, W. Arnold, and R . Meili ( N e w York: Herde r , l 9 7 2 ) , 777 f .

'W. Arnold , "Person, " i n E n c v c l o ~ e d i a of Psvcholoay, eds . H. J. Eysenck, W . A r n o l d , and R . Meili ( N e w York: Herder, l972), 7 7 8 .

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 rev ious development. But did

such a notion exist? 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 i rgurnent extensivelyfW these scholars either

confuse "person" ~ ~ i i h "personality," 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~hv and 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 ~poowrrov: 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~edia of 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 cnecry 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 re-

emphasize, 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 , 1991 ) , 193.

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): 298- 303; "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~sius 1 (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 some th inc j ro wr j row . : -

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. M c r m v e r , bcth ;f them agr2ed that there is a

' , Form of Human,-'* bur chey 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. In his view, one can

speak of a Form of S o c r a t e s : 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

. - --George M. 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. Plato, 3hilebus, i5a; Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1096bl.

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. " l C

P l o t i n u s d i s c u s s e s Forms of 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 [18]; Enn. VI.5 [ 2 3 ] 8 . 2 1 -

42; Enn. I V . 3 [27! 5.8-11 and IV.3.6.15-17; Enn. V I . 7 [ 3 8 ] 3 .13 ;

V I . 7 . 8 . 1 - 5 ; V I . ' . 9.3-46; VI.7.11.14-15; Enn. V I . 2 [ 4 3 ] 22 .11 -17 ;

. - Enn. V I . 3 [ 4 4 ] 9 . 2 - 3 . - 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

, - s u b j e c t a r e t h e f l r x c h r e e . A s R i s t h a s r i g h t l y noted, -' i n

Enn. V.9 [ 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 of -

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 he 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.

. , - For Greek ; s :x and 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 (Cambr idge , 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 mark 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 .

- - R i s t , "Forms ~f I ~ l c i i v i d u a l s in P l o t i n u s , " 224. H e re- emphas izes 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 Reply to D r . Blurnenthal , " 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 e 24 (1970): 298-303 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 by H . J. Blurnen tha 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 lumen tha 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 lumen tha 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 p r o b a b l y a d d u c e d 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 o f 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, 122 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 . A rms t rong , "Form, Individual and 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 Lloyd P . Gerson, 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 .

of t h e p o s s i b i l i t y ~f t h e i r e .x iscence:

But i f t h e F o r 3 of man i s i h ? r e . . . t h e n one mus 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 G q ) are t h e r e , n o t of S o c r a t e s b u t ~f man. B u t J? must e n q u i r e a b o u t man w h e t h e r t h e form of :his i n d i v i d u a l (u~a&~ats- ra) i 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 aff i rms 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 t i s "Is there a n idea of e a c h

p a r t i c u l a r t h i n g ? " And t h e answer t o i t i s "Yes." P l o t i n u s

b a s e s h i s argurnenr: 3.". che i m m o r z a l i t y of t h e sou l , s a y i n g t h a t

" I f S c c r a t e s , t h a c is 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 che sense t h a t , i n so 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 e world. "" Yet Plotinus d o e s be l ieve i n

r e i n c a r n a t i o n , a s ~ n o c h e r t r e a t i s e con t emporaneous 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 ~ h blow t o t h e t h e o r y of Forms of

i n d i v i d u a l s i f he l a i rze r is basad on t h e i m m o r t a l i t y of the

s o u l , he 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 and 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

theor ies 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 aware o f their logical

d i f f e r e n c e . " 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

d i f f e r e n c e . " 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 as Y,

h e can n e v e r blot 3uc t h a t f o r m e r X-nsss t h a t d i d i n f ac t e x i s t .

Once e x i s t e n c e h a s x c u r r e d , s o L O s p e a k , i t c a n n o t b e

e l i m i n a t e d . "" T h e r s f o r e , the Form of 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 focnd it 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 human, 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 fo rming p r i n c i p l e (,\6yos) for d i f f e r e n t Fna iT: idua l s , a n d one 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 by reason of t h e i r matter b u t with 3 v a s t number of s p e c i a l d i f f e r e n c e s cf form. 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 p o r t r a i t s of Sscrates 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 rom 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 with Enn. Y. 3.12, Enn . 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 s u c h a R srprnent a s t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e

s o u l to a c c o u n t fcr :he d i f f e r e n c e s be tween t h e Forms o f v a r i o u s

i n d i v i d u a l s shows :hat 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 "of

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 , " 228.

+ .

--Enn. - V . 7 8 1 . 1 9 - 2 3 .

- ' R i s t , "Forms 3f I n b i v i d u a i s , " 2 2 7 .

- I

-'Erin. - V.7.3.2-3.

- - fires." Nevertheless, he finds the hypothesis of Forms of

animals less attrac~ive than that of Forms of human individuals

and completely rejects the Form 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 iS iwl ;~o iov . - - I shall first

. . . - 7 present the A r i s t z x ~ a n r x x a c e . In the above-mentioned

passage Aristotle ~ r c c s :

For accordin9 : c the 5rgKrnents from the existence of the sciences there will be Fcrzs 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 bu 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, 19671, 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 e testimony cf the Peripatetic Alexander of

nphrodisias (fl. ca. 200 ?.D) who attempts to explicate the

passage in Arisrocls. I now quste Alexander:

The argumenc r h a c tries c s establish that there a r e Ideas from thoughr - o 6 L O is z s follows. If whenever we think of man or f o c x d or animal, we ars thinking of something that is b c ~ h z 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 che latter have perished the same chs~;q.h.c remains), clearly there is something besides p a r ~ i c u l a r s and perceptibles, which we think of wherhsr the l a ~ ~ 2 r exist 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~ablishes Ideas 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 Roc 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 , 1 . n r s (critique of the Platonic Forms,

Aristotle says z i a : 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~cive of a heretical

version of Platonism.

I shall now r u n to the s3cond influence on Plotinus' theory

of Forms of individuals, F A . , the S t o i c distinction between

K O L V G ~ rroiov and ibiws ;roiJv, :he cvc components of the second Stoic

. - . . . category, the qua-:r:ed f 5 ) m ) i o i f ; . ' - A search t h r o u g h the

Thesaurus Linauae Zraecae CD-ilorn, r e v e a l s t h a t t h e phrase KOLV&S

- mi- never occurs I.-. ~nneads, 2nd neither do its two components

within four l i n s ~f eac?. t h e r , while i 6 i w ~ - r o t u occurs once at

Enn . VI.1 [ 4 2 ] 30.6, rhough its t w o components (i6iws and mi-) -

never occur elsewkre in :he E n n s a d s wlthin four lines of each

ocher. 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 LJ the "individually

qualified" in Enn. -2. i. 30. I therefore conclude t h a t it 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 Gerson (Plotinus, 72-

78) 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 . R a t h e r , o n e s h o u l d l o o k f o r a

~ r e a t i s e which prezsdes o r ac c h e l a t e s t i s con t emporaneous with

Enn. V . 7 [ I83 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 second 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 Enn. 11.4 [ 1 2 ] 4 c a n be s u c h a r e f e r e n c e . ' -

C h r o n o l o g i c a l l y , E r n . 11.4 [12] 4 was w r i t t e n a f t e r Enn. V.9 [ 5 ] ,

where 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.

Thus , i n Enn. 11.4 . ? 2 - 4 h e xr i tes : " 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 some th ing ~ n a l - ~ i d u a ; , b:; w h i c h one d i f f e r s f rom a n o t h e r . "

T h i s i d e a , ?As: s ~ ; j 5 s t s , xay be of S t o i c o r i g i n . The s u g g e s t i o n

s h o u l d b e t a k e n 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 N e o p l a t o n i s t

- . 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 of 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

q u a l i f i e d . " "

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 , P l o t i n u s went f a r t h e r t h a n a n y

o t h e r a n c i e n t t h i s ; : ? r b e f o r e h i m in e l a b o r a t i n g a fo rma l t h e o r y

o f t h e human i n d i v i d u a l . One would expect t o f i n d i n t h e Enneads

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 of I n d i v i d u a l s , " 226.

- ' 3 ~ i m p l i c i u s , 3n A r i s t o t l e ' s On S o u l 217, 36.

t h e case and w e have c o be satisfied w i t h what i s l e f t which

t e s t i f i e s t o an 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

i n d i v i d u a l .

A l though g e n e r a l l y agreeing w i t h R i s t about t h e

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f t h e Enneads p a s s a g e s where P l o t i n u s dea l s 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 had 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."

argument o n t h e c o n f u s i o n b e ~ w e e n p e r s o n

men t ioned e a r l i e r .

Yet, h e b a s e s h i s

and p e r s o n a l i t y which I

2 . The S t a t u s O u a e s t i o n i s i n Paqan and C h r i s t i a n Thouah 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 of

t h e c o n c e p t o f p e r s o n 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 1 terms (~rpommov. urroo~aois) u s e d b y

t h e Cappadocians cs indicate t h e d i v i n e persons.

First, I shall consider an a r t i c l e b y the Dutch scholar

C o r n e l i a J. de Voge l , "The Concep 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 Though t . " " De Vcgel wan 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 Pe r son i n P l o t i n u s , " 59

- - "C. J. de V q e l , "The Concep t o f P e r s o n a l i t y i n Greek and

C h r i s t i a n T h o u g h t , " 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 , ed. John K . Ryan (Wash ing ton , DC: The 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.

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

manr s 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 seventeenth-

and 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 16901, 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~eristics of the

Homeric heroes is their self-determination, which is respected

even by the gods. In referring to these characteristics of the

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. All of them are

to 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 becrays 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 G r e e k t h o u g h t , 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

p e r s o n a l i t y i n C h r i s t i a n t h o u g h t . 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.

Moreover , 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 modern 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 showed 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 of 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 of 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 o b j e c t known w i t h the knowledge

- , i t s e l . 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 self can know i t s e l f , n o t

wha t t h e s e l f is n o r t h a t t h e 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 he re s c a r c e l y was a c o n c e p t of p e r s o n i n

a n c i e n t p h i l o s o p h y . Moreover, i t was t he 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 judge an e p o c h

- - ' A . Michel , "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 fo r L e t o u z e y e t Ane, 1 9 2 7 ) , c o l . 433-34,

by t h e c a t e g o r i e s o f a l a t e r epoch ; t h i s i s known as

"anachron ism" 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 " wh ich we f i n d i n t h e

Church F a t h e r s and wh ich was v a g u e l y sugges~ed, f o r example, by

P l a t o i n T h e a e t e t x s a n d f u r t h e r e l a b o r a t e d b y P l o t i n u s a n d

Porphyry, 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 ini~ion. Yzt, a n e v e n n o r 2 i n ~ e r 2 s t i n g

and 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

wh ich I s h a l l p r e s m t n e x t .

Whi le 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

concep t 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 : Prosdpon a s Person 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 d e m o n s t r a t e

t h a t d he term r r p d o w ~ ~ o ~ ~ i n Greaory sf Nyssafs r o r k s : l ) dces n o t

mean mask but 2 ) i t is u s e d a s a p s y c h o l o g i c a l term referring t o

pe r son , 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 about t h e s econd 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 person i n t h e modern

s e n s e 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 ~~poawrrov i n G r e g o r y ' s works

A A

W a n i e l F. Stramara, j r , 0 S . . , "Unmasking t h e Meaning o f ~ ~ O O W T I O V : Prosapon as P e r s o n i n t h e Works o f Gregory of 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) .

313 instances are analyzed. Strarnara considers only those works

which a r e u n a n i m o u s l y accepted as w r i t t e n by Gregory of Nyssa .

G r e q u r y applies the term to denote 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 ~ j o ~ l y means m a s k 0 . 7 % of

the time. Including prepositional phrases and the connotation of

rpdowrrov as person, the term refers to a person (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 h S 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 c Gregory o f hlyssa unders tood npbowmw as a

psychological being, cperating out o f i zenrrer =f self-awaraness,

being both subjec t and objecc to sneself.

I a g r e e w i t h S t ra rna ra ' s f i r s t point, namely 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 Gregory 's works i s most wdcome and brings an

important contribution to patristic scholarship. ~ p o m t r o v is

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 face , surface, f a ce to face, gaze, and

mask t o p e r s o n , sub jec t , face o f God, exagetical personage, and

incarnate Logos ( p p . 29-110). To express t h e idea of 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 v t o

-rrpoawnov. He was wzli acquainted with the theat?r, as one of h i s

. . b r o t h e r s , Naucratius, was a n a c ~ o r . I n EJ. 9 . 1 , G r e g o r y

p r o v i d e s a d e t a i k d accounc o f s ~ a q s Q Z G P S a n d d ramat ic

p a r a p h e r n a l i a .

My only difficulty with Strarnara's f i r s t p a r t is that n o n e

of th2 a u t h o r s he c i ~ e s re fe 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 Gregory means nask by ~ipoowaov. S a r c h , f o r

example, wr i tes " B u t did noc p a r s o n a , TT~~)OWTTOLJ, a l s o rnean "mask '?

Mighc n o t che term give new s u p p o r E L O c h e Sabellian idea o f

t h r e e mere r n a n i f e s ~ a ~ i c n s behind 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 he w r o m c h i s 3 a r c h was ~hinking of Basil sf

Caesarea and 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 zoncep t cf p e r s o n a s a

cen ter 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 . Macrinae 8, GNO 8.1.378,

9 - 1 5 .

" ~ 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 , l 9 7 5 ) , 355. T h i s is the text Stramara summarizes on p. 4 of his dissertation.

"See my "Prosd~on and Hv~ostasis in 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) : 374-395.

the p a t r i s t i c and medieval sense.'' In s t ead he p r o p o s e s that w e

use "mode of existence," because his phrase avoids all the

dangers of :he 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 Gregory

of Nyssa when saying t h a t i rpoawrov meanE m a s k . L i k e B a r t h , Rahner

p robab ly 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 imp ly equate the t e rm 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 disc7nccicr- i becwsen n a t u r a and oe r sona was difficult for i h e E a s i , becszse persona was translated a s p rosdoon; prosdpon, howevar , 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 Basil" i s s u e d a warning t h a t , a s unders tood 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 rom the p a t r i s t i c and med ieva l persona by t h e addition o f t h e attribute of 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 ) .

C h u r c h Doumatics

"Stramara, "Unmasking," 5 .

"~asil of Caesarea, 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," 387-394, I can c o n f i r m Kasper 's statement.

'"alter Kasper , The God of 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 consu l ted 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 ~ h or Rahner or Kasper say in a qualified way

that rrpdowrrov means m a s k a t one 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 agen 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 has an

unwarranted tendency io s p r i n k l ? words such as "~sycho?ogical,"

"personality," and "consciousness." When he cons ide r s the 313

instances 3f T T P ~ ) ~ T O L ' , Strarnara has to sckncwledge chat in ai

l e a s t several cases Gregcry uses i rpdaw~iov wich the sense of mask.

But he contends t h a c "'mask' does not denote a false reality, a

f a p d e . It is a psychological disposition" ( p . 54). i a rgue

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

d i s p o s i t i o n n o r a true r e a l i t y . I a g r e e w i t h S t r a m a r a that a

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.

I f i c i s a d i s p o s i t i o n a g a i n s t n a t u r e , i t s o m e ~ i m e s has 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 meaning o f ~ p o o w n t i w , Strarnara quotes a

t z ~ t from L u c i a n of Szmcsara:

Ncticing c h a t t h e d a n c e r had f i v e rnas:ks i;rpcjawira) ready- - 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, he s a i d : I d i d no t r e a l i z s , m y f r i e n d , chat ihough you 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 ( $ V X U S ) . : -

Strarnara ' 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 & w i r h p e r s o n a l i t y " q. 561 . 1 bel ieve c h a t

t h e t e x t c l a a r l y ccnneccs npoowrr~iov wich s o u l , not wich

p e r s o n a l i t y . S t r a m a r a f a i l s ~o see these nuances.

"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 , however , depends e n t i r e l y on 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 au tem g e r e r e quam personam 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 aque 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 ad 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 , ed. 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 Higg inbo tham [ B e r k e l e y , CA: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 19671 , 80) . For more on 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 66 , Loeb 5 2 6 8 ; Harmon 269 . Apud Strsrnara, "Unmasking," 57.

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 ) , S t r a m a r a

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 . I n b o t h c a s e s ,

t h e r e f e r e n c e i s actually ~s ~pc jowl rov a s t h e image of God i n

humans. I t i s w e i n t h e modern e r a who c o n s i d e r the s o u l o r the

image of God i n humans LO b e p a r t of the p e r s o n a l i t y . S t r a m a r a

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 meaning o n Gregory

r s rmrno logy . Ever s ince I d i s c o v e r e d t h i s dissertation I have a s k e d

myself, What c o u l d have influenced Stramara t o r a k e c h i s

p s y c h o l o g i c a l 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 an endnoce a t r h e ~ e g i n n i n g of

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

o f 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 and Stoic

s c h o l a r suggests 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 Andreas 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

h a s i n f e r r e d t h a t i f D e s c a r t e s i s indeb ted 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 so 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 a g r e e m e n t f a v o r s D e s c a r t e s ' i n f l u e n c e o n

Locke), t h e n s o does Gregory of Nyssa; and t h a t i s why Stramara

a t t e m p t e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h e l a t t e r p o i n t . S t r a m a r a ' s i n t e n t i o n s

become even more evident on pp . 193-194, where h e q u o t e s Wallis'

"S t r amara , "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 Plo~inus made

such an important zcntributicn to ih? notion of s e l f -

cmsciousn~ss, he did not connect it with the no~ i o n of 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 ~ s d b y i h ~ i h s ~ r l / of Forms

of Individuals. The definition of a person as a x n t e r of

consciousness implies at k a s t ~ w o c2rms: person and

consciousness. If the ancisnts spoke of consciousness, ic does

not follcw that t h s y necessarily :onnected it w i z h p e r s o n (as we

moderns do). From c h e sxamplss 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 co~tained in 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 as 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 of

h i s book , however , 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 of 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 acc is chat Chrysippus did n c c go f a r enough 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 had inherited from earlier philosophers. '

t h e same page 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 ' " ccncep t zf ' h e 'we'

. . a m o b i k c e n t r e o f consciausness." ' ~ e t S 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 , c o n f i r m s Ristls

fears a b o u t t h e Stoics i n t h e case 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

P l a t o . 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

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 (Cambr idge: 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 ' Psvcholocrv : H i s D o c t r i n e s of t h e Embodied Soul (The Hague: M a r t i n u s N i j h o f f , 1971), 1 4 0 .

- - psychology. ""

The examples Stramara gives from Plotinus (pp. 220-3 ) all

refer t o 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"' ' i p *

- 7 7 2 ) . - But he is ready to forgive Flc~inus lor chis I , h o w e v e r ,

ao noi fault h m for his," p. 2 2 2 ) 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 Gregory knew

Plotinus v e r y well. Scrarnara Goes sc far as to zoin he Greek

expected, is not evident in any sf the ancient a u ~ h n r s he

studies. I quote one example f r c m S t r a m a r a siczs f r c m Sregorl;

and then Stramara's intsrpretacion. C t h e r sxamples and

commentaries ( p p . 223-7) a r e s imi la r and 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 up t o the s k y and consider with your imagination ( ioy~op$ the depths b e n e a t h , reach o u t w i t h y o u r mind (6 iavo~av = conscious understanding) to the sides and corners of the subsistinq universe. and consider what is the power which h o l d s these thingsv t 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 shape of ~ h e c r o s s i s e n g r a v e d upon y o u r mind (Stavota) by the chought of t h e d i v i n e power, a s h a p e which goes from t h e h e i g h t s E O t h e depchs and s c r e t s h e s a c r o s s transversely LO the f c r t h e s t c c ~ r n ~ r s . - '

I r ep roduced 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

v a r i a n t s . we not o n l y i n s i s ~ s t 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

Gregory, ' h e i n t e r p r e t s G r e g o r y ' s t s : ~ by p a r a p h r a s i n g it t o

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 l p o l e s and

f a r t h e s t v e r t i c a l po incs of che s u b s i s t i n g universe . . . [ t h u s ]

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 your consciousness" ! p . 2 2 3 1 . After s s v e r a l zddlcicnal

examples , S t ramara i s f o r z e d - 2 rec3gnizs :ha: "che rnsnca l

imagery of Gr tgory of Nyssa is n o t g r a p h i c a l l y zq l i s i t " ( p .

2 2 6 ) . But t h i s does n o t prevent him f rom immediately a s s e r t i n g

that "While rhe terms K C ~ T P O P a n d 6 tama a r e noc jux taposed , :he

. . concept r6 L ~ P T P O L ' :fir; 6 ~ u t m i a ~ 1s nard1y 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 , De ~ r i a u i s ~ a t i o , GMO 9. 301, 1-13; H a l l 47 .

C f . S t r amara , " ' inmaskir.g, " 131-135, w h e r e he sroues unconv inc ing ly i n f a v o r of 6taltoia = c o n s c i o u s n e s s . O n pp. i87- 201, 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~s and S t a v o f i ~ t ~ o v . If a u v ~ i b ~ a ~ s is indeed a Greek word for c o n s c i o u s n e s s ( u s e d even i n t h e N e w Testament , 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 between Plotinus ' ovvaio8qm~ and G r e g o r y ' s o u t ~ ~ i S r ( m s is most p r o b a b l y due 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 iew. Otherwise , he has 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 of Nyssa.

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 , one can 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 agent : speaking c ~ f the? Yoly Spirit, Basil

of Caesarea says c h a t it has u ~ ~ O E L ~ T L K - ~ ~ ~ a i S E O T ~ O T L ~ P i<o~loiuv (G 3. 4 ;

SC 305:160). In Strarnara's translation the text becomes: "an

authentically inde~endent and s e i f - g o v a x i n g authority" ( p . 377).

The underlined words nave been added by Scramara.

After this analysis, I conclude c h a t Stramara's case 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 L O fcur studies

of the Greek Lzrrns used by che Zappadoc ia r s tc designate d i v i x

persons.

t * An inportant F m e s c i g a t : w r n m the r ~ ~ t o r y and meanings af

the word urriw~ams was published by the German scholar Heinrich

- >

Corrie in 1955 . : ' 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, No. 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 of 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 relaws in h i s

Ecclesiastical Historv, the term was n c t used by earlier Greek

philosophers. Dorrie ci~es the 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 cake? 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 p r e s e n c d a y . 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 ~hilosophicai vriiers 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 Pla~c, fcr example, did zct s e the

89-90; Victor Goldschmidt, " 'Taapx~~v et 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 19921, eds. F. Romano and D. P . Olschki, l994), 21.

"socrates Scholasticus, 17-20, tr. A. C. Zenos, NPNF 2: Literature Company, l89O), 81.

Taormina (Florence: Leo S

The Ecclesiastical Historv 3, 7, 2 (New York: The Christian

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 ~ o used the

verb 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 Laws 6 , 7 5 L E i n t h e sense o f " z o assert

c h a t one can do sc rne th ing ."" -

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 of 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 ) . Thus , in the

N e w T e s t a m e n t UTTOOTUOLS occurs o n l y f i v e times: in 2 Cor 9: 1 and

L1:17 ic neans "state, condition" ipp. 17, 52); in Heb 1:3 and

3 : 1 4 , "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 " (Realisierunq) and " r e a l i t y " R a t ; p .

6 2 ) . The Epistle to Diocnet 2, 1 discusses the "reality"

(urioo~aois) o f pagan g o d s , and Tac ia r ! ( a c Graecos 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 o ~ ~ was n c t a central concept for

Clement, whereas f o r Or igen 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 , Eo r r i e xentions Origen's CCeis

VIII,12 where 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 and 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 ~ a bifo ~ brrocs~aoe~ r rpaypa~a ) , but 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 of 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 o distinct 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 E e x t in which Origen suggests the distinction between

otoia and i m 6 a ~ a ~ i ~ . Other texts make his distinc~ion even more

clear." CcrnJn TI, 10, ' 5 - 7 E ever. a p p l i e s r_he K e n imjo~ao~.; t o he

H o l y S p i r i c . 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 by fourth-cencury difficulties

in f ~ r r n u l a t i n g he irinitarian doctrine.

Dcrrie then observes hat the Council 3f 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 p . 5 5 ) . The

anathema following ~ h e confession of faith of his council r e a d s :

"If anyone says that the Son 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 150 :200 . Dorrie ( p . 5 4 ) quotes Koetschau's edition of Origen.

"ComJn I, 24,151-152; I I , 1 0 , 75-76; see Origen, Commentaire sur Saint Jean, v o l . 1 (Books 1-51, ed. Cecile Blanc (Paris: Cerf , l 9 6 6 ) , SC 120: 136-7 and 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 (wriccm 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 regard tc the Holy

- .

Trinity. ""

Dorrie asser 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 " L O 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, it was Athanasitis who t s i ~ k l i s h ~ c i rhac brr tkmm.; m e z n t

. . "individual or person1 ' 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 Dorri? invokes to buttress his

arguments a r s unlikely tc be by Athanasius." T h e r a f o r e , a s

"'Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Norma 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) . F o r t h e text of the Tornus a d Antiochenos, see J. Stevenson, ed., Creeds. Councils and Controversies: Documents Illustra~ina the Historv of the church A. D. 337-461, rev. ed. W. H. C. F r m d (London: SPCK, l989), 80-83 .

> -

' 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 Em~ire (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 ) , 862 n. 1 7 0 .

previously stated, it is clear that Dorris exaggerates the

influence cf Athanasius in he s h a p i n g of ~ ~ T T O O T ~ O L S as a

theological concept. Moreover, if Athanasius had played such an

important role in this matter, the difficulties encountered by

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 vcrds 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 wri~zrs, in b o t h E a s t and 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 rdo~ao~~ for

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? 1s aliot acre ~ h a n cvo 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 lnbo~ao i~ , A. Niche1

mentions Letter 38, a dubious work by Basil. Letter 38 of the

Basilian corpus, an important piece treating che differences

berrween ouda and UTIOBTCLCTL~, used to be actribuced c o Basil of

. . Caesarea. Yet, scholarly scudiss - have shown char: in reality

this letter belongs to Gregory of Nyssa, a conclusicn which mosE

. . contemporary scudencs of Basil accepc. - Regrertably, Michel

. . "'See Andrci de Halleu:. : , "Personna~lsms GLI sssentialisme

trinicaire chez iss Peres ca~padccicns? [Jns mauvaise controverse," Revue ~h8oloaiaue de Lsuvain 17 (1386) : 129-155 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 ~tudes de cheologie positive sur la saints Trinitk, four volumes bound as three (Paris: Victor Retaux, 1892/1898 1 , that has been v e r y influential throughout the twentieth cencury .

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 soq. 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 accept 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, 19901 182 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 Let ter 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 KOLVOV) 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 ~ T E S . h i p a x . i 6 ~ u c o v ~ a oqpeia. ibta y ~ u p i o ~ a ~ a . ~ a p a ~ ~ i p c < . popbai . . . . 1 f m e a d d s these i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a s ~ e r i s t i c s to t h e o io i a , one 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, which 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 proper to t h e common and c h e

7 -

particular t o the g e n e r a l . -

Miche l a l s o adds tha r : B a s i l d i d not ilse Oado~aoi.; as s synonym of

rrpdowaov, s ince he thought ~ h a r : he l a t w r had Modalist

c o n n o t a t i o n s . U n l i k e B a s i l , however , 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 zo d i s c ~ s s in h i s s h o x

c r e a t n e n t . Ncr d i d he 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 an e v o l u t i o n o f the Cappadoc i an view 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 rgen Hammerstaedt ' 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 ) . " ' - 8e a n a l y z e s t h e

term b e g i n n i n g from n o n - C h r i s t i a n 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 Monophys i te John P h i l o p o n u s . A l t h o u g h

incorporating t h e r e su l t s of 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 , "Hyposcasa , " col. 382.

- - " 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 .

The l a s t study I c o n s i d e r is A n d r e de H a l l e u x ' s "'Hypostase'

e t ' p e r s o n n e ' dans la formation du dogme t r i n i t a i r e (a. 375-

381) . ' I- ' T h i s i s ar. i n v a l u a b l e p i e c e of research on t h e t w c

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

Church 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 by 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 o f C a e s a r e a

a n d Je rome both of whom presented t h e p o i n t s o f v iew of those

whom de H a l l e u x c a l l s "Neo-Nicenes" and " N d - N i c e n e s "

r e s p e c ~ i v e l y . According 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 "Neo-

7 . 7 ? N 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. r ,I . :if a n a l y z e s

. . 'Andrk 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) : 313 -365 , 625-670.

. , 'The titles "Neo-Nicene" and " O l d - N i c e n e " were originally

c o i n e d by Th . Zahn a n d " v u l g a r i z e d " by A. von H a r n a c k . A c c o r d i n g 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 of 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 f r o m t h i s d e f i n i t i o n : t h e y u n d e r s t o o d t h e hornoousion i n t h e s e n s e of 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 ) o f 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 u n i t y o f t h e second o u s i a ( s e e T h e o d o r Zahn, arce ell us von Ancvra [ G o t h a , 18671 , 87 ; A . von H a r n a c k , 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 (Ti ibingen: J. C . B . Mohr, 19091, 2 6 2 - 2 6 4 ) . I n t h e m e a n w h i l e , 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 Harnack f o r m u l a t i o n .

A n o t h e r scholar, J e a n Gr ibomont ( " I n t r a n s i g e n c e a n d

Zahn-

some r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s cf the "Old-Nicene" g r o u p , Paulinus o f

A n t i o c h a n d his allies f rom 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 a t c e m p t s t o t r a c e the

o r i g i n of 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 of ~ ? . e c 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 "Neo-Nicenes" 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 . De H a l l e u x also

c o n s i d e r s G r e g o r y o f N a z i a n z u s ' f a i l x i a t t e m p a t r e c o n c i l i a t i o n

i n C o n s t a n t i n o p l e . 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 e e 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 y the oerscna of 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 . 6 6 7 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~.

I r e n i c i s m i n S a i n c B a s i l ' 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 of the "Neo-Micenes" who were b a s i c a l l y of sound f a i t h b u t d i d not a c c e p t t h e $tooila~ov because i t was n o t b i b l i c a l .

De Hal leux a s e s the terms "Neo-Nicene" and "Old-Nicene" 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 . I t i s 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 , "Erwagungen zu den Anfangen des Neun izan i s rnus" 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 . Papandreou e t a 1 . , [Chambesy: M e t r o p o l i e de r Schweiz, 19891, 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 Casarea , 1 7 f f . )

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 imb- rao~~, which I have 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 3 n chis concept. T h e a n c i e n t s did noE

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 and 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 be twee3 ?htincs and b he

Cappadocims is P o r p h y r y ' s . I s h a l l c c n s i d 2 r i t in d e t a i l in

C h a p t s r Two when dealing w i ~ h philosophical 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 y of L ~ E concept

and cemnlnology of the " ? e m o n " in Sregc ry o f Nyssa d o e s noc

e x i s t .

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 che concept 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 Hv~ostasis, while Chapter Four

w i i h Tc E u s t a c h i u s . On t h e Holv Trinitv, To Ablabius. On Not

T h r e e Gods and To The Greeks. Based on the Common Notions. I n

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 b2q irL 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 (Origer i , Dionysius,

Alexander, Athanasius), and 3asil of Caesarea. Then Gregory's

own view of divine relations will be analyzed, as 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 syncnronocs understanding

- . of t h e development o f the c e n t r a l ideas o f Christianity." '

Developed 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 both

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

me thods , such as " 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 and 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

r o p i c s a n d o t h e r i s sues , e . g . , social c o n c e r n s , oolitics, and

e c c l e s i a s t i c a l c o n f r o n r a t i o n s .

b ) T e x t u a l a n a l y s i s , t h e most used nethod i n t h e p r e s e n t

d i s s e r t a t i o n , p r o v i d e s a n cpporcuni~y t c f o l l o w one t h i n k e r ' s

. - 4 deve lopment o f i deas i n a s p x l r l ; :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

se lec t 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 co how h i s v i e w s on

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 a t t empt t o i d e n t i f y a growth o f Gregory o f

Nyssa's d o c t r i n e of divine p e r s o n s s h o u l d be regarded w i t h

r e s e r v a t i o n s , s i n c e there i s Li t t l e agreement among s c h o l a r s

c o n c e r n i n g the 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 refer 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, 19%) , 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 s a u r u s L i n q u a e Graecae C D - R c m . The result was a l m o s t o n e

t h o u s a n d e n t r i e s . I t h e n separa ted the a u t h e n t i c works from t h e

spurious a n d c o n s i a e r 2 d t h e occurrenczs i n the a u t n e n c i c w o r k s

a l o n e . My n e x t s c e p was L O examine he places w h e r e r k s e terms

occur and LO see i f 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 .

A c t h i s p o i n t , 1 looked n o t m l y Z E c h e c a n s emsel selves b u t a l s c

a t t h e c o n t e x t . Sometimes ir 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 advantage 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 3f ~ h e person m k e s p l a c e .

Nonetheless, if the c o n t e x t i s !lQi c n c r o u g h l y c o n s i d e r a d , a m a j o r

d i s a d v a n t a g e of 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 meanings. Bes ide - . ~ p d o w r r o ~ a n d

urrdu~acns, Grsgcry g f ?Jyssa x e d x.*..er r z m s ts tip-iss t h e n o t i o n

of person: " 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

s u b s t a n c e " ( ~ E P L K T ~ ouoia) a n d " p a r t i c u l a r subs tanca" (i611aj ouoia) .

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 wel l .

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

concep 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 cxo Cappadocians used them x v a r i o u s cimes c o promote

t h e i r own concept s f i n d i v i d u a l . Nevertheiess, as D o r r i e noted;

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 of Gregory of Nyssa's k n o w k a q e sf phiisscphy from

- 3 c i t a t i o n s - - 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 Caesa rea - - s ince Gregory i s a master of " though t -

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 cornp lece ly rernodell2d anc rewcrded sc c h a t a l i d i rec t v e r b a l

p a r a l l e l i s m w i i h t h e o r i g i n a l d i s a p p e a r s . N o n e ~ h e l a s s , 1 s u g g e s t

t h a t h e may have used t h e c o n c e p t s d i s c u s s e d below. I n some

c a s e s t h i s bor rowing i s obv ious , i n o t h e r s not. S u g g e s t i o n s that

Gregory was a convinced " l a t o n i s t , a l t h o u g h d i s g u i s e d a s a

'Heinrich Dorrie, "Gregor 111 (Gregor von Nyssa)" i n Rea l l ex ikon f u r Ant ike und Chr i s t encum v o l . 1 2 ( S t u t t g a r t : A . Hiersernann, 1 9 8 3 ) , c o l . 835.

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~s berw2en 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

propertiss, general c b j ~ r s , and ger2ral p r ~ p e r i i e ~ . 3bjects and

p r o p e r t i e s are s a i d LO be 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 of ten such catecpries:

s u b s t a n c e (ucaia) , 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 .

i b 2 5 - 2 7 ) . 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," Aris tc t le s a y s

that there a r e primary and secondary s u b s t a n c e s : the former he

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 p a ~ o u a 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 : spxies 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 ede concl~des' rhar 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 , "genera

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:, ir2 n c t m e a n d , hence,

are completely indivisibls. Yet what kind of di~~ision does

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 any subject" ( K ~ T ' O U ~ E L ~ I ~ krio~e~pivov , \ € y ~ r a i ) . This statement is

n o t easy t o u n d e r s t a n d without examples. Aristotk m e n t i o n s both

'~ichael Frede, Essavs in Ancient Philosophv (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1987), 51.

'Frede, Essavs, 51-52. Cf. aiso John 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.

i n d i v i d u a l s u b s t a n c e s a n d i n d i v i d u a l p r o p e r ~ i e s : i n d i v i d u a l

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 a r s

n o t s a i d of any s u b j e c t . In o c h e r words , they h a v e n o f u r t h e r

sub jec t s ( ~ T ~ O K E ~ ~ E V Q ) u n d e r n e a t h rhem o f w h i c h hey c a n b e

p r e d i c a t e d . T o this can b e added 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 of 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 suDscance i s , one , b u t man and 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 emerqes o f whar: h e means by a n

i n d i v i d u a l . T h e s p e c i e s "human" and he g e n u s " a n i m a i " a r e n o t

i n d i v i d u a l s , b e c a u s e they =.I=. s a i d sf x a n y rhincs, , [ h e y

have a p l u r a l i t y s f subjects. 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 nor have any 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 e means b y non-

substantiz? i n d i v i d u a l s , and rnodlrn iomm2ntaior .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 im 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

' F r ede , E s s a v s , 5 2 . 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 , c a n o b f u s c a t e o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f A r i s t o t l e .

their bearers . ' Gregory of Nyssa, hcwever , does 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 issue and c h u s I s h a l l not p u r s u e i t .

N e v e r t h e l e s s , Frede i s c o r r e c t t h a t A r i s t o ~ l e ' s notion o f an

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

. 3 . p r e s e n c e o f non-substantial ~ n c ~ ~ j L d 1 ~ a l s ; we ~ 2 n d t o g round our

n o t i o n of 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 n p 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 and s e c o n d a r y

s u b s t a n c e s , A r i s t o t l e i n i h ~ Cateaories moves b a c k a n d f o r t h

between o n t o l o g y and lcgic. The o n c d o g i c a i example ( " p r i m a r y "

v e r s u s " s e c o n d a r y s u b s t a n c e " ' i s 2 a s i L y c r a n s p o s 2 d 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 co 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 17a39 -40 xhere h e r e g a r d s "spesiss" a s

- - I " u n i v e r s a l s . " B y Mer,achvsics . nowever , he has changed h i s

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

u n i v e r s a l s r e a l l y e x i s t :

[ I ] t seems imposs ib le :ha t any u n i v e r s a l

' G . E . L. Owen, " I n h e r e f i c e , " P h r o n e s i s

- A ~ r r m s h c u i d be the

10 (1965) : 97-105 and Michael Frede, Essavs i n Ancien~ P h i l o s o p h v , 55-63 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 and S . M . Cohen, "The One and t h e Many" Review of Meta~hvsics 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 , and p e r h a p s b o t h h e and h i s c r i t i c s a r e r i g h t . 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 rom later works does n o t necessarily h e l p " ( T h e ~ i n d of A r i s t o t l e , 327 n . 6 ) .

* .

- - F r e d e , E s s a y s , 6 3 .

name of 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 wh ich 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 be long t o anything else; 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 ca l l ed u n i v e r s a l w h i c h n a t u r a l l y b e l o n g s t o m o r e 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 no 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 . 1038b lG-12 : . - -

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 noces, A r i s t o t l s ' s d z i m a c i c change of 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 n of i n d i v i d u a l : " i f

there a r e ns g m s r a and spec 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:

9 . 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 by i n x l l i j i b l 2 c i r z k s rhe m a t h e m a t i c a l , and by 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 cf 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. " - q

H2 thus shows c h a t ph i l s scphy :an m l y be 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 ; lass.

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, ed . W . Jaegcr

(Oxford: C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1957 3 . . . - - R i s t , T h e Mind o f Ar i s tc t le , 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. R e c e n t l y , S tead

correc~ed his 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 perhaps 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 non-

tecnnical 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

c i r c u l a t i o n : ' T h e examples I am about to give are instances in

9 . which Gregory 3 f Nyssa s tems zo n r n c x an acquaintanze with

. - -'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 ~rimarv and 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's understanding of "the unity of human existence" was 3 f great importance, accordino to this Russian Orthodox theologian (see ~ e b r ~ e s F l o r o v s ky, ~ g o e c t s of Church Historv, ed. Richard S. Haugh [Vaduz:

Aristotle's ideas. In one example h e e v e n m e n t i o n s che

Cateqories by name. Even i n t h i s case, however, ic is not

possible to claim beyond d o u b t that he had first-hand k n c w l e d g e

of the Cataaories. Here a r e t h e examples :

1) At CE 11, 237 Gregory wri~es: "our n a c z r e was c rea t2d

capab l? of sciencef1 (SEICTLK~)P i iuurt~ h n t j p q s T ~ L ) b t h v fipljv

T 6 ~ p i o ~ p y q o a l - ' ~ 0 ~ ) . , ~ L S 1 s r e m r x z c m i of ?._rlsistltf~ TODFCS 130b8:

3 . "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 sc ience ."

2 ) At I, 1 7 2 f f . G r e g c r y does n o t admic c o degrees of

subs tance ( 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 of subs tance a n d adds t h a c ~ 5 e sub jec t i ~ s e l f (airi, TO

u r r o ~ ~ i p ~ v o v ) i s c h e o n e t o w h i c n ouaiu is properiy applied (m I ,

1 8 2 ) . From this p o i n t of view, t he re 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? I

so, since Aristotle himself says: "Of species . . . no one

believe

is more

--

. - - See a l s o Gregory o f Nyssa , A d P e t r u m 2,

52

truly substance than another" (Cat . 2 b 2 3 - 2 4 ) . He then adds t h a t

t h e same holds true for izdividuals: "one i nd iv idua l man is not

more truly substance than an individual ox" (Cac . 21327). A t Cat .

3b33, he states quite clearly that "Substance does not admit of

variation of degrce" (671 o iu i a ouaias obc im 6i&:a~ TO pdMov m i ~b

~ T T O L I ) . - -

3 \ n c hn r - - - n -1. - , ac U L , LU, z u Gregory rntnxons A r i s t o t l e t s Catacrories

and their language as ussd by Eunorn ius . This i s be passagc in

w h i c h Grego ry menricns ihe Catcaori2s by nzrne. He wri:?s in

reference to Eunomius :

Re w h ~ labori A r i s t o t ~ l i a n ' genera, ' and 'individuals, i TE X L ~ X O y i a ) o f doctrines. - '

ousiy rzi~sracss divisicn 2f r s a l

' s p e c k s , ' and ' and advanced a the Caceaories

ystema injury

ryment, the h a s slaborat

' and tic treatment

3 f our

Mcreschini noiss in commenting or. chis passage,

In realit!;, ir: is Gregor:; xho , ir. his r.-fura:ior? of Eunomius, ernplsys correctly e he i a t e a o r i e s . He

' L. distinguishes -- as r n a 111, 1 0 , 49 -50 -- be tween s u b s t a n c e and acciden~s, and 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 c human riacure. - -

. . - 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 (GNO 1, 8 0 note).

slightly modified by me, in NPNF 2 . 5 2 4 7 . - - "Gregory of Nyssa, Teclooia trinitaria. Contro Eunomio.

Confutazione della Professione di fede di Eunomio, tr. Claudio Moreschini (Milano: Rusconi, 1994), 587 n . 55.

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

myse l f t h i n k c h a t Gregory was f a m i l i a r w i th t h e I s a a o g e , a s I

e n d e a v o r t o de rnons r r a r e l x e r i n c h i s c h a p t e r .

T h e Cappadocians scrnpzred t h e rhrs? d i T 7 i c e persons w i ~ h

chree i n a l v r a u a i s having the same n a t u r e o r s p e c i e s , a l l e q u a l l y

d i v i n e . 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 be 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 A d A b i a b i u m ) . Y s t i t is a c k n o w i e d g e d chat

t h e Cappadocians 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 naru re 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 and t h e Cappadoc ian 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 . A n a l i s i 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 and H . C r o u z e l (Mi l an : Vi ta Pensiero, 1 9 8 1 ) , 182 ; idem, P h i l o s o ~ h v i n C h r i s t i a n A n t i a u i t v (Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , N W ) , 82 f f. ; 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 Gregor von Nyssa ," 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 204 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 of Human N a t u r e i n t h e T h e o l o g y of Gregory 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 F o u n d a t i o n , N U ) , 1 2 9 .

P h i l o s o o h v i n Christian A n t i a u i t v ,

. - - 3 o a c h i m o f 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

t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y , b u t w i t h o u t t h e n e c e s s a r y s u p p o r t i n g f e a t u r e s f o r d i v i n e u n i t y . H i s t e a c h i n g was condemned by t h e F o u r t h La te ran Council of 1215.

degrees, t h a t one single a c z i v i r y or snergy 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 . R e l a t i o n i n A r i s t o t l e

As I shall d e m o n s t r a t e ex~ensively i n Chapcsr F x e , boch Greqc ry

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

o f 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 . co t scab1is 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. ; To

- 4 speak about relation Gregory of Yyssa used he rodowing Greek

expressions : TU ~ p d s n. rrp6.; ~i ;rws € X E L L ~ , a n d o~do~.;. The 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 econd 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 term is the noun

used by 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 of

A r i s t o t l e h i m s e l f ) -' t o re fe 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 rendered in E n g l i s h a s " r e l a t i o n , " t he :a npoq TI

''see C h a p t e r Five below f o r d e t a i l s .

. - -'Aristotlei s " 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, 19631, 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 [ s o m e t h i n g e l s e ] , "

and apos ~i nus ~ X E L L ~ means " r e l a t i v e d i s p o s i t i o n . " An examinair ion

of 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 issues 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 my ciisserza:Fofi, I s h a l l t o u c h

mostly upon 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~ment from a n t a r l i e r work 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 demons t ra 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 be just 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 se . For example, 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 lse ( i t i s zalied l a r g e r ~ h a n some~hingl; 2nd u h a c is double is c a l l e d what ii IS a something 2lse ( i t is c a l l e d doub le s f s o r n e ~ h i n g ) ; similsrly with a 1 1 o t h e r s u c h c a s e s . -

" O f " and " 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 ' s c 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 " and "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 ) , as well as a recent a r ~ i c l e t h a t tries t o b r i n g 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 , F a b i o M o r a l e s , " 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 ) .

. - - C a t . 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

- - f a t h e r - s o n . Aris~otle, hcwever, adds a necsssary

qualification, namely t h a c "all rel~iives ... 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 , ~rovided hey a r e

a r e improperly g i v e n and 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, buc as 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 be s i r n u l t a n e s u s b y n a t u r e ;dpa r j buoa j ; and in most cases 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 and a hair, anti m ? n che13 is a h a l f che re is a d o u b k , and when there is a s l a v e .here is i master ; 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 there is noc 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 cases. (Cac . 7b15-21)

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 boch 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~y by natu?. They also x p r o p r i a t e d Aristotls's s x a s r :

. . l anguage : apa. ov~~avaip6. '. N o n e t h e k s s , Aristotie draws 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 by n a t u r e tc knowlodge, f o r -k,ere a r e first t h e

things to be known and then comes :he knowledue of them. Also,

the destruction of knowledge does n o t e n t a i l the destruction of

- 7

"See Chapter Five for examples.

- . '-See Chapter Five for cxamplzs.

68

the things knowable. "The perceptible" and " t h e measurable" a l s o

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, bszause "an individual

man is n o t called samson& s individual nan" (the zass for

wholes), nor is an individual hand zzlled someone's individual

nand but someonef s hand (the case f x p a n s ) . A s k r i l l thinks

t h a t Aristotle probably means ~s s x g e s t that it is

linguisiically improper co a m a c h csssessive gmitives to

designations of primary substances: sne eannct say t n a c something

is "Callias's his ox," chcuqn x e z a n , ci T s u r s e , s a y t h a t r h i s

ox is Callias' s 'ox! . ' 3ui in the case of seccndary substances,

Ariscotle admits tb.at 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 head 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 TU~ITOLJ Pan 74 rpos ri T~WS

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 , i n d e e d , a p p l y c o 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 ca l l ed 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 rom t h i s that i f someone knows any 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 which i t i s spoken o f . (Cat. 8a28-35)

A t t h e end o f C a t . 7 , A r i s t o c l e c l a r i f i e s that a head o r a hand

o r a n y s u c h s u b s t a n c e can be 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 spoken o f .

T h e r e f o r e , heads and hands and 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 scbscances can b e

r e l a t i v e s ( C a t . 9 b 1 5 - 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 s e c o n d 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 m i 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 . I sna?? m e n t i o n

o n l y b r i e f l y 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 would l i k e t o Roc? z h a ~ w h i k

A r i s t o t l e is opposed c o chs idea 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 Nyssa is n o t of the same mind.

G r e g o r y says t h a t by a t t a c h i n g pos se s s ive 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 rgues that Aristotle is c o r r e c t : the phrase " Z o h n ' s cow" does

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 . " A c k r i l l a n d Morales b o t h

- -. ''CE I, 572-573.

" ~ o r a l e s , 258 n. 1 0 .

u s e l a t e r works by A r i s t o t l e L O interpret t h 2 r e l a t i o n between Dl

and D2, 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 as 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 . Tooics 6 (142329

and 146b3) . " He f i n d s the seccnd criterion ( D ? ) "too s t r o n g , "

i f i t i s mean t t o imply t h a ~ ane cculd know c h a t A ( a g i v e n

subject) i s R ( a relational predicate) only if one knew wha 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 number w i t h o ~ i k n c w i n g d e f i n i r d y w h a t ~ h a c

number is , 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 1D2 i is based w. :heir p c u l i a r indefiniteness. This

indefiniceness may be eliminated by a defini~e knowledge of t h e

c o r r e l a t e . The indefiniceness is quii? w i d e x i n r e l a t i o n a l

- I t p r e d i c a t e s l i k e " t o be c h e d c u b h sr, "tc be q r e a t e r ~ h a n , " bui

i r may pass u n n o t i c e d i n terms s u c h 3s " f a t h e r " and " 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 " and " s l a v e " a r e endowed with a

"~ccording LO t h e c h r c n c l o g i c a l chart of A r i s t o t l e ' s works p r o v i d e d by R i s t i n h i s T h e Mind of A r i s t o t l e , C a t . 7 was w r i t t e n ca . 353 ( p . 2 8 3 ) , whereas Topics 6 ca . 3 4 3 ( p . 2 8 5 ) , Me t . 7 ca. 327 , 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 cornp le t s sense and t h e y s a t i s f y the f i r s t

definition (Dl) of relatives, t o o . T o e x p l a i n why A r i s t o t l e

con tends that p a n s of s u b s t a n c e do n o t satisfy t h e s e c o n d

criterion (021, M o r a l e s appsals L O M e t . 7 where lristotle says

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, buc the dead f i n g e r is & r l n g e r c r l y homonymously" (Met.

1035b23-25). To z h l s M e r a k s adds 3 i h e ~ r e ~ i ~ i l +xplanation 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 by

t h e i r f u n c t i o n and power ; a n d w e s u g h c n c i L O say chat they are

the same when t h s y no l o n g e r have i he i r p rope r q u a l i t y , b u t o n l y

. . c h a t they are homonyrncus" p x r r i z s 1 2 5 3 3 2 0 - 2 5 ) . Yorales

suggests that c h i s latter c r i t e r i c n 3xplains x h y p a r t s of

substances :ark satisfy tne i e f i x c i c n 31 ;f re la t i7 :?s , but n o t

definition 02: "For since 9r.e nusc a p p e a l c c ~ h ? i i h o l s in c rde r

. 7 to d e f i n e them, this refersnz? 1 s 2 3 n t a i ~ . e d w ~ t ? . i n c h e definiticn

(and t h e meaning!) of t h e respective c e r m s . They h a v e t o b e

c o n s i d e r e d , 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 view o f r e l a t i o n . Here he

-. "Morales, 264. T h e r e is a misprint in the reference t o

Aristotle's Politics on this page: the quote i s f r o m Politics 1253a20-25, n o t 1253b20-25. T h e examples from Met. 1035b23-25 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 nggu i i . shes t h r e e main grcups 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 number" (KCIT' upi@ov) , 2 ) t h o s e w h i c h

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 U S c l ~ a p v ) , and 3)

thcse 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 " ( d ~

T O ~ E T ~ ~ T O V I T ~ ~ ) ~ T O ~ ~ T P O V ) . H e rhen 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 number" ( K ~ T '

. . - . . , a p i 8 p 6 ~ ) . A r i s t o t l e c < e n p - x x s XLX: :he d o u b l e c o -,he h a l f , the

~ r e b l e t o r h e c h i r d , "chat which a c e e d s " t o " t h a t w h i c h i s

e x c e e d e d . " R e l a t i v e s s u c h a s ~ h e t i o u b l 2 and the h a l f a r c i n a

d e f i n i t e n u m e r i c a l r e l a t i o n L O 1, kuc x h t r s s u c h a s ":hat w h i c h

e x c e e d s " and " c h a t w h i c h i s txseeded" are in a n indefinite

, n e s ~ raa :sZr ,s z r s - 1 1 numerical r e l a ~ x m . ""' . ~ x r l , - a l l y expressed

a n d a r e d e t e r m i n a t i o n s of number , a n d s o , " adds A r i s c m l e , " i n

. . a n o t h e r way a r e t h e e q u a l and - h e ~ l k e and t h e same, f o r a l l

- n - r e f e r t o unicy" (Met . 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 bo th t h i n g s

have 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 be 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 ' ( K ~ T U

- -

"Morales, 2 6 7 .

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 which can be c u t , " and 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 concex t , " t h a t which has made ( a r w i l l

make) " is r z l a t i v e t o " t h a t which h a s b e e n made [or will be

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 s facher-son in t h i s

second g r o u p . Mcrziies' . ~ ~ b s e r ~ ~ ~ i F ~ r 1s Z Z Y ~ ? Z C L e i a t C ~ I S k i n d of

r e l a t i v e s i n c l u d e s a cause-5ffect r e l a c i o n ; h? a i s c includes h e r e

the relatives r n a s t s r - s l a v s c f rom Cat. 6b30, 'a34 f f ) " a s a

s p e c i f i c a t i o n cf t h e re la r - ives ' c h e owner and ihe proi;ercyl' --

since f c r ~ h e la~t2r r e l a c i o n c o e x s t scme 3veni justifying i h ~

p m p e r t y a i q ~ i s i ~ i a n , war, irhericance, e c z ) nusr 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 rssonarces 3 f t h i s

example . G r q c r y 3 , Yyssa :r zerza:ni:; i rncnq :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 and t h a t

w h i c h i s c z u s e d . ":'

3) Relatives said io be "as the neasu rab l e to t h e measure"

( ~ ~ r o ~ c r p ~ ~ o v r r p o ~ ~ o p i r p o v ) . The examples p r o v i d e d f o r t h i s group

" A t C a t . 8a24 " p r c p e r t y " (h-pa) i s t r e a t e d a s a relaticnal attribute.

%regory of Nyssa, Ad Ablabium 55 , 2 4 ff.

a r e : the measurable t o t h e measure, 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 because someth ing else i s r e l a t ed L O 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 of

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" ( M e t .

!021a?l-32). And s i m i l a r l y f o r che s t h e r examples . 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 i q r o u p a r e

. < . - rhose 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 s ) in 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 s b y n a i u r e " and i n e d e s t r u c t i o n

of one 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 co

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 , >lorales

b e l i e v e s h e can 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 subs t ance 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 nave a n a symmet r i ca 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 whole ( 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

group may 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 Cateao r i e s as

exampies of relatives has been 3 conscant source of confusion in

. , ~ommentaries.'~ Morales also draws attention ia the fact that

for Ariscocle c n e predicatisn of any relational attribute a lways

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 Being (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 "ger isra, "

yivq) 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 Len 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, 270.

4%orales, 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."

These four categories a r e substance or subst rarrum ( U T T O K E ~ ~ V O V ) ,

q u a l i t y (rrotbv) , disposition (1~6s i ~ o v ) ar.d relative disposition

I - (npbs ~i rrws € ~ o r ' ) . ' 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 Nyssa seem LO hav2 b e e n aware of hen when

distinguishing between s u b s t a n c e and individuals?

According to the Scciss, "subscracurn" corresponds to

9 9 "matter, " being an 3:iiscinj i h i ~ o a . Zcno r-irnself is

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 tocali~y ic could neither grow nor

diminish. I t was viewed as "qcalic>Aess," z h a ~ is, as zhe

"substratum" of everythirq ~ n a t w i s t s . The Stgics zlso

- 7 7 ''A. A. Long, .-.eAenisciz Philasoohv: s ' t o k s , Eoicureans, Sce~tics, ?d ed. : L o n d o n : 3uc%wsrrh, 13861, 160; see also Long & 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 p. 132, 26 w: ouoiav 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 ) .

conceived of particulars as bits of substance. The p a r t i c u l a r s

can undergo qualitative changes which the Stsics viewed as

reconfigurations, but not changes, of the very substance. The

qualitative changes are 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

subsmnce, it is a corpcreal e n u t y ( l e ~ us not forget that the

Stoic universe is rnat?rial!). gua corporeal, these currer-xs sf

air are capable of runn ing chrough a body and infsrming it. T h e y

can mix w i t h m e ano~her and w i t h he "subsranc&' (SVF I, 85) .

Therefore, in any particular e n c i t y here is b o t h "substance" and

" q u a l i t y . "

n'L - I m w ;urn r o :ne sesmd cai legory . - .c second Siois

category is not strictly s p e a k i n g "quality" ( r ro idqs ) b u t the

"qualified entity" (rroitiv! , that i s , u s u a l l y a substance having

. . certair . qualities. Justice is a qualxy, bur rhe corresponding

. 9 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 ! . On che 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

; ' --Sirnplicius of 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 fur~her

divided their second cacegory into the "commonly qualified"

( K O L V ~ S r r 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~ive is a part of language which signifies a

common qualiiy ( ~ o i v j v r r o ~ 6 ~ q ~ a ) , e . g . '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, ths Stoics used

t h e "commonly qualified" aad the "individually qualifiedr1 co

distinguish between what the Aristo~elians and wc ioday c a l l

species and individuals r e s p e c t i v e l y . In s t h s r words, the S t o i c s

- . - . . used t h e i r second cacqcr:; , Z?E " q ~ a i ~ : : v U, " - - ,, 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 ) . < f --Stead seems to confirm my observation: " . . . Stoic theory

could accommodate the obvious 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

- - Them. "" It is also worth mentioning a reference to the Stoics

made by che sixth-cen~ury Neoplamnist Simplicius, because he

conneccs 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 L O which

7 . - the Stoics speak of ssrnerhi?.g peculiarly qiia-11 ied (i6iwg ~ o t c i ~ i . " '

This passage from Sirnplicius helps us c o c3mpr&end c h a t

Neoplatonisrs did indeed associate the PLc~inian Forms of

individuals with the Stoic "peculiarly qualified." As Rist

noted, Plotinus might hav2 bezn influenced i n his view of the

Fcrms of individuals by 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 P h i l o s o p h e r s 1 : 1 6 7 ) .

- - . - --Stobaeus I . U 7 , 2 1 : ini TGL) i6iws irouiv o'iov Aiwvos ~ a i Oiwvos (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 rom two d i f f ~ r e r i t s 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

almost 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

S i m p l i c i u s :

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 is ',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 mesrLing, substratum is 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 be i n them o r a r e p r e d i c a t e d o f t h e m . "

I n o t h e r words 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

cacsgory, substratum, means b o t h " q u a l i ~ y l e s s m a t t e r " and

" q u a l i f i e d e n t i t y " ( e i c h e r commonly o r p s c u l i a r l y ) . T h i s

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 of ihe first two

. . D e x i p p u s ' a s c c m r x a a s " s l j ~ r c h ~ s s c @ - e r s " and c3e 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 , Commentar ia i n A r i s t o t e i e m Sraeca ? : Z [ S e r l i n : kimer, 18881 ; ET by 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 ) .

' - A g a i n , D e x i p p u s ' a c c o u n t 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 ay t h i s , t h o u g h he 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 , 1092a3) 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 have done so , 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 s , I n A r i s t o t . Cateq. 48 , 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 V . ou ~ O V O V KUTU

ro i ig aao fls T r o h ~ , &\a ~ a i TU TOUS i ipeopv~ipoug- ij TE yap arroios c X ~ l . ijv 6 v v a ~ e ~ ~ a k i o ' Apicrm~PXqs. n p w ~ o v € 0 ~ ~ 1 ' UTTOKEL p k ~ o u ~ ~ ( I L L J ~ ~ E V O V . K U ~ ~ C U T E ~ O V , fi K ~ L V ~ S

TTOLOV 4 i b i u ~ i l + i ( ~ ~ a ~ a ~ + ~ ' ~ K E ~ ~ E L ~ o L ~ yap ~ a i 6 ~ X K ~ S ~ O T L V ~ a i 6 LIK~U~S ~ o i s k y i v o p ~ v o i s fi ~ a q y o p o u p ~ v o ~ c KU?' aur6v (ET m i n e ) . S e e also t h e p a r a l l e l i n Dexippus, I n A r i s t . Cateq. 23 , 25-30 (ed. Busse).

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 Caesa rea fs

concept of substance is predominantly Stoic." Basil describes

the substance of the created world a s t h e rnatzr ia l subs t racurn

( U ~ K O S U T O K E ~ ~ E V O S ) . '' Gregory of Nyssa 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 chere a r s v a r i s u s crtared ousiai, noc o n l y one: "one

is t h e o u s i a of the fire, and anccher 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 . "" Despite these examples, however , 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 Chaptzr Tnree. 3einhard Hiibner, "Gregor ?ion ?lyssa zls Verfacser der scg. 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 Brudern" in Epektasis. Xelanqes patristiques offerts au Cardinal J e a n D a n i k l o u , eds. J . Fontaine and Ch. Kannengiesser (Paris: Beauchesne, 1972), 463-490.

"-E.g., Basil, m. 2,4,11; 577C.

. - '-CE - 111, 5 (GMO 2 , 168, 2-31 : oircsiavbi M y w v O v o u ~ o OXi~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 i u6a.ro~ aX\q mi ai rrpoqyopiai TGV Giro 6td~opoi .

-- in agreement wich Ariscotle's own notion of substance; a

qualified entity is a substance aftx all. In Ad Graecos,

Gregory writes:

If somebody says t h a c we call Peter a ~ d Paul 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 is more accurate to say -- he shcxlu r e c q n i z ~ that [by that] we do noc mean anything els? buc :he indiy~idual, which is t h e p e r s o n ( a r o ~ o v . iirrep i m i ~rp6ow;io~ ) . "

A s these examples show, Gregory seem t o have deliberately

amalgamated Stoic and Arisiocelian caisgori~s here: 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 nay as well De~ray a

Porphyrian inf hence a n Gregorl;.' 'V d b s~urss, this arnalgarna~ion

is not unprecedented by he cime sf Gregory . As s h s w n above ,

I Diogenes o f a a b y l o n , a n o ~ d S t o x z i m s z l f , u s m "man" and

"Ad Graecos 23, 4-8.

'"Immediately after d l s c u s s i ~ q Sasil's S i a i c notion of the substance, S t e a d says that Gregory of Nyssa's notion of substance is harder co 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 iu ia several times in h i s In Aristctelis cateaorias 71 .33-35 ; 72.8; 7 2 . 1 5 - 1 6 ; 73.16-17; 74.19- 21, 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 Neopla ton ic 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 what a zommonly q u a l i f i e c e n t i t y i s , whereas

A r i s t o t l e uses t h e same example 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 q u o t e d above . T h e r e f o r e , I c o n c l u d e

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 be 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

t r ea t rnenc 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 as 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

T h e d e f i n i t i o n o f 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 o f

p r o p e r t i e s (depotopa) - some s c h o l a r s even i r a n s l a ~ s i t a s " b u n d l s

o f p r o p e r t i s s " - car-, be : raced 3s f a r bask is ? l a m ' s Theaetetus

157b-c where h e suggests c h i s i d e a in pass ing . After F l a t o a

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 .ncisshus of A s c a i o n

(2nd -1s t c . BC1 and A1cinous.'- 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 by i t s e l f i s n o t a man, n o r i s a head , n o r a foot, n o r any 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 whole , 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 (TO €5 aaav~wv a8po~opa) - - t h a t is t o say,

. - "'A. C . L loyd , " 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 Logic

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 and 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 e term aepo io~a t 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 of 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, such a s ' w h i t s ' o r ' c o l o r e d ' , and f o l l o w i n g on these the 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 honey, e v e n s o c h e r e w i l l be one 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 ' ? r l m a u y 1 , and a n o t h e r c o n c e r n e d w i t h secondary, c a l l e d ' s e c o n d a r y ' . . . . The p r i m a r y a n d secondary sensibles are judged 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, it 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 3

l i t t l e f u r t h e r a n d Po rphy ry who presented ic in 3 more a c c e s s i b l e

fo rm. I t is cnese l a s t two ;.icws -.?,at 1 wish co p r s s e n i n s x i . .

I t should be kept i n mind f r ~ m t h e sutset thai, a s a P l a t m i s t

h i m s e l f , P l o t i n u s a l s o e l a b o r a t e s che theory of an i n d i v i d u a l a s

a co?lecticn of 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 Ernpi r i cus , Adve r sus m a t h e m a t i c o s 7 . 2 7 6 - 2 7 7 . Greek t e x t a n d E . T . i n S e x t u s S r n p i r i c u s , A a a i n s t t h e L o a i c i a n s , t r . R . G . Bury (Cambridge, MA: Ha rva rd 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 , (Oxford : C l a r e n d o n , l993), 7 f . For che G r e e k t e x t see A l c i n o o s , Ense ionement 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 by John 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 ) .

- -For 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

Mulrooney, "Boethius on ' P e r s o n ' " ( Ph. E. diss . , U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto , l994), esp . 47-51.

d i v i n i t y . 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 ens ib le

s u b s t a n c e s f rom 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 and c o r n p o s i ~ i o n one 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 be low, 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 n i n - - which w e a r e a t p r e s e n t occupied. -

The 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.qor ld . 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 be ing aua 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 is 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 i r e a l i t y . " ' Plotinus c h e n

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 "i conglomeration of

and " t h i s many

VI. 3 . 1 5 . 2 7 ' ) and "whose apparent e:c:iste.n.ce [ i s ] a congress of

VI.3.10.16). 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 o r e fe r :o 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 o f n o t

examining the s o u l o f these s u b s t a n c e s . T h e r e f o r e , t h e q u e s t i o n

-. - P l o t i n u s , Enneads V I . 3 . 1 . 2 2 - 2 6 .

- - 'Mu l rooney , " B o e t h i ~ s on ' Pe r so r . ' , " 48f.

" ~ f . P l a t o , Timaeus 49d-50b.

to be asked i s "Nhat keeps t h e s e ccllections of p r o p e r t i e s

together, making them human i n d i v i d u a l s for example?" A s

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 rasped a s s u c h by t h e senses

and nor. by r e a s o n . - ' N e v e r t h e l e s s Hulrocney insist^,‘^ aqainsr:

L l o y d , that ihere i s a p r i n c i p l e cf u n i t y for an individual

s e n s i b l e s u b s ~ a n c e , namely 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 zourss, Enn. VI. 3 allaws f o r r k i s

c o n c h s i o n , but u n f o r t u n a t s l y P l o t i n u s is noc i n t e r e s t e d i f i

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 coll~ction o f

p r o p e r t i e s . Consequen-,1y, ;e shc~ld xrr! zc his d i s c i p l e

Porphyry 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 s w c e s s . I n chis work ? 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 s which 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 Neop la ton i sm (Oxford: C l a r e n d o n ,

19901, A. C. Lloyd acknowledges t h a t 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 loyd f a i l s KO acknowledge t h a t Socrates or Dion does have a core self; it is j u s t not a sensible one" (Mulrooney, " B o e t h i u s on ' Persont, " 50 n . 7 3 ) .

S c s r a ~ e s , this vhite, and this approaching scn of - F Sophroniscus, 11 Socrates be h i s oniy son, are called 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. 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 is men. (Isaa. 7, 20-26)

In this example, Porphyry allows for individual qualities ("this

whi~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 purpos2s seems t o be che

individual subs tance known as 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, Socraces

d i f f e r s f rom other ~ n d i v i d u a l humacs because sf a n o c h e r specific

difference, the hooked q u a i i c y of his nose ( 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. I ,

Greek text in Porphyry, Isaaoge et In Aristotelis Cateoorias Comentarium 7, 20-26, ed. Adolf Busse, Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 4.1 ( Berlin : Reirner, 18 8 7 ) : a~opov 6 i A i y e ~ a ~ 6 L ~ p a q g ~ a i rouri TO XEVKOV Sai ou~ooi o ~ p o o k ~ v Zobpov io~o~ l cios. ci povos air;@ ciq L ~ p a q s u i o ~ . a ~ o p a o b h i y c ~ u ~ ra ~ o i a i j ~ a . 6.r~ €5 i 6 t o ~ ~ j ~ w v o v v & q ~ c v i~ao.rov. i v TO aepoic~pa ~ U K

av an' a U o u TOT€ TO UUTO ytvoii-o ai yap L ~ p c i ~ o u s i 6 t o q ~ e s QUK av Pa' dUou TLVOS i-Gv ~ a r a pQos y i v o i ~ o (iv ai a u ~ a i , ai ~ ~ V T O L TOG avOpDj~~ou, Xiyu 8 ~ j TOG K O L V O ~ ,

i 6 i o q s ~ ~ y i v o i ~ ' av ai ailrai h i rrkiovwv, p d ~ o v 6i ini TTUL~TWV TGLJ K ~ T U ~ + O S dv0pJmv. ~a80 av0pwnoi.

Thus , 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 knowledge

b e l o n g t o man p e r se, but hook-ncszd or snub-nosed b e l o n g

a c c i d e n t a l l y a n d n o t per sew (Isaq. 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 u n i q u e , 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 coming

t o g e t h e r u n i q u e l y d e s c r i b e a n i n d i v i d u a l i n P o r p h y r y ' s v i e w .

T h i s P o r p h y r i a n d e f i n i t i o n o f a n i n d i v i d u a l w a s p e r h a p s t h e

mos t d a b o r a r e one t o be f o u n d i n che f o u r t h cencury. I E i s

- . . quite l i k e l y c h a t i 5 ~ CacpaiccLans xer? r z r n l l ~ x w i ~ h ic, s ince

i n B a s i l ' s 2 , : and Gregory of 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 is r e p l a c e d with t h a t o f A p o s t l e s Peter o r

P a u l w h o a r e descr ibed 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 is descr ibed a s c h e son of Jonah , b o r n i n

B e t h s a i d a and cne 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 ? lc t i r ,us , we have :G

accep t t h a t h e r e a d ? o r p n y r y l s Isaccae or a hardbook c h a t

r e p r o d u c e d P o r p h y r y ' s arguments. And s o q u i ~ e li k e i y did Gregory

. . of Nyssa. ' The Isaaoae car . be used a s a beqinr.erls guide to

7 -

' J o h n M . Rist, "Bas i l ' s ' N e o p l a t o n i s m ' : I t s Background a n d N a t u r e " i n Bas i l of C a e s a r e a : C h r i s t i a n , Humanis 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 migh 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 The 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 ~ s introductory purpose,

Isaaaae's a rgumen t s are less scphisticxed ~ h a n che 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 ~ropertici dcss not occur in such a

clear formulacion in any paqan author (still less in Christian

authors!) prior to Porphyry. Therefcre, the Zappadocians and

later Neopla~onis~s might have bcen f a s c i n x e d by ic and adopted

9 . . . i ~ s use in :x lr w r x ~ r . g s .

5. The PLotinian %ill of the One

In searchirig for a concepc 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 faccm a r a s p z t d i s ~ i n c : frzm, ana ~rr?ducible to,

intellect and desire 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. I n his view, the

Cambridge University Press, 19961, 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 of 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~p1is~icali.y l a b e l s ch.e Greek ~radition

"intellectualist" and ignor2s historical evidence which speaks

be reduced ~o a discussicn sf Ere2 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 ihe

patristic concept of d i v i n ? persons, it w c u l d be taui~Logiea1 L G

speak of fres wiii i n God. I t was e v i d e n t LC the C h u r c h Fathers

that God was free. 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

l-" . to know this disiinczix i~.~.xi:~~&~;. , n l s s r ~ a l l s imperfsciior-.

which cannot be attributed co 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 weaknes s a l s o . " - - I n h i s

O r a t i o n s a a a i n s t che ArFans (Q. 1 . 3 5 , 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 , toward e i t h e r t h e good or t h e bad ."

-4 l a t e r G r e e k Church F a t h e r such a s John of Damascus, i n summing

up 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 of 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 of w i sh , 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 mark o r i g n o r a n c e , a n d no one d e l i b e r a c s s s b c x wha 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 must also be 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 d e l i b e r a t e . ' :

- . 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 reedom o f w i l l b e f o r e c h e Cappadoc i ans , see C h r i s t o p h e r S tead , " T h e Freedcm z f t h e W i l l and t h e A r i a n 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 . F e s t s c h r F f t flcir 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: Aschendorf 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 den W i l l e n und d a s 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 ~ ' ~ g l i s e e t l ' e r n ~ i r e a u 1 V e siecle, ed . A l b r e c h t O i h l e (Geneva: F o n d a t i o n Ha rd t , 1989) , 35-65.

" J o h n of Damascus, 2e fide o r t h o d c x a 2 . 2 2 . CT by S.D.F Salmond i n John of Damascus, E x ~ o s i t i o n of t h e O r t h o d o x F a i t h , NPNF 2 : 9 ( G r a n d Rap id 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 18981 , 38 . Greek t e x t in J o h n o f Damascus, E x ~ o s i t i o f 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 , 1973) : Xpi 6€ YLLGYKELV, o n i ~ l i 8~0il ~ O V X ~ O I L J pPv Xiyopv, T P O ~ L ~ E O L V bi K U ~ ~ W S ou Xiyopev ou yap p o u X ~ k ~ a ~ o &os. 'Ayvoias yup i o n TO P o u k i w ~ a i - rrepi yap TOG yivwcr~opirtou O&LS PouA~ierai. Ei S i fi pod4 ay~)oias . i r a v ~ w ~ ~ a i fi opou ipecr~~. '0 SP &oq rrav~a E ~ S & S anhis 06 P o u k l c ~ a ~ . For o t h e r mean ings 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: Clarendon, 1961), 1133-1134.

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 kicd of 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 by Gregory of

Nyssa a s "God c o n t i n u a l l y w i l l s co b? w h a t he i s and i s

a d e q u a t e l y u h a c h? wills c,- b s " C c x r a Eur .miurn 111, I, 1 2 5 i . - Erin. VI.9 i s of major imporrance for the i n c r l l e c t u a l history of -

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

not io r ! o f t h e d i v i n ? will a s x i l l of he s e l f . As commentators

of P l o t i n u s have n o r i c e d , " c h i s n o t i s n 1s co ta l l : ; u n p r e c e d e n t e d

and amazing by t h e s t a n d a r d s of a n c i m c p h i l o s o p h y . I t c a n n o r be

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 , i . e . , t h e

d i v i n e w i l l c r ie rxed xwar3 ~ h s curside, :-ward z h ? prcducticn of

b e i n g a n d t h e r e g u l a t i o n o f t h e c o u r s e s f ~hings. '- T h e nove l

n o t i o n which G r q o r y o f Nyssa and 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 hc d i v i n e w i l l i s t h a t i t can be

P 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

"See a l s o Jerome Galth, La c o n c ~ o t i o n de l a l i b e r t e chez G r S a o i r e de Nvsse ( P 3 r i S : Y r i n , 1 5 5 3 ) , 1 7 - 3 9 .

. . "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 de 1 ' Un lEnneade 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 and commentary b y Geo rges Leroux ( P a r i s : V r i n , 1990), 31. J . M . Rist, review of T h e T h e o r v o f

W i l l in Class ica 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 (Enn. 111 .2 -3

[ 4 7 - 4 8 1 ) confirm this observation, since they present the classical view 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 (391 , e n ~ i t k d "On Free W i l l and the W i l l of the

One , " i s a f a i r l y l a t e treacise and can therefore be regarded 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 provoked 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 para-

Christian, now lost co us; bu t this o p i n i o n has not been

generally accepted, accord ing c c . h - n s ~ r o n g . ' - E m . V I A [ 3 9 ] ,

slang w i t h irs irnmeciaw r s d e z e s s x in b ~ i h 5 - 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 anguage cf WL;, - o w and i h . o u g i ~ is used

about t h e One here, buc at the same time Plotinus nakes it clear

c h a t he has no desire t o abandcn the negative (apophatic) way of

approach to che One.

Enn. 71.8 s t a r c s q c x s r e l x c a c z l ; ; , since 2 bet re ; scarting -

point does not exist, w i t h an a n a l y s i s s f t h e concept 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 (Leiden: 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 ) , 224.

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 "bappens to b? as ir: is ( ~ u ~ o i r o a

O U T W ~ ~ ( ~ ~ V ) , and does not have the rnasrrery of vhar; it is, and is

- - what Fc is n o r from itse~r, ic 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 of doctrine other

than his own or an accack 3 n h i s d o c i r i n e . Hz cakes i c

s e r i o u s l y , ~ G W ~ V ~ I , a n d u i ? s z o establish his O W E view of the

One a g a i n s t t h i s s t a t e m e n t . What is interesting is that bo th his

positive and 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 and a d a c t x i b y l z - t r ?.rls=iar. 313ccsiscs such 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, it 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? be

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 absurd ,

because it would cornpieteLy do away wirh the natx? of free will

and self-determination and our idea of w h a t is in our 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 (Enn . VI.8.7.16-

20). 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 no 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 of

wha t exactly necess i ty P i o t i n u s i s c o n c e ~ n e d w i t h . I n E n n .

V I . 8 . 9 P l o t i n u s ' a r g u m e n t takes the fo rm of a r e d u c t i o ad

absurdum:

if someone ~ a k s t 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~ellecc also w h ~ h i 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 ' does 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 "happened t o be" does n o t a p p l y t o intellect,

by using a second r e d c c ~ i s xi atsurdurn: If t h z "happened co be"

d o e s not e v e n a p p l y t o r ea 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 a ijv;os) " ? 'I " F o r , if a n y t h i n g is

g o i n g t o h a p p e n , i t happens ~o being, bur being i ~ s e l f does 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 does 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 q clse, 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 b e i n g . " . ' T h e

F i r s t P r i n c i p l e t he re fo re 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 .

" E m . - 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 c VI.509B9: t h e Good i s beyond i n t e l l e c t a n d be ing ( i ; r k w v a ~ o i , ~ a i oiuias) . F o r t h e h i s t o r i c a l aspects 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 , " 'ETT~KELV~ voC ~ a i ouoias, " V i a i l i a e C h r i s ~ i a n a e 23 (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 becausz ic expresses t h 2

will a s w i l l of self and c o n n e c t s i t with b e i n g . A s I m e n t i o n e d ,

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

p rov idence . T h e c o n n e c ~ i o n o f w i l i with being s h i f c s the

e m p h a s i s f rom w i l l a s power co deliberace' c o c h e w i l l a s power

t o be, 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 wills tc be t h a t

- t P l o r i n u s has 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

imposed on i~ b y someone e l se who i s s u p e r i o r t o i t . O t h e r w i s e ,

w e would have 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 no

" one e l s e c a n impose anything. I n h i s c~rnmentary on Lnn . V I . 8 . 9 ,

Leroux n o t i c e s t h e difficulry i n pu~cing together 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 ca l

p h i l o s o p h y L O w h i c h Msopla tcnisrn i s h e i r : " f c r t x a m p l e , 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 c c k r z i s ~ . ~ c e s s i t y o n i y i n

t h e i n f e r m r b e i n g s (Enn. VI. 3 . 9 . 1 1 - L 2 ) , when this very

necessity--when opposed to these beings' con t i ngency - - s eems to be

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 ? " T h e e x p l a n a t i o n

- - "At t h e b e g i n n i n g of Enn V I . 8 Plotinus comments on

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 . F o r A r i s c o t l e ' s l i m i t e d i n f l u e n c e on 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~rategis rhe in~roducrion only 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 on? x h i c h seems to resist the ordeal of

the negative cheoloqy hat in zhap~ers 8 and 9 removed the

majority of t h e predicates oh che dne; o ) c n e pred~cace of power

(6ilva~is) , retrieving t h e classical r e l a ~ i o n between hegemony and

will, makes Che concept of will become the only one 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 ~ " 3rd 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 it also

generaces b e i n g . ' " Lzrous iisclnguishes a r z h i s y i n t cetween

< . how ihe Zce generaces ar.3 r . 2 ~ 15.2 Ir .reL??s: q e n 2 r a i e s b e i n g . The

latter g e n e r a t e s being like a demiurge. 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 Re~ublic does:

the One is befcre 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 no 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 , T r z i t P s u r l a liberte e t l a v o l o n t e de LIUn , 3 0 4 .

. ' L ~ T O U X ~ " C o m m e n t a i r e , " 3G8 f. - - "Enn. VI.8.9.29.

" ~ n n . - 111.8.9.41. , - . - - -Enn . - V.2.1.8; V.1.6.7.

98

involved in t h i s case.- - This o v e r f l o w i s i n v o l u n t a r y and

necessary. ''' As Rist notices when discussing the i s s u e o f the

. - - generation of new beings by the C)ne,--' P l m i n u s is less worried

by che Parrnenidean dictum "nor;hing =an corn2 f rom nothing" than

are most of his predecessors. As Plotinus c l e a r l y o u t l i n e s i n

Enn V I . 8 . 1 9 . 1 9 and V . 5 . 1 2 . 5 7 , 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~sf3rmations of thz On?.

In chis P l o t i n u s diff3rs sisnificancly b o r h f rom 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 nsc ic 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 ) 6ur ; 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 reason

and order and lirnlt, i . e . , to Inttllecc? "Chance i s c e r i a i n l y

mistress of 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 orocess 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 Fa the r is father (or r a ~ h e r a 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 S G a s t o generate

them." T h u s , 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

a d d r e s s e s the s e s c n d pa r r - sf chs o b j e c t i o n , namely t h a t ~ h e One

d o e s n o t h a v e t h e m a s t e r y of w h a t 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 of itself at

Enn , V I . 8 . 9 . 4 6 , P l o t i n u s r ecu rns c o c h i s i s s u e 2nd is 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 refme 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 f a c e . 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 e qods to be 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 I n t e l l e c t

i s b e f o r e chance 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

P i m i n u s . "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 no t be

o t h e r w i s e . N o w h e is n o t a s h e i s bscause h2 c a n n o t be

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 rhe b e s t i s a

P l a t o n i c idea 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 by 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 Des t inv , A d d r e s s e d t o the Emperors , 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 , ed. B r u n s ) .

of the good. With 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 . O r i g e n , A t h a n a s i u s ,

Basi l of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa all b e l i e v e d that it 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 says t h a t i n t h e case cf che 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 t its2lf t a ~ z r d whar

. . is i n f e r i o r , w h e r e a s in x+ r ce1nc.s che mcvemex toward th?

i n f e r i o r results precisely f r om a lack o f freedom. A s i m i l a r

idea 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 can s r i e n c o n l y ' ~ o w a r a r he qocd, 3rd human s o n s

who can o r i 2 n c coward e i t n c r che qosd cr he bad, a c c c r d i n g t o

. . t h e i r own will:-' U n l i k e L e r o u x , however , Greqo ry does not s a y

chat c r e a ~ e d beings a r e n a t fie; ,zri t h e z o n E r a r y , hey are fie?

co choose the? good and 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 30n o f Gcd. The idea

t h a t humans have been crea ted i n God's image 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 of human

f reedom a g a i n s t the advocai3s of fate. Foreover , one has t o keep

i n mind t h a t Gregory speaks f rom w i t h i n an i n c a r n a t i o n a l sys t em

. - . - - ' O r i g e n , De ~ r i n c i ~ i i s I . ? . 3 and Ccmmentarv on Genesis

(in Eusebius, Cont ra 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 and 111.59-67; Basi l of Caesarea, Adversus E m m i u r n 11, p . 593 A-B; Gregory of 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.;. Le roux 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

Gregcry of Nyssa 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 and says c h a t we should " r a t h e r throw 'what it

wills to b e ' away io the be ings , [because Intellect] itself is

. * . . . greater than 311 willirg, setting wi~iing after 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 Pseudo- Dionysius he Areopagite.

C o n c l u s i o n s

In summary then, I s h c u l d s a y tnar: Gregory o f Nyssa used t h e

philosophical c o n c e p r s as presented above. He borrowed them

without acknowledgement either directly f r o m t h e i r authors or

frcm the works of h i s Christian or pagan p r e d e c e s s o r s . T h e s e

concepcs inform h i s t h i n k i n g abouc t h e individual. 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, and still less sf the

p e r s o n . It was the Cappadocian Fachers who provided ihe first

fully developed v e r s i o n of t h e p e r s o n . T h e C h r i s t i a n d e b a t e

abou t he T r i n i t y fo rzed =he i e v e k p r n w . ~ of th? ZancepE of person

in the direction in w h i c h Fc ma tu red .

THE LESSER TRINITARIAN TREATISES I: TO HIS BROTHER PETER, ON THE CIFFERENCE BETWEEN OUSIA AND HYPOSTASIS

in thirty-four manuscr ip t s he creatise e m i t l e d T o H i s Brocher

Pe te 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 of Nyssa. T h e r e f o r e , u n t i l q u i t e recsntly it was

be l i eved LO b e the 38th L e x 2 r of 3asil o f Cassarea. Yet,

s t u d i e s such a s t h o s e undertaken by 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 be 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 quotes 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 be l l e s L e t t r e s , 1 9 6 1 and 1366) and r e f e r r e d t o a s , e . g . Courtonne 3 : 5 3 . I a l s o consuiced t h e English 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, since 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 i t .

' ~ n d e r s Cavallin, Stud ien 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 Univers i t e t sbokhandeIn , i944), 7 1 ff.

' R e i n h a r d Hubner, "Gregor von Nyssa a l s Ve r f a s se r de r sog . &. 38 de 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 Vers tandnls d e r o u s i a bei den kappadozischen Brudern" i n Epek t a s i s . Melanoes p a t r i s t i o u e s offerts a u Card ina l Jean Danielou, eds. J. Fonta ine 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 ) , 463-490 .

'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 Caesarea , " Orientalia C h r i s t i a n a Pe r iod i ca 44 ( 1 9 7 8 ) : 31-51; idem, B ib l i o theca B a s i l i a n a

of N y s s a , 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

a u t h o r s h i p . ' I f i n d t h e i r a r g u r n e n m u n c o n v i n c i n g , 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 of this treatise i s P e t e r of

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 Sebaste.

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, 379 . D a n i e l o u 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 of t he 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 Bas i l of Caesarea, v o l . 1: The 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 e B 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 . H a u s c h i l d , v o l . 1 [ S t u t t g a r t : An ton 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 18 ( 1 9 9 1 ) : 416-419 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 Homous iane r zum N e o n i z a n e r ( G a t t i n g e n : Vandenhoeck & R u p r e c h t , l996), 297-331.

" D r e c o l l , E n t w i c k l u n q , 3 0 9 . Cf. a l s o t h e cr i t ic ism of D r e c o l l by David 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 o f 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 ) : 4 1 0 , n . 61 .

' ~ e a n D 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 ) : 163 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 des G r e g o r v o n Nyssa" i n ~ c r i t u r e e t culture o n i l o s o o h i a u e d a n s l a ~ e n s € e de G r e a o i r e de Nvsse. A c t e s du 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 e 1 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

d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n oljaia and irroa-ra~ic;, two G r e e k words t h e

Cappadoc ians 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 .

T h e w o r k i s v e r y s i m i l a r c o B a s i l ' s &. 236 , i n which the e n t i r e

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 . Pouche t noced t h a t ,

a f t e r t h e d e a t h of h i s b r o t h e r Bas i l and i n s p i r e d by Ep. 236 , 6 ,

Gregory 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 z S a s i l i a n c o r p u s . -

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 G r e g o r y ' s v iew o f t h e

d i v i n e p e r s o n s a s it 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 Czppadoc i an 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 b e g i n 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 and p a r t i c u l a r Lor 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 be tween 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 be tween n a t u r e and p e r s o n , I s h a l l c o n s i d s r some of

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 and -hen s2e now t h e y a p p l y

t o d i v i n e p e r s o n s *

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 , 1 9 7 1 , 57 .

' R . Pouchec , Basile le G r a n d , 60.

106

I. The Common and 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 of

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, where I a l s o d i s c u s s e d how Bas 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

b r o t h e r s . 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 . Then I s h a l l show how B a s i l

'Otuia and il~tjo~aaig h a v e t h e d i s t i n s t i o r . c h a t 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 ~ ~ I ~ T ~ K U @ ' € K ~ O T O V ) ;

fc 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 as n o t to hand 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 hoo~ao 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 and Son 3rd Holy S p i r i t may b e u n c o n f u s e d and 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 ~ a , e i 6 q ~ a m 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 of 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 is 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 s o m e t h i n g p a r t i c u l a r , a n d c o m b i n i n g t h e s e w e s h o u l d 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 ) . Thus , " 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 " and i s p r o b a b l y the b e s t r e n d e r i n g of 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 of che r e f e r e n c e t o him and s a y : 'I b e l i e v e also i n t h e d i - ~ i n e Holy 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 pe rsons ( T O T ~ ~ V T ~ O O ~ T T W V ~ ~ L ~ C O V ) i s c c n f e s s e d i n the d i s t i n c ~ i o n made 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 e example of "anirnai" ( C @ O P ) versus "a p a r t i c u l a r

human" (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 he has i n m i n d i s che

L o g i c a l d i s r i n c r i o n between species and 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 and bmk~aols, Gregory

uses a s i m i l a r example , s p e a k i n g o f cne "human" (av8pw~ro~) v e r s u s

"a c e r t a i n human" ( T ~ S av0p~Tro.j 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

not d i s t i n g u i s h be tween oioia and umio~ao~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 one brrdo~ao~s or o f three ouoia~. - '

Z i e g l a r - i s righc ir. c1airnir.g t h a t chose who speak of one

urromao~s a re p r o b a b l y st r i m pro-Nicenes f o r whom Oa6o~acsis and

oucria a r e synonymous and mean " s u k s t a n c e , " whereas chose who s p e a k

of c h r e e ouaia~ are p r o b a b l y Hornoiol;sians, Homoians a n d Anomoians.

"Basil, &. 236, 6 . 1-22 ( C o u r t o n n e 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

Gregoire 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 (379- 3 8 3 ) " ( P h . D. d i s s . , F a c u l t y of Protestant Theology, 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, 127.

Grsgory 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 2nd n u m e r i c a l l y d i v e r s e , have 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, " you c h e r e b y signify the ccmrr.on nature (rill) ~ o w j v d 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 O V . T ~ V i&uq hi) TO<! ~ ) L J ~ ~ Q T O S ~ L U ~ C < ~ ~ E I ~ O P ) . For Pecer is n o more human (Ou ... p 6 M o v u ~ @ ~ h r r o ~ ) ~ h a n Andrew, john, o r

. .

James. -' T h e r 2 f o r 2 , the community of the thing s i g n i f i e d , s ince it r e f e r s t o a l l alike w h o - a r e i n c l u d e d - u n d e r z h e same n a m e , demands a f u r c h e r subdivisicn i f we are t o understand nct rnereiy human i n general ( ~ O v ~ a 0 0 A o v a~)8pu~rov), b u t "Peter"

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

be tween i n d i v i d u a i and species , o r c h e S r c i s discinctisn between

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 pronoun : Bas i l uses 6 ~ i v o s w h i l e Grego ry 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 8asilrs 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 subs tance than t h e i n d i v i d u a l ox . "

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 ro~~ ipcvov , '' a n d "being" means " b e i n g

macerial"; thus, i n r h e i r V ~ W , t h e same oilaia Lies a t the

f o u n d a t i o n sf both God and r h e cosmos. 3y ouoiu Basil often means

the "material substratum" (TO i j h ~ i ) ~ ~ i v o ~ ~ i p € ~ w - - e . 9. , C E m . 2 , 4, 11;

- - I -

7 s - t~ for c n e human oiu ia ! . I".e 2xhibits a r a t h e r 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 by S t o i c i s m , w h i c h i s r e j ccted

by 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. - ' Basi l ' s

concept of substance is c h u s influenced by c h e Stoic n o t i o n a f

' f "eornvonl y qua l i f i ea" ( K O L L G ~ T O L ~ L ~ ) . - -

Thus i: follows, according to Hiibner, t ha r - Greqor:; of

N y s s a ' s description of oiloh is Aristotelian..' The d i f f e rence 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

- 'Hubner , Verfasser, 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 Hiibner , "Gregory von Nyssa a l s Verfasser der

sog . EJ. 38 des Basilius," 470, 480. Bernard P o t t i e r f u l l y agrees 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, Belg ium: 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~ctelian and 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

i ssues ." A n o t h e r German scholar, Grillmeier, a l s c suggests that

~ h e unaerscanding of t h e distinctions between substance and

persons in both Basil and Gregory of Nyssa may be influenced by

Stoicism.': Unfortunately, Criilrneier does ncr. Eu11y slaboract.

2 . Further Differences between oinior and L T ~ O T U O L ~

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 esan ine this issue. iis tells h i s

b r o ~ h e r Peter 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 of his imoo~aoiq

( ~ a p a r q p i)mo.raocwg aiwi)) " ( % ~ b 1 : 3 ) .

Verfasser,

- - -*Aloys 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 - - - In 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~acns was

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 e Son a s t h e " i m p r i n t o f God '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, does not accepr, chis synonymy,

b u r aileges cha t by using ur r6o~ao~~ the Aposr le wanted t o indicate

in fact "the continuicy and in~imacy of the relationship between

t h e Son and c h e Father."-' Tc supcorc his thesis Gregory p l z y s

o n t h e mean ings o f t h e word " i m p r i n t t 1 &apct~;lip) . On a f i r s t

l e v e l h e e q u a t e s "imprint" O(apa~:rjp! with "figure" or "exterior

form. - N e v z r t n e l e s s , ever! i f ci?e definirion of i.h.2 f c r m ( O X I ~ ~ )

is d i f f e r e n t f rom he definition of c h s body (crGpui and by reason

o n e can separate form from body, "natura does n o t admit of t h e

separation, b u t one i s always ~ h o u g n t o f i n c o n n e c t i o n with t h e

othsr. " - ' A c c o r d i n g l y , if one 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 Metzger and Roland Murphy ( N e w York: Oxford University Press, lggl), 317 NT.

the iiroorao~s o 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 che image of t h e F a t h e r . -

Basil of Caesarea himself n o i only i n s i s ~ s cn t h e

d i s t i n c t i o n between ouoia and 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 becween 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 <reed : " I f snycne says c h a t c h e Son is of

a n o t h e r substance o r U T O G T ~ ( J L S ( ~ ~ i~ipal;o~cJias ii ~ ~ T I O O T U ~ ~ W S ) , t 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 h6c~~ctols ir. t h e C a p p a d o c i a n s , Jean P e p i n

sugges 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 bnoo~aa~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 t2 f s r ~ s z h e i n t s r p r e ~ a t i o n of he Nicene

a n a t h e m a , i n o r d e r t o accommcdate

oiuia a n d brroo~ao~s. Yet , w h a t e v e r

ii t o - h e i r c n d e r s t a n d i n g o f

G r e g o r y ' s and a a s i l ' s arguments

. . -'See EJ. 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.

. - -'Jean P e p i n , ""rirap{is e c imbraois en C a p p a d o c e " i n

Hvparxis e H v ~ o s t a s i s nel 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 of a d i s t i n c t i o n between the two cerms, w e n befor2

cheir t i m e , h i s t o r i c a l and exegstical r~stimony s t a n d s a g a i n s t

t h e i r t h e s i s .

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 362 a t A l e x a n d r i a , and h his synonymy

c a u s e d m d l e s s t r o u b l e . For sxample, w e n . ? . kxande r h i m s e l f ,

bishop of Alzxandris, a t ch? cime of ~ h ? synod of Nicaea ( 3 2 5 ) ,

. . h a v e been p o s s i b l e . ' , - T h e synonymy v a s due ts ike meaning af

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 meaning of tjaoo~am.; as used by

Or igen 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~s i s the

exact 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 w h i c h 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 (Oxfo rd : Clarendon

Press, 1 9 7 7 ) , 2 2 5 .

"see Origen , i n ComJn 1,24,151-2; II,10,75-76 and CCels VIII, 1 2 .

- - ' -J i i rgen 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 meanings .

S e c o n d , in h i s Aoa ins t Eunornius 1, 2C, ll B a s i l h i m s e l f makes

use o f the synonymy of 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 Son. 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 o f s a i v a c l o n . I n ocher words, :he fcrrner r e f e r s co the

c h e o l o a i a , w h e r m s the l a i x e r co ~ h ? sikonomia. Yet r h e context

i n w h i c h the N i c e n f Fachsrs 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 and 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 . T h e

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 rom t h e F a t h e r a n d

h i s imrnucabi l l r -4 , a s well as r i ~ h :he formula " i h e r e was a cine

when h e was n o t " ; no meniicn o f ch? 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 p a s s a q e .

- . . r o u r f h , :here xas a : r x i ~ r : s n z k x c x l d have a l lowed 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 diocese t o justify

h i s endorsement of the Nicaenum, e x p l a i n e d c h a t t h e Son " is n o t

from some o t h e r b ~ i ) o ~ a o i ~ or s u b s t a n c e , but from t h e Father. ""

T h i s interpretation indeed 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

i s a n o t h e r p e r s o n ( o r h y p o s t a s i s ! t h a n t h e F a t h e r , "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 re i tes , 2 2 : pi i ~ i r i p a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o s i ~ a o o ~ a o e w ~ ~ ~ ~ a i ouoias. ~ X \ % K 706 aa~p6s ( apud S tead , D iv ine S u b s t a n c e , 2 3 9 ) .

a r e two, and indeed t h r e e , d i v i n e h y p o s c a s e s . "" F i f c h , 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 of

A t h a n a s i u s of A l e x a n d r i a , known as ihe Tomus ad A n t i o c h e n o s ( t h e

- 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 362 in A l e x a n d r i a ) , " where

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 between ocoia and 6rr6oraois in .Ad P ~ c r u m 1-2,

Grsgory praceeds co give defini~ions cf i !mja~uatg 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 ~ h an 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 be 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. Thac e x p l a i n s v h y it Is r a t h e r

u n q u a l i f i e d . O f c c u r s e , "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 rom o t h e r species, e.g. f rom horse, but as

'"tead, D i v i n e Substance, 240.

t or the t e x t o f t h e Tornus ad A n t i o c h e n o s , see J. S t evenson , 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 (London : 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

summarizes t h i s by s a y i n g that, " a l c n o u g h the nature i s indicated

b y che name ' h u m a n , ' the c h i n o chac 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 name is not

made z v i d e n t t o us." ' On t n e cont ra ry , " P a u l " i s the name of a

ilrr6o~aa~q, because ii indicates ":he n a c u r s subsisiing ir! t h e

t h r n g i nd ica t zd b y c h i s namo. "'- A u , however, "is nor: t h s

indefinite n o t i o n of s u b s t a n c e , which by reason of the

commona l i ty of r h e cerm employed dlsclos2s no s c a b i l i c y . " " It

now becomes evident i rha t for Gregory i~mkraoi.; means " i n d i v i d u a l "

and is opposed to species. In che human and d i v i n e cases,

bado~ao~s can also be r e n d e r e d a s " p e r s o n . "

To clarify the issue even f u r ~ h e r , Gregory 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 ~ d circumscribes 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 Gregory speaks

of "circumscription" (aep~ypabfi) ir, he case of a i~-rroomo~.;, h e o n l y

speaks o f " d e s c r i p t i o n " ( imypad i ) in t h e e a s e o f oiuia. ': I n

- - 'Ad P e t r u m 3. - - "Ad Petrum 3 .

- - "Ad Petrum 3 .

Gregory etymologizes word " h y p o - s t a s i s . "

8 . "Stability" here using

renders the Greek o-rao~s. "stasis," the second part of t h e

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 on a rather theoretical

level: the case of Job . ' ; ' The s tcry of 2cb irL Scripture scarts

r n general cerms describing w h a ~ Job has in common with other

humans; more precisely, the biblical a u ~ h o r writ25 "human"

. . indicating a particular human by adding he word "chis" ;~ i . ; ) . I *

The Septuagint text which Gregory has in mind reads:

There was once this human ( " A L J ~ ~ W I T ~ ~ T L S ) i n the 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 im 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, and 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 Schonborn , "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 rhousand sheep, ~tci. 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 nxure) of Job, he would n o t

have referred to the charact2ristics j u s c mentioned because ~ h e

subscance is th2 same for bcch Job and his friends Eliphas t h e

Themmite, 3a ldad c h a Sauhi~e, a n d S c p h a r the Yinsean: H s r e

Gregory makes a distinction between che species "human" and some

of i t s individuals (Job, E l i ~ h a s , galdad, Sophar) . Also the

description .sf :he p e r s c n bir t jo~ao~g' x m e d Job sKggests that this

person is individualizsd by put~ing together 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~s i 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

s .

an individual as a collection of properties: After giving t h e

"Ad Petrum 3. 26-30; cf. Job 2 : 1 1 .

?id Petrum 6. 4-6: r j v mv6popjv TGV i6iwpa:wv. Cf. Gregory of Naz ianzus , a. 3 3, 16 : pia $uois i v ~ p i a i v i6ioqoiv. Cf . Drecoll, Entwicklunq, 3 1 7 .

'-See Plotinus, Enn. ' J I . 3.8.20, VI. 3.15.27 and Porphyry, I saq . 7 , 21. See my discussion of t h i s issue in C h a p t e r Two.

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 co understand the three

divine persons.'- Gregory seems t o be aware t h a t P l c c i n u s and

Porphyry 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 an 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

he passes from a sensible r o an in~elligible suksrance such as

Gcd, h e warns t h a t " i c i s s f no a v a i l r o p r e s s upon a s p i r i ~ u a l

t h i n g a definirely prescribed conception, b3cause we art s u r e

t h a t i t [ 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 be 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 robab l y found unacceptable. 3ut he

does no t p r e t s n d L O p r o v i d e a n e x p l a n a f i o n sf hcv sne s imu id

understand che div~ne n a t u r e and ~ h 2 t h r e e p e r s o n s i n pe r f ec t

agreement w i t h a philoscphiial view. Fie zlslms L O p r o v i d e h i s

r e a d e r s with "an 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 che v e r y r r u t h cf t k rnaxe r . " I shall present his

view of divine persons next.

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 Fsrsons i n Ad Perrum s ~ a r t s a t

3 . 3 4 . It i s this l o n g a n d b e a u t i f u l passage ( 3 . 3 4 - 4 . 9 3 ) t h a t I

s h a l l examine next. 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 che t h r e e persons 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 by s p a c e , life-giving. - >Jo d i v i n e person can be

said co 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 " descr ibes the subsmnce, ~ i n d t h e r e a r e no

degr32s 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 sccr re l ian influence. - Here

Gregory a p p l i e s , by way of a n a l o g y , L O the d i v i n e p e r s o n s che

a rgument 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 rgumenc 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 no 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 c the three perscns ir? d i - n n e , then a s has

to accept that none of t h e m i s m G r e d i v i n e , o r less d i v i n e , t h a n

the ocher rwo. 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~a or yvdptopa~a hroo-iaorws) b y which t h e n o t i o n ( ivvota) o f

? . ' -Ad Petrum 3.38-46 and 4. 45-46. . .

'-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 Nyssa.

e a c h p e r s o n o f the Trinity is conspicuously and sharply marked

off from what is commcn. The i n v e s t i g a t i o n begins i n che realm

of divine economy, :hat is, God's r e l a c i c n LO ~ h e wor ld , or, t o

be more specific, God's relation to humans. 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 LO each s n s individually ; u s t a s the Spirit

chooses." Gregory parapnrases chis verse: "Every good thing c h a t

corncs t o u s f r o m che power d i v i n e we s a y i s the working of the

g r a c e which works a l l chings i n a l l . I t . G r e g o r y ' s selection of 1

C c r 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 L O

make, because t h e w h o l e of 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 and the

way i n which each human h a s LO make use cf :hese gifts f o r he

common good of t h e Chr& x n x h 1 s :he 3cdy s f Christ . 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). The s p i r i t u a l gifts P a u l refers t o in

this chap t e r are t h e following: utterance of 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 tongues , interpretation of tongues .

Ail of t h e s e come from the Spirit alone. Or do t h e y ? Gregory

notices an apparent contradiction in S c r i p t u r e :

- - "Ad P e t r u m 4. 2-4.

If we ask whether from ( i ~ ) che t io ly 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 n ~ by the Holy Scripture chat all things came into bting throuuh (S ta ) him (cf. J n L 3 ) a n d in him 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 , 2s sczn a s we ar? lifted up L O 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 by the d i v - x e l y - i r i s p i r e d ~ u i d a r ~ c e and t a u q h t chat throush i S~d ) this pcwer [i.e., rhe Ocly-

7 7 b e g o t c m ] E L L z h i n g s a r e c rcuqn t InEc being from n o t - b e i n g ; n o t , kcwever, even f r o m ,€{I :kis power vithout 3 beginning; nay, there is a power x h i s n ? x ~ ~ t s wichou~ 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 . " ' -

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 through the Son. The cause of t h e Spirit's b e i n g (TO

~ b a ~ ) is the Father, assures u s Gregory. Indeed, t h e

characteristic no tes of the S p i r i t ' s p e r s o n a r e t o be 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, and rro proceed ( i ~ ~ o p ~ ~ e t v ) from t h e

F a t h e r , t h a t i s , t o have his subsistence ! i l&.cr~ava~! from t h e

Father? From t h e Spirit ~ h e e 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 o d 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 the 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 earlic, 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 im a r e h e l d t o g e t h e r .

He now s p e a k s abou t t h e Son's own way of b e i n g . T h u s , i n a c c o r d

with t h e Bible and t h e Nicaenum, i i e S c n shines forth a s he

o n l y u n i q u e l y g e n e r a t e d " f r c m t h e u r i g e n e r a t m liqhr. T h i s i s

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 ~ Yoly Spiric: :he Scn i s ~ h e o n l y b e g o t t e n

of t h e three. Unlike ~ h 2 Son 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 subsis tence from no o t h e r

cause. u: ' Each of :he t h r e e marks ( u n g e n e r a ~ e d , Degotwn and

proceeding 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 Basi l , Gregory 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 " s o n s h i p " ( v i o q ~ ) io

express the peculiarities ( ~ ~ L O ~ T E S ) of the first two divine

persons. " Instead, Gregory prefers ayel)vqoiu. y€vvrpis and € K T T O ~ E V O L ~

- . 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

only-begotten. The l a t c e r ridiculed the orthodox by saying that

t h e Son and che 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. Consequently, in respect to .-he

peculiarities ( ~ & L ~ ) ~ T E s ; of 'cn2 divine perssns, Grsgory abandons

philosophical speculation and adheres :o biblical revelaiion.

If one adds L C each divine persor . ~ i ~ a ~ o x c ~ i ~ ) o t h e r

propercies, besides the ones chat uniquely aharacterize each of

ihem, one describes each divine persar i as 3 nniaze collection - f

propercies. F c r example, - - c h e Cacher czr. be descr ibed 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 . s v o 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 ?errurn 4. 19 -37 . See

also Drecd1, Entwickluno, 3 1 3 .

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 r t 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 che 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 e F a t h e r , and h e i s known

after t h e Son and w i t h the Son. 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 e d and 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 , c h e r e l a t l o n o f these p e r s o n s

t o t h e common n a c u r ? i s s i m i l a r L O t h e relation b e t w e e n t h e

i n d i v i d u a l and c h e u n i v e r s a l 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 pn i - zsccc :~ ; 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 C h a p t e r T w o , a r e 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 i z r i s i n p new is, " W x causes 1 5 . t F a r h e r , 3cn

a n d kloly S p i r i t L O b e divine p e r s o n s and n o t mere ' a o l l t c t i o n s of

p r o p e r t i e s ' ? " T h e a n s w e r t o t h i s q u e s t i o n i s d i f f i c u l t ,

e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e one c z n n c c s p e a k s f t h e soul i n c h e case o f r he

d i v i n e p e r s c n s , a s I did in Chapcer Two vhcn i e a l i n g with t h i s

i s sue i n t h e human case. 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 ~ e n 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 by 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, and a11 o t h e r s o f t h e same o r d e r , rhe r? i s no v a r i a t i ~ n i 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 and ~ninc?rrupted ccmmunion i s o b s e r v e d i n them ;:wa cnvqj ~ a i u6~aoaao~o~) ~ouuwial~ €1) au~o i ) . '

That G r e g o r y i n t e n d s co speak 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 firsr; indicaied b y t h e

referents t3 cne rhree p e r s o n s and n o t rro the common n a t u r e .

Second, 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 na tu re , 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 . T h i r d , i f

Gregory 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

L,q~ey. " n a t ~ r ? " h a v e b e e n 3 n m e r x z l a c c c r i c s c . a nour. IR ~ h s

s i n g u l a r ) and its o b j e c t . I n t h i s c a s e , che cext shculd have

read: " t h c r e i s no v a r i a t i o n i n che 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 t e x t a c t u a l l y reads: " - .,. communion is observ2d in

them." 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

n a t u r e .

Another argument in favor

- - -Ad Pe t ru rn 4. 45-50.

communion r a t h e r t h a n t o t h e

of Gregory's discussing the

c o r m u n i o n o f divine p2rsorLs i s tc b f found in the use of the t e rn

~otvwvia i t s e l f . I n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r work , Gregory uses two c e r m s

t o express the idea o f something c h a t i s common: K O L V O ~ S a n d

~otvwvia. Yet, whereas the forrier term is used in reference to

s u b s t a n c e o r n a c u r s ( see 2.7,13; 3 . 9 ; 4 . 3 9 , 8 6 ; 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 . 3 3 , 4 9 , 8 4 . T h e r e f o r e , 1 propose c o r e n d e r ~ o t v 6 q s b y

"cornmunit y , 'I a n d ~ o w w i a by "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 of ersons. "

Gregory then describes che strong relxions 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 he divine

p e r s o n s . He s a y s t h a t , by 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 persons , 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 "there is no i ~ t t r v a l ( r ) i 1 d € ~ i &taAc\ELppa~~) between

. . F a ~ h c r and Son and 2zly S p i r l ; in x r x n c h f c h o q h ~ will w a l k in

a void."" ' A l t h o u g h d i s t i n c t , t h e d i v i n e persons a r e n o t

separated from each other. M o r e o v e r , i h e y imp ly 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

cne end of a c h a i n p u l l s a l o n g with i t t h e other end a l s o t o

oneself. Gregory wants to make his arguments s o u ~ d as 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 rom God [ c h f ath her]" ( R c m 8 : 4) . . . he who draws 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 bo th 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 im on two s i d e s , on the one where 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 where 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 Fa the r v i r t u a l l y accepcs 3 1 x q w i t h h im 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

f o u n d i n t h o f c l l o w i n g :

[ 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 a ) and 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 becw~en their p e r s o n s !i~aooxioewv) disinteqracinq che concinuicy 0 5 t h e i r n a c u r e , n o r chis zommuni~y of u b s ~ a r . c e ~ K ~ T U ; i l i)ocaia~j

. . KOLL~~)TT(TOS) c o n f o u n d i n g ~ 5 2 i n d i n d u a l 5aracter o f t h e i r d i s t i n g u i s h i n g n o t e s . . . . [Wje dev ise 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 the F a t h e r , Son and 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

p e r s o n s . In o c h e r words , in a d d i t i o r . c; t h e c t h e r properties

a l r e a d y m e n t i o n e d , 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 L 70 n~p~ilya. ~ a i E K xi' &oil. Note t h e c l e a r l y non-filioquist nuance .

"PS 1 1 8 : I 3 3 LXX 1 : TO mopa pou jvo~ea ~ a i ~ i X ~ u o a avcSpa. OTL as ~ v ~ o ~ ~ \ d ~ ~ o ~ ~ r r c r r o ~ o ~ ~ v ( P s 119:131). Deferrari 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 rom P s . 1 1 9 ( p . 2 1 1 ) .

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 knowledge o f e a c h other,

per fec 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 ea r rnen t of divine

r e l a t i o n a l i t y , I s h a l i p u r s u e c h i s c o p i c i n C h a p t e r F i v e . T h e

d - i ~ l e d y n a m i c s of i n c e r - p e r s o n a i cornmumon w i l l become e v i d e n t a t

~ h c t p o i n t .

C o n c l u s i o n s

Having p r e s e n t e d and a n a l y z c d Cregory o f X y s s a ' s Ad Pecrum

fratrern de 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 co 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 persons 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 as 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 , and 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

faccor 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 conrras t to

a widespread, misinformed o p i n i o n of cne ~ w e ~ t i e t h c e n t u r y , the

Cappadocians d i d not state a p r i o r i t y o f the pe r sons over t h e

substance, bu t kept the two m q e c h e r in w ~ r s h i p i n g Sod as F a r h e r ,

Son and H o l y Spirit, as in aasil's &. 2 3 5 , 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 c o n s i d e r

the three rreatises mentioned in ths c h a p t e r cicle because of

some simiiar arguments pr3senc in them. Fcr txampl?, one such

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 is one

. . 9 . because each d i v i n e 3ct:vxy i s o n e , omng c o m o n to all ~ h r e e

divine p e r s o n s . Anocher p r 3 v a l m t i rqxrne . : is ~ ? . e sllegsd

etymological derivation of "God" ( 0 ~ 0 s ) and "Godheadr ' (&(j~qs) from

t h e ve rb " t c b e h o l d " ( 8 c u o p u ~ : ir? he sense of p r v i d e n t i a l

~ v s r s i g h ; ; a e c o r 5 i - q l y , llSc,j" 2zd t ' C c ~ h ~ . ' I J G U ~ ~ ~ ~ X ~ T ? S S ihrt

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 nature. Modern

s c h o l a r s have f o u n d such arguments unconvincing, b u t Gregory was

c o n f i d e n t i h a t , by 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 he 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 race 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

The 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 Eusca 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 by some m a n u s c r i p t s ,

has been j u s c i y restored t o Gregory of Nyssa b y i ~ s e d i c o r i n the

GNO 3 . 1 , F. M u l l e r . Gerhard May daced 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 of C o n s m n c i n o p l e of 381. - D a n i G l o u i r ; i c i a l l y

da ted Ad Eustat. LO 389, because h e surmizcd c h a t a passage on

Balaain ( 9 , 18-13) was inspired by 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 389-333 s r Lac5r . ' B u t s e v e r a l years later

h e changed h i s m i n d a n d proposed t h e y w r 3 7 5 for c h e compos i t ion

o f t h i s s m a l l treatise.' I n the i a c t e r case DaniPLou chought

" 3 9 -References z z th2 G r e e k wst WE, ce :G Ad E u s ~ a t h i u r n de 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 L 3 , p a r t 1, 2d . 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 Holv S~irit. T o Euscachius , 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 - 330; 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 have n o t relied entirely on it.

-G. May, "Die Chronologie," 57 f. The same p o s i t i o n is 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), 7 1 7 .

'J. Danie lou , review 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 Eus ta th ius o f Sebasce who arcacked Bas i l , Gregory

and Meletius i n 3?5 and a g a m s t whom Basil wrote Gz S o i r i ~ \ ~

Sancto. May concluded 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

suppor te rs o f E u s t a t h i u s ef S e b a s t e , buc chat hey a t racked

Gregory d u r i n g h i s stay I n % b a s t 2 ir. 3 6 0 . S u s : a ~ h i x s was

himseif d e a d b y 3 6 0 , and Gregory's brocher 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 divini~y of rh? k b l y Spirit -- me 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 co 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 Gregory of Nyssa: 1) he

distinguishes the hypostases (70 6 t a ~ p ~ i v TU.; h a ~ a o e ~ s ) w h m t a l k i n g

about God, y e t 2 ) he does 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, but 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 those 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 v ) in t h e d i v i n e

'Hanson, Search, 716 f.

"Ad E u s t a t . 6 , 11; cf. a l s o 5, 18.

134

n a t u r e . " - "For i t i s n o t c o be supposed t h a c those uho s a y ~ h a ~

t he re are three s u b s ~ a n c e s do not a l s o s a y chat t h e r e a r e three

h y p o s t a s e s ( T ~ E ~ S b 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 Grego ry ' 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 Son 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 .-he other

hand Macedonians, w h o deny t h a t che Holy Spiric is of he same

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 aga ins : rhe s s s m d accusaticn, by

s h o w i n g that i t is n o t biblical t o u s e i n t h e p l u r a l names

r e f e r r i n g t o G o d ' s u n i q u e substance. Tht riame "God" indicates

t h e s u b s c a n c s ; t he re fo re i t c a n n o t be p r o p e r l y u s d in the

p l u r a l . T h o s e who do use such n a m e s i n t h e p l u r a l a r e

p o l y t h e i s t s . 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

- 1 u s e s an argument ~ h a c is present in 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 ad 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 s h a i l d e a l

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.

A t t h i s p o i n t , 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

by examin ing 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 - 15 : oil yap E ~ K O S ion T O L ~ T P E ~ S M Y O V T ~ S oCuias ~ a i rpe is navms imoo~aoe~s M y e ~ v .

In Ad E u s i r a t . Gregory uses t h e term h r o a ~ a a ~ ~ s 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 , D U E it

s h o u l d be transliierated a s " h y p o s t a s i s " [and u n d e r s t o o d as a

synonym of o iu ia ) i n ihe cwo o c h e r cases f o r the reasons I have

lndlcated a b o v e . Then i laoo~acr~~ occurs 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 (13 , 1 3 and 1 5 ) . T h e c o n t e x t f o r 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 ince i t i s said "the anqe l s see ;he face ( r l i i r p6owr ro~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 v ) of 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 ; ; and c h c inprim o f :be persor , sf z h ? Faci..er i,i16€ ~ a p a ~ f i p q ~ ~ o i ~ ; r a r p c j ~ i ~ ~ ~ o o ; u o ~ ~ ~ ) L S t h e _7~ .1y -5e -c~+n -jL , 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 by ihe Holy Spirit. Nhat ?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 shows 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 , "

c o m b i n i n g t h e m t o support h i s a r g u m e n t . Ai che same r

' ~ i v e out of n i n e m a n u s c r i p t s u s e d to establish critical t e x t read "wrought by t h e F a t h e r a n d the Son" 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 reasons. He may be wrong at this p o i n t .

ime,

the (Ad

" ~ d Eustat. 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 "persm. " - - A similar stratsgy used to

advance h i s argumenc i a n be found i n A d Petrum 9 , as 1 show in

Chapter Three- In his works w r i t t e n a f t e r 365, Bas i l o f Caesarea

no longer allowed for t h e use o f lipoowrrov ar.d i r r6a~ao i~ a s

synonymous, because i n his view ripoawrrov was compromised by

Sabeiiius wnen m e l a r t s r used i~ w i ~ h r h e meaning of "mask." A s

s e e n here, Gregory of Nyssa dces nor snare in h i s brother's oarti

p r i s , b u t continues t c use the cuo terms interchangeably.

2 . To Ablabium, On Not T h r e e Gods

As for the dates of To Ablabi~m, On Nor T h r s e Gods (Ad Ablzbium

h e r e a f t e r ) '- and To the G r e e k s , Based on the Common Nocions (Ad

Graecos hereafter) Yay agrces with Gan ie lou in placing chem

- . - coward the end of Z n q s r y 2 5 Yyssds XI?. May r e j e c i s the

. . --See 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~s in 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 Gregory of Nyssa, On " N o t Three Gods . I 1 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.

proposal for the year 381 voiced by some scholars. He argues that

these trsatises m a k e nc rnencicn of c h e iaportan~ dispu~es caking

place t h a ~ very year. These i r e a z i s e s remind Y a y of Grego ry cf

. , Nazianzus' &. 202, written i n 387:' D a n i e l o u dates A d Ablabium

and Ad Graecos to about 388. In his opinion, "chey correspond L O

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. " : : 3cck ?la!; and Daniklou may

be right in dating Ad A b l a b i u n XI a round 387-38, espcially

since in A d Ablabiurn 37 , 8 t he re is 2 reference LO Gregory's old

age. Their o p i n i o n has recently been confirmed by Stead.:'

In this treacise Ablabius, a frisnd who does noc know how to

unders~and c h e formuia " o m substance, ~ h r e e hypostases,"

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 the 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 ) : 515

" 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

g o d s a l s o ? I n o c h e r words, i f i t is logical to refer t o humans,

who are more izhan cn? , b y the p l u r a l number o f th2 came d e r i v e d

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 case?

To begin w i t h , G r e g o r y replies i z h a ~ LO speak sf "many

humans" ~ T I O M O ~ U L @ ~ 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 by rhe name o f his n a c u r e , but b y t h a t which

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 c f rom trn? c o r n u n i t y

. - ~ K O L V ~ ~ S ) a f th .2 came, "as ic wcclii hsppen :r 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

a d d r e s s s d . "Human n a c u r e " ( dv0pLm~qd img) is common t o all

human i n d i v i d u a l s and che word "human" ! a d p w r r o ~ ! signifies iiiis

n a t u r e . C o n s q u e n t ly, :c say "aar!y h..umansM is rough 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 is errcneous:

T h e r e f o r e , G r e g o r y p ropcses c h a t w e correct our w r o n e o u s habit

of 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 which 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 iew w e c a n n o t zefer to a n i n d i v i d u a l b y he name of i t s

species or t o a s p e c i e s by 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. When referring t o a human i n d i v i d u a l ,

-'Ad Ablab ium 4 0 , 10-14.

. - - A d Ablab iu rn 40, 5 ff.

139

A r i s t o t l e h i m s e l f says "this human" or "a certair! human" is

avOpwrro~, C a t . 2 a 1 5 ) , not simply "human , " and Gregory s a y s " s u c h

a n d s u c h human" ( ~ o t o a k av8pwrro~, A d Sraacos 23-30 3 .

Nevertheless, Gregory h a s t o recognize that cornmon l a n g u a g e

emplsys the p h r a s e "many humans" a n d s o does cne S c r i p m r e .

Hence 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 this

n o harm r e s u l t s f rom 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 use cf the term is noL acceptable in the

case of the divine n a t u r s , - - . - 1 , 3 r l r s c sf ai,, the n a o i c 3 f calling

"many" t h a t which i s one 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, 0 I s r a e l , t h e Lord y o u r

God is one Lcrd" ( D e u i 6:4). C r q c r y insisis t h a t Cod is one,

although, Y h e name sf godhead 2x tends ' h r c u g h ~ i e Y o l y

T r i n i t y . " - -

Second, he proposes LO a n a l y z e mcre c l o s 2 l y :he m e a n i n g cf

the word " g o d h e a d " in o r d e r L O obtai. addirional help i n p r o v i n g

h i s p o i n t . A long argument beginn ing a c 42, 1 3 a t t e m p t s t o

a f f i r m c h a t n o t even the word " g o d h e a d " (or d i v i n e n a t u r e , tkoqs)

. - -'Ad A b l a b i u m 4 1 , 1 8 ff. . - -'Ad A b l a b i u r n 42, 1-3.

- - -'This Septuagint text differs quice dramatically from the

Hebrew t e x t w h i c h reads: "Hear, 0 I s r a e l , the L o r d is our Lord, t h e L o r d a l o n e . "

-. --Ad Ablabium 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 ] S is the name of a n a c t i v i c y ( o r m e r g y , € ~ j i p y t m ) .'- Gregory

draws upor! t h e alleged derivation o f & O ~ S from 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 fe r s t o t h e i ~ ~ i ~ i r y of o v e r s i g h t , a s does Beds

i t s e l f . " Yec a n y activity o r i e n t e d f rom God t o he c r e a t i o n i s

common co 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, has its s r i g i n f r o m t h e F a t h e r , and 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. 8 1 - ; 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 Fa the r i s s a i d y o s e e : " B e h o l d o u r s h i e l d , 0

7 I God" (Ps 8 3 : 10 ir. c h ? LXK; 3 4 : Y \ ; :?is Scr. ZISC sees z k h idden

~ h o u g h t s of 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 says t o Ananias, "Why had S a t a n filled

y o u r h e a r t , L O lie ts :he H o l y 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 and r e v e a l e d hem t o

Peter. - -

Unlike 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 Cappadccians , 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 subs i ance ] " ( ~ a m p i auqv , Ad Abiabium 43, 14).

- "See A d E u s t a t . 14, 6 for a similar remark.

" ~ d Ablabium 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, i s t h a t no s i n g l e

human activity i s common LO a l l humans. Even i f s e v e r a l humans

a r e engaged 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

h i m s e l f a t t h e t a s k h e has u n d e r t a k e n . " F o r i n s t a n c e , s u p p o s i n g

t h e c a s e of 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 , be ing o n e , h a s the

same name in the numerous cases : 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 ~ s m 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 . " - " T h e r ? f o r e , g n l i k e God, humans a r e

p r o p e r l y c a l l e d "many. "

The f a c t t h a t every d i v ~ n e a c t i - i ~ y maniftst2d ad extra is

common co he t h r e e d i v i n e persons i s a sufficient r e a s o n in

G r e g o r y ' s v iew 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 hat i s a i f f e r e n t from che way in x h i c h he human n a c u r e i s

cne. T h e r e f o r e , i n he divine case 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 ,

hcwever , 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 a quiz? e s t z n s i v e i y C r e g c r y l s

argument r e g a r d i n g the u n i t y of n a t u r e and the " p r o p e r " use o f

names d e r i v e d from na ture . 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 when 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 p o i n t ,

however, I s h o u l d say , 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

Gregory 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 be e n u m e r a c s d .

2.1 The eoncem of enumeracion of individuals

The prob lem 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 problem sonfrcncing a l l ihe C a p p a d o c i a n s :

how co c o n c e i v e o f God a s ? r s t a z c x d l n ~ cc persons and m e

a c c o r d i n g to s u b s t a n c 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 <an be enumerated.

After s p e a k i n g o f "Luke" a n d " S t e p h e n , " Gregory wri tes : " t h e

n o t i o n o f p e r s o n s admits o f :ha 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 , and when t h e y a r e

combined i s p r e s e n t e d t o us by 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 nor increase a t t a c h e s co a n y n a t u r e ,

- - - S t e a d , "Why Not T h r e e Gods?, " 149 .

when i~ is concernplated in a larger or srnallzr number. For it is only those things which are conternplaced in their individual circumscrip~ion (KUT' i6iav i rq~ypa$fp! which are enumerated by way of addition (KUTU o i w 8 ~ o u j a p ~ e p ~ i ~ a ~ ) . Now 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]. Tha t which is not thus circumscribed is not znumeratzd, acd t h a t which i s not enumeratzd cannot be contemplsred in mult i r u d e ( i j 6i p i i r cpcypube~a~ o i f ~ upc0peira~. ~b 6 i 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 enumerab le .

N e v e r t h e l e s s , thz examplss 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 p e r s o n s . The d i v i ~ e persons are n o i material, although

. . they are c ixurnsc r ibx i . As scs?., t h e y a r e 3 l s o x u m e r a b l e .

Gregory does n o t e x p l a i n ic here, b u t elsewhere he distinguishes

d i v i n e persons from o n e a n o t h e r by t h e i r r~laticns of 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~ed passage.

"Ad Ablabiurn 53, 7-15; NPNF 2 . 5 : 3 3 5 .

"Ad Ablabium

-. '-See Gregory of Nysss, Ad Petrun 3 . 10-12: hroo.;ac~~s is

" t h e concept which, by means of t h e specific notes which 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 che i n d i v i d u a l a s a "circumscription"

(mpiypab~) formed by some properties reminds us of zhe Placonic

defini~ion of an individual as a collec~ion of prsperties.

Origen too, as Michel Barnes noted,'- used che 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 of Gad's Word, whizh-

- u n i i i e che human word inkrent in our minds--possesses substance

(i!a60~acris) . " IkptypaQi i n this case can perhaps be rendered by

"individuality," as Heine 322s 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& b y rneans of t h e

concept of enumeration. 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" but of

"much gold. " Yet, r e dc s p e a k sf many "goid ~ieces" or "gold

coins," or "sta~ers," wichcut finding any multiplication of the

'-Kichel R . Sarnes, "The Background a n d Use of Zunorn ius f Causal Language" in .J.rianism After Arius: E s s a v s on the Develoornent of the Four~h C s n t : i r v Trinitarian Conflicts, eds.

. - - . Michel R. Barnes and D a n i e l 3 . b l ~ ~ ~ a r n s ; E d i n b u r g h : T&T Clark, l 9 9 3 ) , 220 n. 10. Cf. also M. Earnest "Auvapis a n d the Anti- Monistic 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, 19891, 94) .

. , n a t u r e of gold b y t h e number of staters;'. b u t a f t e r m a k i n g t h i s

s t a t e m e n t , h e emends i t by 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] ' . " " S i m i l a r l y ,

c o n ~ i n u e s G r e g o r y , one can 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 y sf th? n a c u r e s , cur tne numbered items, whatever t h e i r

n a t u r e is , remain x h a t c h e y are , w k t h e r c h e y ar? numbered o r

n o t . The number i s a s i g n t o make i t known how many things

a r e . " ' - Basil of C a e s a r f a a l s o uses ~ b e c o n c e p c of 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 person a t :his t ime! , ' - b u t

h e i n s i s t s t h a t t h e d i v i n e h y p o s t a s e s h a v e L O be " e n u m e r a t e d

p i o u s l y " (d1oepGs a p ~ e p ~ i ~ l ) not naitrially and acids :ha t d i v i n i c i i i s

a b o v e n u m b e r . "

" ~ d Ablabium 53, 16 ff.

. - "Ad A b l a b i u m 53, 2 5 - 5 4 , 1.

"Ad . 4b lab ium 54, 2 f.

. - ' Gregory o f Nyssa, I , 201-201.

"See h i s EJ. 210, 5 . 31-36 ( C o u r t o ~ f i e 2 4 . 16-22 ( C o u r t o n n e 2 : 205-6 ) . For the m e a n i n g these letters, see my " P r o s d o o n a n d Hvoostasis C a e s a r e a ' s A o a i n s t Eunomius and the E p i s t l e s , " C h r i s t l a n a e 5 1 , n o . 4 ( ? 9 g 7 ) : 389-394 .

:195-6), Q. o f imkr~acs~g in Basil of V i a i l i a e

%e S ~ i r i t u Sancto 1 8 , 4 4 . 1-23 (ed. P r u c h e , 4 0 2 - 4 , SC 17 b i s ) . 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 (Nap les : Dehon iane , 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 prove t h a t t h e r e a r e not three gods. I

am i n t - x e s t e d 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 e concepc of 2 n u m ~ r a t i c n

of i n d i v i d u a l s by 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

added t o t h e m t i o n of persons: more exacc l l ~ . , persons a r s

enumerab 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 che concept of 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 lose ly connccced ~c c h e dis~inct ion of !y;postas~s. '

2.2 Causal differences amona the divine cerscns

Soms of 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.:, t h e r e f c r e ,

would a l l e g e d l y l ead to a confusion cf perscns. To chese

calumniators (au~obult.rct~) Gregory answers cha: 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 respect of

cause and hat whish is caused inj~l h'a-a rb a k w ~ a i ai-iia~iw

8~aboopav) ." He d i s t i n g u i s h e s t h e person who is "the cause" (TO

a i n o v ) , i . e . , the F a t h e r , f r o m the p e r s o n who is "from t h e cause"

( € K ~ o i r a i ~ i o u ) o r "directly f rorn the first" (rrpooexws €K ~ o i r aph+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 de l l e i p o s t a s i , " 3 4 7 n . 3 0 .

Ad Ablabium 55, 24 f f .

i.e., the Son, and from that who is "by t h a t vhich i s directly

Spirit." "The mediation cf c h e Scn p r s s e r v e s h i s be ing che

o n l y - b e g o t t e n a n d does noc s s w r ihe Spirit's r e l a t i c n by way of

nature co c h e F a t h e r . ""' T h e s e c ausa 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 of

x q m . T h e y Chus h e l p Grego ry co distinguish rhe psrsons f r o m

each other.

This c o n c e p c i o n , hcwver, must n o t be identified w i r h the

w e s t e r n since the F a t h e r and the Son nor form one

p r i n c i p l e ; t h e p r o p e r m u s s 2 5 the S p i r i ~ is 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 have

proved to be i n t e r p o l a r i o n s . ' In scating t h a t t h e S p i r i t comes

from he F a c h s r ihrough :he Son, C r q o r y and h i s brother Bas i l

%d Ablabiurn 5 6 , 3-5. Xo te 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 n i 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 is r n i s ~ a k e n l y s a i d to be "by that which is from the first Cause" ( p . 3 3 6 ) . G r e g o r y d i d n o t speak h e r s of the "first" and "second cause ," but of t h e F a t h e r a s mere ly " 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 of t h e o t h e r two persons .

'"Ad Ablabium

4" - S e e K . H o l l , Pm~hilochius von Ikon ium, 215 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 ~hrough the Word,

including the Xoly Spiric.

Gregory i h e n prcceeds w i d L h i s causa l argument and says

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 distinc~ 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 language is relecional linguags expressing

relations of o r i g i n .

. a - . . To sum up, dlrrerenc2s imcng :he d r v x ?

indicated by nausa? languag?. Cznsequencly,

the divine persons by means of this language

the concept of divine persons.

psrscns a r e also

the description of

should be added to

'-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 and t h e R e l a t i o n s h i p of Human and Divine in Christ," Studia ~ a t r i s t i c a 24 (1993), 264. For a discussion o f t h e phrase "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 of t h e s e c t i o n d e a l i n g w i t h &i

Ilblabiurn, May and Dan i e lou c o n s i d e r e d A d Graecos ~o be a late

work by Gregory, p robab ly 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 of Ad Graecos , recently argued c h a t this tract

u a s written shortiy after cne C o u n c ~ l of C o n s i a n ~ i n o p l e which

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 great

C o u n c i l i n ~ n e I r a n xas due is :he Cunornians' r m u n c i a c i o n o f

the Councii which had explici~ly condemned chsm in its f i r s t

c a n o n . "Gregory's argumen: vculd hay:? cs be lingulscic and

metaphys ica l , rather than e c c l e s i c l c q i c a l and d o c ~ r i ~ a i r ? , i f i t

were t o convince 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 of . h i s work i n Muller's s r i ~ i c a l e 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

T 4 t h - - do not say ' c h r e e g c d s t . ., L,,C ~ e e k s , S ~ s e d or. ;omon

n o t i o n s . I n A d Graecos, Gregory wants to p r o v e t h a t , even i f

' -Danie l F. Strarnara, j r , "Intrcduccion" tc Gregory o f Nyssa, "Ad Graecos : How i t Is t h a t He S a y There Are Three Pe r sons i n t h e Divinity b u t Do Not Say c h a r There Are Three Gods" (TO the Greeks: Concerning t h e Commonality o f C o n c e p t s ) , " t r . Dan ie l F. St ramara , jr, The Greek Orthodox T h e o l o a i c a l Review 4 1 , no. 4 (1996): 3 7 7 .

'~tramara, " I n t r o d u c t i o n , " 3 7 8 .

- - "References t o t h e Greek c e x t w i l l be t o A d Graecos (ex

cornmunibus n o t i o n i b u s ; i n Greaorii Nysseni Oaera , vol. 3 , p a r t 1, ed. F r i e d r i c h M i i l l e r (Le iden : B r i l l , 1958), 17-34. ET of t h e passages quoted i s m i n e . A long-overdue E n g l i s h t r a n s l a t i o n o f

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 on t h e "common n o t i o n s " a n d

n o t o n r e v e l a t i o n , one canncc i n f e r t ha : rhere a r e t h r e e g c d s

f rom 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 ~ a i i w o 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 d s c i n i s c s . " Basil

o f C a e s a r e a , t c o , i n a p o l e m i c a l concexz a g a i n s t Euncrnius s a y s

t h a c t h e ~ o i v a ~ irtvoia~ 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 a i P ~ v o i a ~ ) was widespread

i n ancienc philcsopkg and xas u s x i cc ?stablish 3 g r c u n d of

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 3s 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 Say T h e r e I r e T h r 2 e Persons 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 Gods" (To t h e Greeks: C o n c e r n i n g the Ccm~snalicy sf 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 terns such as : u18pwms. i m i o ~ a c ~ ~ s , ihap(~s, oiuia . Here are some examples: 1) T h t Greek u~8pwrrog i s an inclusive word which i u s u a l l y translate a s "human"; Strarnara prefers 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 in 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 humans" ) b e c a u s e a~~epwrros s t a n d s f o r 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 m y v i e w ; 3 ) S t r a m a r a t r a n s l a t e s brrdo~aols. ikapcis. and 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 y b 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, " and " 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 1 y .

- 1 1 2 . 8 iSC 299:212). ~ z f . Hanson, S e a r c h , 680 f. - - ' -See Robert B. Todd, "The S t o i c Common N o t i o n s : A Re-

E 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 Os loenses 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 of 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 Concep t s ( T h e G r e e k

m i x t u r e of logic and ontolcgy, -Ad Zraecos 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 co " t k Greeks," i.e.,

perhaps concemporaries who were crained in Greek philosophy arid

tculd nor accepc rhac God is ~riun?, ue s h o u l . 3 ncc be rerrifisd

about che ianguage of genus and species cr substance and

accidents used or h i r x e d ac throughout chis work.

The s ~ y l s of this c r e x i s e is : i r curn lccucory and racher

difficult io fcllow. 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:;; o t n e r w i s t , when speaking sf t h r e e

, - - - . persons, we s h o u l d n2crssarl.q a r x m 2 x 2 2 gods. ' Then, he

says that, when speaking of God, we say " F a c h e r and 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

1 I. to rrhe " [commcniy accepcsdi r .ocicn" ( K a r W L J ~ L U P ~ , che cmjunction

"and" ( ~ a i ) binds different realities, not one and the same

reality.

Most of ;he ~ i m e Gregory 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.

- 9

"Ad Graecos . 19,l-7.

synonymous ly 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 former r e r m occurs s i x y t i m e s , t h e

l a t e r occurs o n l y t h i r ~ y - s i x rimes. To 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

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 ~ m j oljaia) , and

" p a r t i c i i l a r s u b s t a n c e " (i6ihy o h i a i . Gregory t r ies io be r x h e r

~ a r e f u i i n h i s use of rhe latter terms, since one could i n f e r

t h a t God's o ida i s d i v i d e d among irhs d i v i n e p e r s o n s . T h n

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 of 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 of 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 , Gregory 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 lmost immediately after sca r r ing : k c :he s:bsranse s h o u l d n o t be

d i v i d e d among ;he p e r s o n s , 5 2 speaks s f " p a r t i a l " sr " p a r t i c u l a r

s u b s t a n c e s . " His only excuse p o s s i b l y i s t h a t h e does so 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 ies his s c a i e m e n t s .

The 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 and a a r n a b a s three p a r t i a l s ubs t ances (oi~oias p e p ~ ~ a s ) ( i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h i s means 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 more 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 pe r so r? ( ~ T O ~ O L J . 6 ~ r q GOT( i ipdoui~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 ses 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 no t , when using these

phrases, Gregory h a s i n mind .!ristotle's " p r i m a r y substance."

" ~ d G r a e c o s 23 , 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

e x p r e s s i o n s . " 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 eazh ing cf che c x 3 g c r i t s . " I s h a l l r e t u r n

id Yoqt's s m t e m e n ~ i a c e r . 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 co b e a n amalgam of :he A r i s t c t e l i a n " p r i m a r y s u b s t a n c e "

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 hence 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

Ablabium t h a t we c a n n o t s p e a k of "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 which

i s e r r o n e o u s . - 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

means 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

species o r t o a species by t h e name of i t s g e n u s a l o n e . I t i s

- - .. - --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 , 1 8 2 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 Nyssa ," tr. and corn. Herman J . 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 (1991) : 209 n , 1 6 .

- A

"Die Schrift Ex cornmunibus n o t i c n i b u s , " 2 0 4 n . 1.

- - "'Ad Ablabium 40, 5 ff.

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 . Y e t , he recognizes

t h a t peop le 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 of s p e a k i n g " h a b i t u a l l y " ( 6 i a c s u v j 0 ~ ~ a v ) ' " w h i c h

S c r i p t u r e Eses by c o n d e s c e n s i c r n icnlylca~dpaoi~~) '- and anorrher, more

accura te m a n n e r z o r r 2 s p o n d i ~ ~ cc r k e n a r u r e of 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 " (€c uvay~aiwv U ~ T L ~ V ,

? 3 , 2 2 - 2 3 ) , 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 . The - same causes a r s noc c r2sen i in z?.? 2 o l y "WE!;. 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 number 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 be t h e casz w i t h t h e Holy

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,

1 5 - 2 5 ) ; 2 ) humans h a v e 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 ,

w h e r e a s he T r i n i t y has c n l y o n e c r i g i n , t!-.e p e r s o n o f God t h e

F a t h e r ( 2 4 , 2 6 - 2 5 , - ! ) . i n Ad Abiabium, G r e g o r y adds one more

cause: 3 ) w e s p e a k of "many o r a t a r s " because e a c h a f c k m works

" ~ d Graecos 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 e des rapoor ts e n t r e le lanqaqe et l a c o n n a i s s a n c e de Dieu ( P a r i s : ~ t u d e s a 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

cla ims that G r e g o r y menZions one mcre such cause: I ) that, more

generally, only spatial and i nace r i a l things are numbered: '

N e v e r t h e l e s s , a s I showed earlier when creating chis i s s u e in .4d

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 psrscns 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 zase and acknowledge c h a t Gregory has

become confused because of LOO 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 " because t h e y are

unconvincing and 30 not add ncch zs zP.e discussisn of che

p e r s o n s , I s h a l l now return cs 512 logical expianation af the

difference b e t w e e n s u b s t a n c e and 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

transliterate h o o ~ a a i ~

persons. In what follows, I will simply

as "hypostasis" for reasons that will

. .

"-Stead, "Why Not T h r e e Gods? , "

- - ''Cf. Ad Ablabiurn 47, li f f .

" S t e a d , "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 ~ h and 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 and 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 proper to that designation, to which "such and such" is applied ( a p o o ~ i e e ~ a ~ ) . Thus we say - ,hat a human is "such and such" an animal, having in mind to dis~inguish him from a horse, fcr example -- a ho rse w h i z h has i?. comrncn w i ~ h h i m the ?.am? of animal, by which is differen~iaced from him v i i h regard to r a t i o n a l i t y - i r r a c i o r : a I i t h . . Something is disringuished from something else either by subscance or by 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 by both substance and hypostasis. '- '

He then explicates each of 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 loyos) ; "horse" 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 O E 1 i n c o n t r a d i s t i n c t i o n t o "dog" which is

c h a r a c t e r i z e d by b a r k i n g ( i h r ~ ~ i ) ~ ) o r whatever other q u a l i t y one

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 mentioned belong t o t h e substances oer se. The same canno t

be s a i d o f p e r s o n s , a s we w i l l see immediately: t h e i r

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s do DOC belonq 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 , " Gregory 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 be added t o t h e common i e rm " 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 . Peter c r

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 , h e i g h t ,

f a the rhood , so~ship, and t h e l i k e , " - and c h e y "constiiute the

h y p o s t a s i s no t t h e s u b s c a m e " ~i~~~rda-ao~i~~uioi~~oi~oiu~~ou~~io;.di~i" o f

Pe t3 r o r P a u l . 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 term " a c c i d e n t s "

( o u p ~ c ~ q ~ o r r s , A d Graecos 31,201 i n reference 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 under s tood 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 " such and 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 Graecos 30,lO-11. . . ""Ad Graecos 3 O r 2 O - 2 3 .

G A ~ Graecos 30, 23 .

Gregory himself says nexc, buc reconfirmed only a f ew 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 idos ) and individual

( a r o p o v ) 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 : rad ic ts

th2 previous assertion c h a ~ "hyposcasis" is a sort of new species

co which "such and such" can be added t o obca in 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 rey e y e s , a father,

a son and the like, whereas ~ h e t 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 che Holy Spirit as merely "such and

such God" cr "God and God and God," since he o r s h e is supposed

' 3 ~ d Graecos 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 and i t s

i n d i v i d u a l s . - 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 Trini~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.

Neverrheless, b e f o r e t h e t r i u m p h a l end there is Ad Graecos

. . 31, 1 6 - 1 0 , a passaqe hard co incerprec. ' Here G r e g o r y asser ts

beyond 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 ~ s i s a species f o r

rrp6owrrov, t h u s c o n f i r m i n g what 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? it cacses w.2 is t h i n k c h a t

v n o o ~ a o ~ ~ i s a s t u a l i y synonymous w i ~ h oiloia, after G r e g o r y h i m s e l f

has assured he reader t h a t imooraois i s i n f a cc ~ h e i n d i v i d u a l .

I t car, a l s o mean thac b~i6o~aois is a subspecies of 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 , then 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 s and

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

p e r h a p s u n l i k e l y . 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 " such 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 ( n p o o m a ) f rom o n e

-. - A d 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 Nyssa

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 rosBpon 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 ) : 728-738 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 of Gregory of Nyssa , " 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 41 , n o . 4 ( 1 9 9 6 ) : 375-391.

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 of h y p o s t a s i s , and ~ h u s d i f f e r from one another nor in p e c u l i a r i t i e s p r o p e r 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-cal led 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 sf logic is not unavoidable when Gregory ~ r i e s

t o speak of t h s T r i n i t y i n r h e same way i n which he speaks of

humans and other crea ted b e i n g s . Acccrding t o Voqc, Ad Graecos

31, 16-20 night suggesc the id23 ~ h a c the concept o f

can be u s e d i n r e g a r d t o che F a t h e r , the Son and t h e H o l y

Spirit . In other words, Vogt i~cirnacas that 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 , rhe Scn, and

the Holy Spirit c a n n o t be i n d i v i d u a l s under 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 noc support such a c h a r conclusion.

. . Another German seholz, Aircjm n a n m e r a t x d t , au tho 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 sugges ted i h a t h e d i d n o t

- - 'H. 3. Voqt , "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 , "Hypostas is (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 m s as 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 15 ff and

which l e a d s him ta che stazement contained in th? passage under

investiga~ion (p. 31, lines i l f f ) . In Harnrnerstaedt's v i e w , the

error conslscs ln an indiscriminate use of rhe d e m o n s c r a c i v e

adjective " s u c h and such" \ ~ o i b a S ~ ) wirh both concrace qualifying

Lerrns such as "animal" and abstract q u a l i f y i n g terms such a s

"genus, " " o u s i a , " or "hyposcasis. " Accordingly, if you say "such

. .. a n i m a l , " ycu p o i n c ~s "hunac" s r " t s r se , " bui ir ycu say "such

ouaia" you p o ~ x co o ~ h e r othia~, r.oc ~s spscies subsuned under the

same ouaia ( u ~ ' a u r ~ v ~ a ~ ' o i ~ ~ i a v , p. 31, l i n e ? 5 ) , a s Gregory

s u g g e s t s .

In considering c h e passages in question, Stead h i rnse i f

notices c h a c che discussion in Ad Graeccs "zakes 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

s p e c i e s . Ye a r g u e s :hat a r c h i s ccint one would expect Gregory

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

' s u c h - a n d - s u c h ' t o a word d e n o c i n g a s p e c i e s , so 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 , ' P a u l is a grey-eyed

m a n ' . " Then Stead jastly remarks:

- .. Stead, "Why Not Three Gcds?, "

162

B u t t h i s i s n o t wha t G r e g c r y 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 be long 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 ac tachea 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 , bur 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 main c o n t e n t i o n

of A d G r a e c o s i s t h a c ~ s n of ~ n e :hres iiT-' line p e r s o n s can be

referred 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 "three g o d s , " since 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 . The

f i r s t p a r t o f h i s d e m o n s t r a t i o n i s c o r r x t . 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 zhac 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 ic 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 and T h e i r P o s s i b l e P h i l o s o p h i c a l S o u r c e s

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 n w r i t i n g , E u s t a t h i u s of

Anticch's A o a i n s t P h o t i n u s , a s i C can s h e d more l i g h t s n Gregory

of N y s s a f s A d G r a e c o s . G i v e n t h e striking s imi l a r i t i e s b e t w e e n

t h e s e two w o r k s , Rudolf Lorenz a r g u e d a few y e a r s apo t h a c Ad - .

Graecos was h e a v i l y i n f l u e n c e d b y Acra ins t P h o t i n u s . ' E u s t a t h i u s

- - 'Stead, "Why Not T h r e e Gods? , " 155.

- - aRudolf Lorenz, "Die E u s r a ~ h i u s von 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 pa rc a t the

Council of Nicaea 1 3 2 5 ) . ' His w r i ~ i n g Psainst 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 agains~ 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 che 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 Pecer of Callinizus, Monophysice

patriarch of Antioch from 581 L C 591. He w r o t e it in Syriac

against his co-religicnist Pope Darnian DF 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 n e 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 . Cross , ed., The Oxford Diccionarv o f t h e Christian Church, 3d od. by Elizabeth Livingstone (Oxford: Oxford University Press, EW), 576.

"petri Callinicensis Patriarchae Antiocheni Tractatvs contra Damianvm, Books 11 and 111, eds. Rifaat Y. Ebied, Albert

thus f a r r e p r o d u c e s pp. 267-268 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 rom S u s t a t b . i u s o f

A n t i o c h . D r . 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 y how

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 by

E u s t a t h i u s . 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 a s

q u o t e d by Pece r o f C a l l i n i c u s :

M u r i n u s 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 li w e were s i m p l y s a y i n g 'God and God acd Sod', t hey 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 ~ ' zh ree Cads' ; t u t s e e i n g :hat i c i s t r u e and a p p c s i t e i h i i t w e s h o u l d call cne Father ' G o d ' , t h e Son '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 by 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 nacu re ! 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 Shos~'s k i n s h i p , p r c p e r c y and n a t u r a l m u t u a l 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 of 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 which is i n t h e n a t u r e ( a s l a u g h t e r i n man, and b a r k i n g i n d o g ) 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 na tu r e s 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' because we do n o t s a y ' t h r e e n a t u r e s ' . Bur i f w e c a l l each of the prosdpa o f t h e d i v i n e n a t u r e ' G o d ' , because i t be longs t o t h e nature, it 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 'God ' 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

van 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 . 29 , 32, and 35 ( T o r n h o u t : Brepols, 1 9 9 4 , 1996, 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 (Leuven: 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 because i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t o f the o n e nature. The p r o s d o o n t o o is c a p a b l e cf b e i n g c a l l ed b y t h i s t i t l e , because it 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 n i s o n e t h i n g b u t n a t u r e a n o c h e r . I f , t h e n , 'God' belonged t o p r o s a o o n , by 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 prosdoa 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 n a t u r e , i t f o l l o w s t h a c i f w e s a y ' o n e n a c u r e ' w e a l s o s a y chere i s o n l y one God. - -

zcmparison be~wesn c h i s a n d which

discussed e a r l i e r i n c h i s c h a p t e r , makes one recognize ~ 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 and God and God," 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 , and 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 has ~ i e i e l i n g

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 ' s C a t e q o r i e s . 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

r a t i o n a l i i y , 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,

hc rse and 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 spec 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 (Isaq. 8,17; 11,20; Ad Graecos

3 0 , 7 - 1 0 ) ; 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 se , w h i l e

snub-nosedness (in P o r p h y r y ) o r baldness (in Gregory) 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, Book 4 0 . I wish to

e x p r e s s my 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, and barking in dog.

It is inportam zc nore ~ h a c S r q o r y ~ s s s more 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

appears in Pcrphyry and Gregcry b u r no: i n E u s c a t h i u s ;

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 che same cime,

ic s h o u l d be 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 . 1 used the

T h e s a u r u s Linauae Graecae." I ran a search for the pair

"rational-neighing, " that is X O ~ L K - near ) ( ~ F ~ ? - L ~ T L K - within four

7 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 ) , 64 -65 .

"Thesaurus i i n q u a e Graecae CD-Rom, v e r s i o n D (Irvine, CA: University of California, 1995).

lines of each other throughout the whole corpus con~ained on 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~le is the pair "human-horse" (dv9purr-

inn) (sometimes along with "dog" or "god") within four lines of

each other (e.g., Met. 1016~25, 1018b5, 1C20a3G, lC23b30, 1058~1-

1058b15; Nic. Erh. 111635 c z nznci~n anly a f2x rel2y;ant

passages), b u t never accompanied by the pair "rational-neighing."

As a matter of fact, ;YPE~ETLOTLK- n2ver occurs 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,

namely 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 have used the pair "rationai-

- - neighing" are the rsilcwing: .Aisxander sf A@--xmiisias, Sexcus

Empiricus, Clement of Aiexandria, and ?sseudo-PLutarch. The f i r s t

three were contemporaneocs ( 2 n d - 3 r d centuries C E ) , whereas the

last one, if he is co 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 of 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 . No neigher is . . r a t i o n a l . "

Clement of Alexandria, in addrsssinq the r e s t r a in 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 capab le 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 of n e i g h i n g , he s h o u l d n o i neigh on ?very sccasion; as rational animals w e shouid gov3rn oursslves with measurs , harmoniously rdaxinq c h e a u s t e r i ~ y and over-tension of our serious pursuits .-'

of 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 can 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 be 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 hcrss w e c o n c e i v e canno t b2 but unique, but there is an infinite number of horses c~nsidered m 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 st 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 mine*

. - 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 ask 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 buc tocks on a neighing mortal animal, leading a barking quadruped animal?'--wouldn't h e be mocked for cascing such a familiar subject into obscurity because of his definiticns? A s far as rhess consideratiors g o , then, we should say chat definitions are useless."

However, in a footnote to this passage from Sextus' Outlines of

Sce~ticism the English translamrs mentior! that the exam~le which

Sextus has i?. mind is from 4.r. m a - y n c u s zcmrnencxy on 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 lc 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, ed . Jurgen Mau, vol.

5.2.1 (Leipzig: Teubner, E7l), 077b1-8 . ET mine. . . "Greek text in Sextus Empiricus, Pvrrhoniae hvpotv~oses

2 . 2 1 , v o l . 1 of Sexti Emoirici ooera, ed. 3 . Mutschrnann (Leipzig: Teubner, 1912). ET in Sextus Ernpiricus, Outlines of Scepticism, tr. J. Annas and J. Barnes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 125.

c reek text in Anon, In Plat. Theaet., e d s . H. Diels and W. Schubart, Berliner Klassikertexte 2 (Berlin, 1905). ET and

almost a s far back as Aris~scle who, as we saw, dues noc 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 ss 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 texcbocks sf

philosophy. . n . e t i n s 1 ?laci-a o! -Gasoohc run 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 were intermediary f o r these

ideas. A: ihe same time, I would n o t exc lude t k hypothesis that

the Cappadocians--Gregory of Nyssa in par~icular--might have 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 accessible.

Furthermore, is today, many reade rs most likely would never read

the major work after reading the introduction to it.

reprint of the Greek text in Long & Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers 1.99 and 2.102.

AGAINST EUNOMFUS AND THE REFUTATION 3F 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 and t h e R e f u t a t i o n of 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 b u l k of t h e

c h a p t e r d e a l s wi th 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 Gregory ' s

t h e o l o g y o f 3 x i i e and homecoming w i t h s p e c i a l a t t e n c i c n m

Gregory ' s view of d i v i n e freedom, and :he i ssue o f g e n d e r

l anguage i n re fe rence 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 .s i~oloal; for ar. .4pcloav , o r Secznd A~cloav) . I n

this work 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

ra i sed by Basil of Caesareats Aaainst Eunomius (u!, which i n

turn was a response to E u n o m i u s ' First P.~o louv . U n f o r t u n a t e l y ,

Bas i l h i m s e l f was too ill to a n s w e r this second w r i t i n g by

Eunornius. A f t e r B a s i l ' s d e a t h O R 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 Nyssa . Gregory composed his

-For a n account 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 Con t rove r sv 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 (G h e r e a f t e r ) , i n this way p r e v e n t i n g

Eunomius from h a v i n g t h e f i n a l s a y . L a t e r , Eunomius w r o t e a

C o n f e s s i o n of F a i t h w h i c h was p r e s e r v e d by Grego ry . T h i s was

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 v a r i o u s p a r t i e s i n t h e

Church cal led by Emperor Theodosius i n 383 as a l a s t s f f c r t KO

a c h i e v e u n i t y . - G r e g o r y r e s p o n d e d t o t h e l a t t e r a s 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 of Zunornius

( R e f 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

i n he c a s e of other Gregor i an works cver che c o m p o s i t i o n d a t e s

of Gregory o f Nyssa's A u a i n s t Eunomius and che Refutation of 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 be tween t h e summer o f 380 and t h e s p r i n g of 3 8 1 , and ,

f o l l o w i n g Diekamp, ' da tes CE 111 between 381 and 3 8 3 . ; As f o r

the Ref , Jan .,-an Sarys ~ h i r . k s that i: sccu~ias a special p l a c e

in the ensemble of Gregory's anci-Eunomian p o l e m i c s . It is n o t

o n l y c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y t h e l a s 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.

T. Diekamp, " 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 Eunomian i s chen 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 -13 and 190- 1 9 4 .

'May, " C h r o n o i o g i e , " 57, 60. ( S e a r c h , 717 -18 )

Hanson agrees t o t h e s e da t e s

'Jan van P a r y s , G r e s o i r e d e Nvsse , R e f u t a t i o n de l a Profession de f o i drEunome, 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 Pa r i s -So rbonne , 1 9 6 8 ) , v o l . 1, 1 7 0 .

Eunomius (writ ten 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' ~rinicariaz ind christological heresies. Van Parys

thinks that the convocation a r Cons~antinopie 3f 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 Re f . to 383 a n d bei ieves t h a t ir i s

possible Ce deitate ?ilii 2t Soiritus Sancti was written for :he

council ~f 383. '

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 Son is eternally generated b y the Father and

even that h e i s of 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. Prax . hereafter) 9-10 Tertullian

%anson, Search, 7 1 8 .

1 7 4

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 pe r sons . T e r t u l l i a n says c h a c t h e v e r y names " f a c h e r " and

"son" prove 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 by 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 one i n order t o be what he i s . O n e can

n e v e r be a son t o o n e s e l f , ?or car! one ever be one's own f a r h e r .

A n o t h e r e x a r n p l z of r e l a t i o n i n r h e same chap te r 13 of h i s Adv.

Prax . i s c h a t o f h u s b a n d and 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 my ease a h a c h a ~ w h m c u r Lord ussd ch i s w o r d 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 Paraclece , he s i g n i f i e d L-

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 ( d i s o o s i r i o n e m ) : f o r h e s ays , I w i l l p r a y the F a t h e r and h e w i l l send you another (alium) a d v o c a t e , t h e Spirit of 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 word r e l a t i o , b u t disoosi~io and he

phrase a u i e x alcerutro f i u n t ( t h o s e whose ex i s t ence depends o n

e a c h o t h e r ! .

I n a r e c e n t b o c k , . Widdicombe gives a c o m p r e h e n s i v e

t r ea tment 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 Evans ( L o n d o n : SPCK, 1 9 4 8 ) , 140 f.

'Peter Widdicombe, The Fa therhood o f God f rom 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 ) .

A l e x a n d r i a , c o n s i d e r i n g a l s o D i o n y s i u s o f A l e x a n d r i a , Me thod iu s

of Olympus, A l e x a n d e r o f A l e x a n d r i a and 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

p r e s e n t d i v i n e r e l a c i o n s when he cried c o compare the G r e e k and

A u g u s t i n i a n v i e w s . C h e v a l i e r ' s treatrnenc i s less 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 , i n addiiion c c A r i u s

and A t h a n a s i u s , covers a n u m b e r a f z u c h r s nor ~ : ~ : a r n i n x i b 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 , and Didyrnus c h e B l i n d . ' S i n c e

i t i s v e r y likely that Gregory sf Nyssa 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 ews 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

o r d e r .

'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 e a 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 ) , esp. 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 , " Grsaor ianurn 14 ( 1 9 3 3 ) : 269 -272 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 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 s u z e y ec 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 of 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 a n d 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), 59-90. C f . a l s o David L . B a l d s , ~ T Z I A OEOT: M a n ' s P a r t i c i o a t i o n i n C o d ' s P e r f e c t i o n s Accord inq t o S a i n t Greqorv of Nvssa (Rome: n . p . , 1 9 6 6 3 , 11 ff. ; Hube r t M e r k i , 'Ofioiwo~c 8r6. Von den 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 vcn 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 Greaor von Nvssa . U n t s r s u c h u n q e n zum Urspruno 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), 1 4 4 f f .

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 ncc a lways be a F i t h e r . - - In

DP 1.2.10, h e also says t h a t "one c a n n o t be a father a p a r t f rom -

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 rgumen 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 ~ S TI, - - b u t h e a l s o d r aws a t t e n t i o n c o t h e

p a r a l l e l be tween 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 quotes 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 ths movement f rom :he i n o w l s a g 2 of God a s

. . 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 and t k S c n vith z h a c g f G o d ' s

0 1

L o r d

, g o o d n e s 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

i s paramount i n O r i g e n ' s t h o u g h t . 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 of t h e images 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 by 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.

. - - -Cat . - 7b15, Met . 5 . 1 5 .

. - -'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 -'E.g., 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 ~ o v ~ b a t na~ ipa TOIO~TOU uiot.

p r e s e n c e of t h e Son who i s Wisdom (m 1.4.4 a n d I V . 4 . 1 ; Corn. J n .

1.9.55); knowledge a n d l o v e of 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

of 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 Fa thzr (Corn. J n . XX. 1 1 . 2 8 a n d 2 9 ) ."

T h e s e images a r e de r ived f r o m S c r i p c u e .

D i o n y s i u s o f A l e x a n d r i a ' s w r i c l n g s a l s s p r o v i d e e v i d e n c e f o r

t h e a r g u m e n t f rom c o r r e l a t i v i t y , b u t h i s l a n g u a g e , a s r e p o r t e d b y

A t h a n a s i u s , seems t o b e more 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 im: "when t h e r e i s a p a r e n t ,

there i s a l s o a c h i l d . " - ' E v e r s ince t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h e Arian

c o n t r o v e r s y , 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 meaies . Bishop .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 . 3201 , - - A r i u s wrcte:

For 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 have 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 (ra npds TL) , 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 , 90 ff a n d Rowan Wi l l i ams , A r i u s :

Heresv a n d T r a d i t i o n (London : D a r t o n , Longman & Todd, 1987!, 1 3 9 ff ,

- ' A t h a n a s i u s o f A l e x a n d r i a , De S e n t . D i o n v s i i 1 5 , Opitz 57.14-16.

. - - For 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 . Arnou , " A r i u s e t l a d o c t r i n e de relations t r i n i t a i r e s , " Greaorianurn 1 4 ( 1 9 3 3 ) : 269-272 .

'"or the chronology, see Williams, Arius, 58-9 .

. - p r i n c i p l e of a l l t h i n g s , God thus i s before all t h i n g s . - '

T o A r i u s ' l e t t e r , A l e x a n d e r o f A l e x a n d r i a r e p l i e d wich a

l e t t e r known a s fi biXap~os ( ca . 3 2 1 / 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

a rgument 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 of t h e SAP, A? ~ C C A I J P - ~ cf whnm h e is ~ a 1 1 ' d Farher . . . . T o s a y t h a c he brightness of 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 m p t i ! 7r.s 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

4 ,

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 . -'

I n a l e t t e r t o E u s e b i u s o f Nicornedia 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

t e a c h i n g &our the z o r r e l a ~ i v i ~ y o f Facher and Son thus: "God

e t a r n a l , Son e t e r n a l , F a t h e r a n d Son a l w a y s ~ o g e t h e r " ( u ~ i &bs ari

. . uids, spa m n j p upa vi& . - - 5or-h A r n o u - L and Widdimmbe ' n o t i c e c h a t

some terms (apa. o w a i ~ a ~ p c i ) used by bcch A r i u s and .J.lexander are

r e m i n i s c e n t of 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": " R e l a t i v e s seem rr:, be s i m u l t a n e c u s (apu1 by n a t u r e

. - -'Opitz, Urkunden 6.13, 10-13; ET i n P . Widdicombe,

F a t h e r h o o d , 1 4 3 .

. - W r k u n d e n 1 4 . 2 4 . 3 - 6 . ET i n Widdicombe, Fatherhood, 132

f f .

- - - - U r k u n d e n , 1 . 2 . 1 - 2 , ET i n Widdicombe, Fatherhood, 133 .

. . --Arnou, " R e l a t i o n s t r i n i t a i r e s , " 270

- - - 'Widdicombe, F a t h e r h o o d , 1 3 1 f f . - I

- - P r e s e n t e d i n C h a p t e r Two .

179

and i n most cases this 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 ~ i ) . " Widdicornbe, however, a d d s that

Alexander 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 of ch?

e t e r n a l generation of t h e Son imperils the et~rnity o f God's

f a t h e r h o o d . " L i k e O r i g e n , Alexander employs 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 s 2 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 d w i t h t h e Son) w i t h t h e Father-"; the 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 and Eusebius of Caesarsa re ject c h e argument from

c o r r s i a t i v i t y . A s W i l l i a m s nocic2d, "A~ius t 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 do 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

says 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 as r 'acher 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

a rguments 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 Alexandr i a t h e f a c t c h a t the F a t h e r and

F a t h e r h o o d ,

. - - Urkunden, 1 4 . 2 4 . 3 - 6 ; Widdicorribe, Fatherhood, 133;

Wi l l i ams , A r i u s , 1%. - .

-'Rowan W i l l i a m s , "The Logic of 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 n i 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 . ' - - 4 t h a n a s i u s '

i s p e r h a p s b e s t e x p r e s s e d by che fo r rnu ia oil^ dci a a ~ i p . o u ~ a ~ i v i 6 ~ . -

( [ i f ] no e c e r n a l F a t h e r , no 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 n o f r h e a r g u m e n t

f rom relations i n the l a n g u a g e of a posc-P le thodi in c o n c e p t i o n of

God and 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 sets of

c c r r e l a t i v e s a g a i n s t A r i u s : 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 and c r i g i n a c e , o n ~ h 2 3 ~ k r ?.and.

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 t h i n g s , s o a l s o ' F a t h e r ' i s i n d i c a t i v e o f t h e Son. The one who names 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 che 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 Son."

- - ",See Urkunden 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 Aeqvpti 1 2 ( P G 2 5 : 5648) . hpud Widdicombe, F a t h e r h o o d , 160 .

- . ' - W i l l i a m s , A r i u s , 104.

- - '-De decretis 6 ; 9 p i t z 5 .23-24 . See Widdicombe,

F a t h e r h o o d , 163 f- - .

"Widdicombe, F a t h e r h o o d , 167.

';PG 263808. ET i n Widdicombe, F a t h e r h o o d , 1 6 7 .

N e v e r t h e l e s s , A t h a n a s i u s d i s t i n g u i s h e s b e t w e e n t h e c o r r e i a t i v i ~ y

of 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 ~ y of

f a r h e r and s o n o n the o t h e r : the f o r m e r be longs t o the r e a l m of

- - w i l l , the l a t t e r t o t h e realm of 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 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 ~ r r e s o 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 , s t a t i n g c h a t i n man,

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 " ! ~ - t . ~ p i w ~ ) e 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 , w h e r e a s i n che

q o d h e a d a l o n e "che r ' a ~ h e r i s p r o p e r l y (mpiw.;) f a t h e r and :he S o n

p r o p e r l y ( m p i w g s o n , and i n t h e m a n d them m l y , i s i~ c h e case

. - 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 and ihe S o n z lways S o n . "' God

is "eternally Father, and he z h a r a c r e r zf 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 im, l e s t h e be 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 of 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 o f S c d ' s g o o d n e s s . ' ' 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 26 :56C .

7 - ' C o n t r a A r i a n o s 1.21: ?G 26:57A.

- . " C o n t r a Ar ianos 1.28; PG 26:72A. . - " C o n t r a Ar ianos 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 by Eusebius o f Caesarea men t ioned 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 leasure" ( ~ i l S o ~ i a ) i n the Son whom he

has generated "by n a t u r e " ' : ; t h e F a t h e r and the Son 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 Eunorn ius 3 a s i l s a x i o n ~ d a q a i n s t c h e ass of the

name "ungeneraced" y o S a x u s e Eunsrnius a1 l eged 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 have a generat2d substance, and

accordingly should differ from God. Briefly, t h e Son is not God

I .

'-In Contra 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: "This is c h e Son i n whom I am pleased" (PG 2 6 : 4 6 1 8 ) .

" C o n t r a Arianos I . 20 ; 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, 129- 140). Nevertheless, some of Chevalier's quotations f rom 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 , he 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~mi iabu~) . Ths rarne " F a ~ h e r " has

the same power a s " u n g e n ? r a x d , " < o n t e n d s B a s i l , " f o r t h e o n e who

i s t r u l y F a t h e r a n d o n l y [ F a t h e r ] i s f rom 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 son b e c a u s e o f :he r e l a t i o n

, >

( S t a f i ~ c q i a ~ w . ; ) . " Eunomixs w i l l p i c k u p en t h i s synonymy and try

L O t u r n i t on 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

d e m o n s c r a t e .

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 ~ a p i ~ ~ q ~ ~ ~ u y t 1 ~ v ~ : ~ ) ~ i s noc

easy to understand. B a s i l is careful n o t to say 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 same

"Basi l , A o a i n s t Eunomius (a 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 Bas 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 by 8. Sesboug with the c c l l a b o r a t i o n of G.-M. d e Durand and L o u i s D o u t r e l e a u fo 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 299, 305 (Paris: Cerf , 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 ( see my "P rosdoon and 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 , " V i a i l i a e C h r i s t i a n a e 51 , no. 4 (1997): 374 f.)

i5Wrongly translated by 8. Sesboiie 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 299 :177) and S . G . Hall a s " F a t h e r and unbegotten have t h e same meaninq" (CJ 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 hey h a v e t h e "same power ." To

t h i s h e a d d s a n o t h e r q u a l i f i c a t i c n : ~ h e s 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 is t h e a b s o l u t e

F a t h e r , coming f r o m no o t h e r . To s a y t h a t " f a t h e r " a n d

" u n g e n e r a t e d " a r e synonymous i n all c a m s ( i n c l u d i n g t h e human

c a s e ) i s wrong, for two reasons: en ths m e h a n d , all human

f a t h e r s a re generated; on c h e o t h e r h a n d , i t is a s if

"unemployed" a n d "man" ar? s y n o n y n o u s ; ~ s c c 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 one 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 e w h e r e h e

r e k r s t o c h e cwo ce rms 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 , and

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 ch? l a c ~ t r w o u l d

nave f o u n d unacc2ptable: "mrnes w i t h t h e same power 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 U S Coo,

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 o n 2 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 t h a n " u n g e n e r a t e d , " 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 Bas 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 of Nyssa, CE I, 5 52 : ra 6 i q ~ r airjv P x o v ~ a G u v a p r&v 6voparwv ~ a i l ~ o v ~rav- iws ~ a i - ~ ~ U ~ L J E ~ V ~ € Q U K E .

had 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 Eunomius ,

a s w e saw. B a s i l e l a b o r a t ? ~ w h a t he 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 ~ e and

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 w h i c h 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 EO cne

r e a i i c i e s i n regard to which they a r ? s a i d . He e x e m p l i f i e s w i t h

"human" ( 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 , " a n d " f r i e n d " f o r 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 is sbvlous here." B a s i l x t e r n p t s cc 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. T h e r e f o r s , i t

d o e s n o t r2fer 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 d e s i g n a t e d a s " o f f s p r i n g " t o a n o t h e r r e a l i i y . T h e n

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 ths s u b s t a n c 2 , buc a t c n e most to the substratum

( b ~ ~ ~ ~ i p ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ) ) , t h 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 h a v e 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 a re d i v i d e d i n t o A b s o l u t e s , O p p o s i t e s , a n d R e l a t i v e s ( S i m p l i c i u s , 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 of 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 rom 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 of 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 l i t t l e l a t e r , however , B a s i l refers t o r e l a t i o n i n terms as t h e - .

a p o ~ TL n39 e p w and undersrands it 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 of 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" and

" s o n " express o n l y i h 2 relation of 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 co r h e oche r r;he

principle of his b e i n g i n a similar nature; son is the o n e who

h a s received from t h e o t h e r ~hrough g 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 , hcwever , i an 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 . - I f divinity i s common,

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 S i i y a ~ a ) , and 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 sc incu i shes ih2

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 argument r e m i n i s c e n t o f

Oriqen's a io estabiish he coeiernity sf Father and Son: " I i

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 co c h e F a t h e r : [first

b e c a u s e F a t h e r and 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 ' i s

a p p l i e d t o someth ing w h i c h i s t e m p o r a l l y c l o s e r t o t h e p r e s e n t

and , c o n v e r s e l y , [ t h e te rm] ' p r i o r ' t o what i s more remote from

t h e p r e s e n t . " "

2 . Greqorv 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

Nyssen ' 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 im i l a r t o h i s

p r e d e c e s s o r s ' v i ews , a s I shall denonstrate nexc: In C o n t r a

Eunomium I , 155 ff. G r e g o r y d e a l s w i t h an issue against w h i c h t h e

Ar ians f o u g h t b i t t e r l y , namely c a l l i n g God " F a t h e r . " T h e A r i a n s

knew t h a t t h e i r accectancs ef t h e a rqumenc f r o m r e l a c i m s would

"'DSS VI, 14; 98b . Basil of Caesa rea , Sur le S a i n t - Esprit, 26 ed . Benol r Pruche ( P a r i s : Cerf, 1 9 6 8 ) SC 17 b i s , 2 8 8 f . ET mine.

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 Eunomium" I en l a ~ r o 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 de Nisa . 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 Navarra , l988), 19-135. F o r t h e rest cf cE and Ref, I u s e t h e ET provided 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 Rapids, M I : Eerdmans, l892), 101-314 . Both t r a n s l a t i o n s w i l l be 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 of Jaeger.

Perhaps the h a n d i e s t r e f e r e n c i n g format w i l l be t h e fo l lowing : 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 of Contra Eunomiurn and "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 , 57 , where "2" i n d i c a t e s t h e second tome of t h e third book, a n d "57" 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 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 55, 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 de fea 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 s u m m a r i z e s Eunomius r 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 Holy S p i r i t (Plc 28:19) w i t h o t t e r

i r i t les 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 " t h e h i g h e s t

and most a m h e n t i c b e i n g , " i n s t e a d cf " t h e S o n , " o f " 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 of

" 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

them b u t subj3cc [to ~ h s x k r ~ W O ] . I ' I - . ~ ~ k e A t h a n a s i u s and

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 " and " s o n " are c o r r e l a t i v e s

which i m p l y each 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 same 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 hea r :he ~icles

' f a t h e r 1 and ' s o n ' , i ;nmediar=.ly r ~ s n g n i z o f 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~lo j~ 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 i t a b l y

suggested by 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 " son" i n d i c a t e i s a proof f o r the d i v i n i t y of

the Son which Eunomius e n d e a v o r s t o deny .

Eunornius a n d other A r i a n s and 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 "ungenera ted-genera tedrr 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 " (avo( lo~os) 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

and h i s n a t u r e was u n g e n e r a t e d ; since t h e Son ' s n a t u r e was

g e n e r a t s d , his i m p l i e d t h a t the Son was n o c God. I m e n t i o n e d

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 mean ing ' ' 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 word

" f a t h e r " w o u l d s u f f i c i e n t l y express t h e s e n s e o f " u n g e n e r a t e d " i n

God and 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 . A c c o r d i n g t o

Gregory, Eunomius 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 ' a r e t h e

- . :'EuoPP~ia is 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 ,

mean ing " 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 " (see 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 de Nisa," i n Greaor von Nvssa und 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 Kol loqu ium uber G r e a o r v o n Nvssa ( F r e c k e n h o r s t b e i Munster, 1 8 . - 23 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) .

~ ~ ~ ~ i l , I, 5 , 6 3 - 4 5 (516d-517a) quo ted by G r e g o r y a t

CE I, 548; cf. CE I, 558. -

same i n p o w e r , and i f names w i t h the sane power a l s o mean the

. - same 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 rom no 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

means t o be God from no o t h e r , and n o t that h e h a s g e n e r a t e d t h e

S o n . ""- Eunomius 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 a r g u m e n t h e r e . 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 argumenr : 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 arqurnenc 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 ss

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 ( 5 8 8 c - 5 8 9 a ) . Gregory b e g i n s h i s a r g u m e n t

b y s a y i n g t h a t " u n g e n e r a t e d " a n d " f a t h e r " refer t o t h e same

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 TLva6ta~wtav) t h e two words can be 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 :

We 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 of 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 absence

"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 ea r l i e r from Bas i l , AE I , 5 ( S f 6 D - 5 1 7 A ) .

-. O-Apud Gregory o f Nyssa, a I , 5 5 2 .

of a s u p e r i o r a r e i n d i c a t e d by t h i s word, 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 no l o n g e r s i g n i f i e d by 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 ungenera ted . ' : ' One can 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 . ' T h i s ,

however, d o e s n o t imply t h a t w e mus 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 example used to r e f u t e Eunomius, Gregory s ays

t h a t Eunomiusf own father was b o t h a " f a t h e r t v and 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

above examples, Gregory utilizes bcch a b s o l u t e names (sovereign,

human) and 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 of names: "Who d o e s noE know t h a t some nouns a r e

absolute and u n r e l a t e d ( U T ~ O X V T ~ TE K U ~ ~BXETQ), others are used to

e x p r e s s a relation irrpdg n v a o)(iow) ?" " 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.

Gregory exposes h e r m e n e u t i c a l h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of r e l i g i o u s languaqe and t h e

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 complement 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 of 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 ( ~ b npoqri 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 would noc be 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) , 140 -143 . 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 mcre tines

in a l l of his works, ac 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

borh 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 rom

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 can be curn2d i ~ t o r 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 making the supreme nacure permnal 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 "our" (Rev 4 : l l ) , he no longer allows the name

- :~ef - 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 by 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 abba , F a t h e r ! " (Rorn 8 : 1 5 ) ; h e r o ~ h e word is i n d e p e n d e n t of t h e p a r t i c u l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p . But w e a r e a l s o commanded t o c a l l 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 e r e l a t i o n a l m e a n i n g i i ~ E T L ~ aqpaaia) . 3 0 j u s t a s 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 s u p r e m e 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 rom himself a s t h e F i r s t b o r n of 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 , and by 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 passage t h e beginning of a ~heology o f a d o p t i o n :

t h e Son 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 becomes our F a t h e r . One i s rerr- inded of O r i g e n ' s

- 8

theology of a d o p t i o n . ' Bat was 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 sue l a t e r

in this c h a p t 3 r .

c a k e s i s s u e w i t h Eunomius ' 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 rea ture and 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 of the work."" Gregory i s of t h e o p i n i o n t h a t we

-. 'See e s p . O r i g e n , Corn. Jn . X X X I I , C . Cels. 111. 2 8 . 56 ,

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 Widdicombe, F a t h e r h o o d , 93-118.

have t o pay g r e a t e r actention co t h e t i t l e s F a t h e r , S o n , a n d Holy

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 of 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 . F o r , " i f u n d e r s t o o d i n i t s n a t u r a l s e n s e

(bia fis apoobuoGs qpaoiaq) , each of t hese t i t l e s i s for Christians a

canon o f truth and a l a w of piety." ' Then , G r e g o r y e l a b o r a t e s :

Y h e name ' F a r h e r ' is noc u n d e r s t o c d with r e f e r m c e t o icself

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 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 t q 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 kast 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 hese 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

C h r i s t i a n s . At 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 and which we a l s o

e n c o u n t e r e d in Ad Pecrum 4 . 87-88 namely that God, b e c a u s e of t h e

o n e n a t u r e and three p e r s o n s , can be d e s c r i b e d a s "d iv ided

w i t h o u t s e p a r a t i o n a n d 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 of 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 it 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, NPNF 2 .5 :102 . -

- - 'Ref - 6, 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 h a d a S o n . C o n v e r s e l y , t h e

Son h a s a l w a y s had a n e t e r n a l and d i v i n e Father. T h e Son tac i s

immurab le 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 F a t h e r . ' 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 have bee^ implisd; b u t c h a n g e

and 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 Son , "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 L O b e

c o n t e m p l a t e d i n t h a F a t h e r . - ' T h e p r e s e n t t e n s e of c h e verb " L O

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

Son h a s a lways b e e n i n t h t bosom o f ~ h e F 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 Son 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 and 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 ) ,

" p e a c e " ( E p n 2 : 141, " i i f a " and o t h e r similar names.- . -

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 of 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 f 9.

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 , gove rn ing and

s a n c t i f y i n g of all c r e a t i o n . " H e c o n c e i v e s "no gap between

C h r i s t and h i s a n o i n t i n g , be tween t h e k ing 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, be tween truth and t h e

S p i r i t cf truth, between power and 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 che 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 and t h e Spirit i s t h e Son's S p i r i t ,

the Spiri~ 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 abou t r e l a t i o n a l i t y e n a b l e u s t o u n d e r s t a n d

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 wi th 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, Gregory i n t e r p r e t s M t 28:!9, " b a p t i z i n g them in t h e

name sf c h e F a t h e r and of ~ h e Son and ;f the u c l v S p i r i t . " . . He

"'Ref - 11. 'Ref 1 2 .

""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 28 :19 and 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 ivres C o n t r e Eunome de G r e g o i r e de Nysse: t e x t e s s c r i p t u r a i r e s c o n t r o v e r s e s e t e l a b o r a t i o n t h e o l o g i q u e " i n ~ c r i t u r e e 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 Cheve toane (22-26 se~ternbre 19691, ed. M a r g u e r i t e Harl (Leiden: B r i l l , 1971) , 186- 192 .

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 wha 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 . " T h e s e 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 of 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 e of 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 what 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 ~ h r 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 by 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 L O

r_hd Son (np& TOP L ~ O V OXCOW) . " ': H i s c o n c l u s i o n i s t w o f o l d : o n t h e

one hand, 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.

- 'Ref 14 ff. - . - '-Ref 1 6 , NPNF 2 . 5 : LO? : Jav~piw yap 6 3 4 706 ~ a ~ p o s ~ A j a t s 06k-

oiloia~ i o ~ i ~ a p a ~ ~ a ~ i m j , a A X a npos T ~ V u ~ O L ~ OX~(JI.L) C imoqpa i i~~~ . This s h o u l d n o t make u s l a b e l t h e C a p p a d o c i a n 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. S t e a d h i m s e l f c h i n k s c h a t q u e s t i o n s r e i a t e d t o d i s t i n c ~ i o n s between 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 , 164 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 , " and needs n o t h i n a t o

-I - -

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 which 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 " i s c o m p l e t e l y a d e q u a t e t o e x p r e s s t h e d i v i n e n a t u r e . A n o t h e r A r i a n a rgument was t h a t , s ince 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 about 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 of God, b u t a re 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 ) . I n 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 , 1 6 5 n . 1 4 ) .

' : ~ e f - 6, NPNF 2.5:102.

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 . T h i s i s 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

" F a t h e r , I' " Son , " a n d " S p i r i t , " Grego ry d o e s n o t h a v e i n mind non-

s u b s i s t e n t r e l a t i o n s .

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 is s u f f i c i e n t for us Zo come t o r h e knowledge o f the

c r u t h and 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

ha s not considered ir n e c e s s a r y f o r u s r o knew che d i v i n e

s u b s t a n c e . 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 ( ~ 6 OVTWS 61)) , togecher w i t h whom, by t h e

n o t i o n o f r e l a t i o n ( b ta fis OXETLIC~)S i t w o i a ~ ) , che 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 and t r u c h ,

inasmuch 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 is che mos t yerfect w a s h i n g sf p i e c y , and beyond it,

. n o t h i n g d s e i s necessary 51 XI s z l - ; a t i c n .

Like B a s i l and O r i g e n b e f o r e h i m , Grego ry connects t h e idea

of c o r r e l a t i v i t y between t h e F a t h e r and t h e Son w i t h c h a t of

God ' s g o o d n e s s . He says 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

Son i s good . ' ' I f Eunomius and h i s s u p p o r t e r s deny 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 L v3v K U ~ Tlj p ~ y a k i o q n TOG &oir rrp&~ov TO roiou-iou y e v k ~ 0 a ~ na.r€pa. Gregory ' s l a n g u a g e i s h i g h l y s i m i l a r t o Sasil's (u 11, p . 593 A-B q u o t e d by Grego ry a t 111, 6, 56:

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 regory

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 an 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 O TOLOUTOU r rat60s~bai 'rra~ipa) and Origen's ( D e orinci~iis, I . 2 .9 and Comment a rv on Genes is : ~aAov aui-ov dvai rrari.pa TOLOUTOV uio6) .

''E I, 584.

'%ddicombe, Fatherhood, 71 .

'-~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 of

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 up each of 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

not 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 a11 of these 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 a lways F a t h e r

a n d w i t h h i m t h e Son i s a l s o a lways 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. - - -

Another p l a c e w h e r e Gregory compares d i v i n e and human

f a t h e r h o o d i s 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 spoke 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 b y p a s s i c n (f i TE h a i ld80uy) a n d b i t h e :rue relationship to

the begetter i f i ~ p b ~ ~ b ~ y e y e ~ j ~ ) ~ ~ d ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ( j ~ ~ ' ; ) . I n discourses upon

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 because it was

"unssemly a n d c a r n a l , " b u t d i d admit c h 2 l a t t e r s e n s e a s i t b o r e

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, c o n t e n d s

G r 2 g o r y f d i s h o n o r s t h e Son by t h e n o v e l t i e s w h i c h h e t r i e s LO

i n t r o d u c e i n t h e o l o g y . A t t h i s p o i n t Gregory calls B a s i l

"CE - I , 585 .

- - ''G I , 586 ff.

:-Q I, 5 9 3 .

, -. -&-CE - 111, 2 , 161; NPNF 2 . 5 : 1 7 1 .

admiringly "a fcllower of Apostle Paul" and Eunomius derogatorily

"ihe new Stoic and Epicurean," borrowing an image from A c ~ s 1 7 : 2 i

which describes Paul's visit to A c h m s . There, in the Areopagus,

Paul met "Stoics and Epicureans" who, like all t h e Athenians of

chis account, "spent their tim2 in nothing else but either co

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 a i 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 be tween God and humans. Gregory

refers to them in a number of p a s s a g e s in a and Ref when

explaining the divine relationality. I will consider these

places next. John 14:9-10 reads: "9. Jesus said to him [i.e.,

to Philip], Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know

C E - I 2, 164; NPNF 2.5:171.

203

m e , P h i l i p ? 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? 1 0 . 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 re mere human conceptions ( i n ivo ia~ ) , --'

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 no need of 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 knowledge b y a n o m i n a l a p p e l l a t i c n , nor car? t he i n c x p o r s a l r ~ a t u r e s f s u p r a m u n d a n e powers name God by m i t e and tongue. '

T h i s 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 i t s p e a k . T h e 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 and d s e w h e r e . . a r e i r n p c r r a n t f o r h is v i t w o f d i v i n e

r e l a t i o n s . T h e former refers 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 saw, 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 he Holy 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

s e a r c h e s s v e r y t h i n g , w e n he d 2 p t h s of God" ) . B o t h v e r s e s

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 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 two a n d knows them 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 rgumen t a t a 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 ~ ~ S ~ S i n B a s i l of C a e s a r e a t s A a a i n s t Eunomius a n d t h e E p i s t l e s , " V ia i l i a e C h r i s t i a n a e 5 1 ( 1 9 9 7 ) : 3 7 8 .

""CE - 11, 390; N P N F 2.5:289.

- . - --'CE - 11, 216-218, NPNF 2 . 5 : 2 7 2 .

T h i s is 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

Gregory c o n t e n d s t h a t because they are s p i r i t u a l , che d i v i n e

pe r sons 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 about 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 "supra rnundans powers" n e e d t o nams

God "by 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 CE 11, 216-218, a n d

t h i s p a s s a g e i s a l s o v e r y telling. 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 persons c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h e a c h o t h e r . His

a rgumenr c a n be s t lmmarized a s follows, We h u m a n s eomrnunicace

w i t h one 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 of 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 :he h a n d ) , a n d che

other one h 2 a r s s r reads zhlrn. 3. mediiim p i o w ! is necessary,

" f o r v o i c e t o b e p r o d u c e d , " c o n t i n u e s G r e g o r y , " u n l e s s i t t a k e s

c o ~ s i s t e n c e i 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 be 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 the F a t h e r and

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 of

t h e w o r l d . 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 s not exist in

the divine case. Hence, "where separation is not conceived o f ,

che c l o s e s t connection (TO 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 . " ' - N o w by

"connection" he means "what is in all respects inseparable ( & I

m i o i v a ~ w p ~ a ~ o v ) ,'I and in the case of a spiritual n a c u r e connection

does no t mean corporea l connection, b u r "the union a n d b h n d i n g

of spiritual with spiritual ~hrough i d e n t i i r y cf wills."- +

Accordingly, .here is nc d i v e r g s n c f of will between the

F a t h e r and c h e Son . " 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 and t h e w h o k o f ths Father's will:

Therefore, "the Son is himself cne Father's wili" - ' and needs no

words to learn what c h e Father's will is. He 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, 214; N P N F 2 . 5 : 2 7 1 .

- + 7

---CE - 11, 216 ; NPNF 2 . 5 : 2 7 2 : ~ o i r r r a - i p b ~ o ~ o v ~ o ~ ~ ~ q p a i ~ ~ i a u ~ ~ .

-.. C E - I 216 ; NPNF 2 . 5 : 2 7 2 .

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 on 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 ht is t h e cne who s e a r c h e s the deep c h i n g s o f

Sod. Grego ry 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 every~hing,

i n c l u d i n g t h e F a t h e r ' s w i l l , a s perfectly a s t h e Son does .

Somet imes Gregory a s s o c i a t e s Jn i4:LO w i t h Jn 14:9 ( "whc h a s

seen me h a s s e e n the 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 Eunomius 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 Son ,

" f o r whac rnucual r e l a t i c n i s so 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 by the word ' S o n 1 ? " . : - iie t h e n r e p e a t s c h e idea

t h a t t h e two 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 Son 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 ,

The one who i s " i n t h e form of Sod" h a s b e e n formed b y

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

t h e

i m p r i n t

3 . -

- Y E - 111, 2 , 1 4 3 ; NPNF 2.5:168 f.

t h e F a t h e r ' s s u b s t a n c e " (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) of God" means 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 " ( P h i l

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), and

" t n the Father" (Jn l 4 : l @ ) , a n d he "on [whom! c h e F a t h e r sec h i s

s e a l " [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" (2 Car 4: 4 1 a n d "che

b r i g h t n e s s of g l o r y " (Heb 1:3), and a i l o t h e r s imilar 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

chess p h r a s e s a l l o w u s t o gaze i n c o r h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e ~ w e e n c 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, Gregory 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 . ,nz Szr. has 311 t h e a t t r i b u i e s of

t h e F a t h e r (cf. J n l6:15), except f o r being ungenerated. The Son

is 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 h i m . - - I Gregory 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 v iew, 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 E - 111, 2 , 1 4 7 ; NPNF 2 .5 :169 .

"'CE - 111, 2 , 1 4 9 f.; NPNF 2.5 :169.

. . - --'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 compared with him whosz image h e

is - I f : - c Moreover , 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

. . - Greao ry , i n the sense o f Heb 1:3.-- T h e application which

Gregory s u g g e s t s y i e l d s a new image of b i b l i c a l i n s p i r a t i o n of

zhe r e l a t i o n s h i p I have b e e n analyzing: the S o n g l o r i f i e s che

Father and 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 of 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 which 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 whole extent b y means o f t h e b r i g h t n e s s t h a t comes f rom 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 says t h a t a l a r g e number of 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 che res t o f

t h e d i v i n 2 names , 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 wcrds" 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

Gregory , t h a t t h e Son i s n o t created. Therefore, i t follows that

. . --"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 :202.

"'CE - 111, 6 , 64; NPNF 2 . 5 : 2 0 8 .

2 0 5

t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between the Facher and the Son is clearly

distinct from the relationship between God the Father and

c r e a t i o n . 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 dea of t h e e t e r n a l existerxe o f

che rational crea~ion to prove th? e t e r n i t y of God's

fatherhood, "'" although h e does use t h e idea of t h e Son's e ~ s r n a l

existence ro the same end.

"I am i n t h e F a t h e r and t h e F a ~ h e r is 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 y to produce a n o t h e r syllogism q a i n s c E u n o m i u s . W h m

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 empty . 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 by th2 Son; s o , the Son

e x i s t s d . If it was empcy when the Son was not (k o C h . j v ) , and

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 Lha t "he passed 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 la im

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.

3 - - -CE - 111, 8, 42; NPNF 2.5 :226.

210

The R e f u t a t i o n o f Eunomius ' 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 s cf dn 14:10 and 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 1430 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 Son , 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 : "The 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

hcnored" (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? Scn e x c q x ',he F a t h e r , and no one

knows t h e F a t h e r excep t t h e Son" (Mt 11:27). H e i n s i s t s t h a c

t h o s e who accept t h e s e v e r s e s a s genuine s h o u l d accep t t h a t c h e r e

is no h i n t i n them 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 e l se , be tween t h e F a c h e r and c h e Son. . . ' ' T h e

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

equa l g l c r y , s a m e n s s s o f substance, and perfect knowledge of t a c h

by t h e zthe~. A l i t ~ l e l a t e r , G r e g o r y adds ~ n a t the 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 , b u t e a c h h a s t he whole g l o r y o f

d i v i n i t y . - - - 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 by 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 nor name, any 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 .

, - - wxhout 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

p e r s o n s .

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 clear understand of Gregory's concepts of

divine persons. The n e x t two sections a r e corollaries to the

issue of divine relationality.

4. Homecomina vs. Adoption and che 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 .

. - - -' - R e f 4 2 ; NPN F 2 . 5 : 10 7 : is€& h a fig ~ a r a flv 66eav r a u ~ o q m ~ TI)L~

~owwviav q~ +io~wq.

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 Lat te r shows

that Greqory has in mind Jn 3 : 6 b, whers Jesus cells his

disciples that it is only through him that anyone can cone to the

F a t h e r . Jesus is the only rnediat~r between humans and God t h e

F a t h e r . Jn 14:6 b contains a whole iheology of humani~y's return

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 you 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 have 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

F a t h e r " ( J n 1 5 : 1 5 ) . 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 Eunomius t h a t the S o n of God who

r edeemed 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 im , 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 was 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 wha t i s his: "As h e csok d i s e a s e ,

d e a t h , curse, and 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 o f s u c h e v i l s , o u r [de fec 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 . " - ' : G r e g o r y 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 e o 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 S o n 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

F a t h e r h i m s e l f i n h i m s e l f .

I t i s w o r t h n o t i n g h e r e 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 of c o r r e l a t i v e terms " f a t h e r - s o n " t o prove 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 , 5 2 - 5 3 ; NPNF 2 . 5 : 2 2 7 .

. -. - Y E - 111, 8, 54; N P N F 2 . 5 : 2 2 7 .

2 1 4

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 , " l o r d - s l a v e , " t o p r o v e t h a t a

lord and 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

and t h u s h e ~ r i e d r 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 s h a l l t u r n t o t h i s i s s u e

s h c r t l y .

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

between 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 say 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 you r

F a t h e r , t o my Sod and your God. " - ' The 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

p r o c l a i m i n g he transcendence o f th? Lhgenera ied a v e r t h e O n l y -

b e g o t t e n . - " 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

h i m . According t o t h i s verse, after t h e Lcrd's resurrection,

humans a r e b r o u g h t i n t h e c ioses 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 , h a d 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 e des 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 Dieu ( P a r i s : ~tudes a u g u s t i n i e n n e s , 1 9 8 3 ) , 2 4 3 .

. -. -"See Gregory of N a r i a n z u s , a. 2 9 , 1 8 a n d a. 30, 7-8.

215

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

head. He w r o t e :

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$ qpaoias) z m p l o y e d t h e r e i s e x p x s s ? d wha t is common L O rhe substance a l s o becween the disciples and 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 as t h e f a c t t h a t God over a l l i s named as 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 , by 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 ' rvanr 3 f God. : ::

The c o n c l u s i o n Eunomius w a n t s t o impose is t h a t , a c c o r d i n g t o J n

2 0 : 1 7 , t h e Son i s a s e r v a n t b y n a c u r e . T h e r e f o r e , the Son i s no t

God. G r e g o r y ' s f i r s t r e a c ~ i o n L G Eunsmius i s L a say r h a c , first

o f a l l , r h e words sadressed r o Ya ry ("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 refer to t h e d i v i n i t y of he O n l y - b e g o t t e n ,

buc to his h u m a n i t y . T h e n , "following t h 5 guidance 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. T h e

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 can o n l y be 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 of the h i s ~ o r y o f

s a l v a t i o n . - ' He first q u o t e s 1 Cor 8:6: " ;he re i s one Sod, ~ h s

F a t h e r , f r o m whom a r e a l l t h i n g s . " " ? As s u c h , God t h e F a t h e r i s

' " ~ p u d 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 of 2 n 20:17 in

CE, 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 of t h e name " f a t h e r " ( p p . 1 7 3 - 1 7 5 ) . But 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 Or igen 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 , " 171-179) .

. .- A'oIn 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 8:29 ( C h r i s t i s t h e " f i rs t -

b y n a t u r e ( ~ f j 4 6 0 ~ 1 ) F 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

~ U O L S ! . . . had f o r t h e a u t h o r ( r o ~ r j ~ q s ) o 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 . " - ' This i s LO s a y that i n cne

sense "Father" means " a u t h o r . " B u t t h e n Gregory specu la t e s 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 one , i n w h i c h God can be

r e g a r d e d a s F a t h e r of 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 ~ S ) i t s e l f , w h e ~ h e r i 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 p ii T T P O L ~ O ~ T L K + P ~ O U ( S ~ U V ) , imprr r t s a c e r t a i n

r e l a t i o n C Q hurnani t y . "::- T h i s i s anccher a l l u s i o n t o ~ h e

supposed e t y m o l o g i c a l d e r i v a t i o n o f from 8eaopa~ ( = t o gaze

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 i d e a o f s i g h t o r s e e i n g , s u c h a s " f o r e s i g h t "

and " c v e r s i g h t " . T h u s , Gcc and =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 e cbjeci 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 image of t h e " f a t h e r o f sin."-" I t i s " i n v i r t u e o f

t h e s i m i l a r i t y o f w i l l (&a 4 s ~ a ~ a T-+? ~ p o a i p e a ~ v o p o ~ d r q ~ o s ) " t h a t

humans become sons of t h e f a t h e r of sin,""nd h o n o r t h o s e who

born among many b ro the r s " ) . . - - - ' - CE 111, 10, 10; NPNF 2 . 5 : 2 4 1 .

"'CE - 111, 10, 10; NPNF 2 . 5 : 2 4 1 .

. - - E - I , 10, 10; NPNF 2 . 5 : 2 4 1 : r r a q p f i g a p p ~ i a s .

: 4 3 ~ ~ - 111, 10, 10; NPNF 2 .5 :241 .

. , . "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

~ ~ O L K E L U ~ ~ ~ V ~ L , 111, lo, 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 sur human nature."-'- In

comparing what God left behind, che 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 Gregory 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 hat his discussion startsd from J n

2 0 : 1 7 . 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 :241 .

'"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 wimess 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

' 1 ; proclamation of death is annulled. - - -

Giver! the fact that I will discuss gsnder language in Gregory of

Nyssa later, ii is interesting :o note that he underscores th?

role of Mary Magdalene as a ministez to the resc of the humanity

the good news about Christ's T h i s ,

important part of che humanity's homecoming.

In sum, <he image of humanity's exile and homecoming to Gad

is one of Gregory's f a v o r i t e images in salvation history. 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 ap~aratus criticus. The English translator in t h e NPNF 2 .5 : 242 p r e f e r s to read 6ia~ov~joaoa (ministering) . His argument that G~auopicraoa is a misprint of G~a~owjaaoa is quite persuasive, 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 on the same page*

"'CE - 111, 10, 16; NPNF 2.5 :242.

219

I s h a l l d e m o n s t r a t e be low , chis image 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 a d o p t i o n a s

c h i l d r e n of God--which Origen s o p o w e r f u l l y had d e v e l o p e d .

The 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 Gregory compares human and d i v i n e sonship, ~ h u s s p e a k i n g

of o u r a d o p t i o n as c h i l d r e n of God. The noun "adop t ion" (uioe~oia)

and 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 r r 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 "son" d o e s n o t imply a

common n a t u r e bz tween t h e f a t h e r and the s o n . Gregory u s e s an

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 he 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 . G r e g o r y h i m s e l f

says, on b e h a l f o f Eunomius and .he Eunomians, c h a t i n Scripture

t h e phrase " c h i l d cf w r a t h " iEph 2 3 1 i s used as well as "son of

perdition ;Jn 1 7 : 12; Mt 3 3 , " p r o d u c t of a v i p e r " (Mt 3 3 ,

" sons o f l i g h t " (Jn ? 2 : 3 6 ) a n d " s o n s of t h e day" (1 Thes 5 : 5 ) .

B u t i n s u c h p h r a s e s no community of 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 "son 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 ) . -' F o r t h e

first s e n s e o f t h e word , h e e x e m p l i f i e s w i t h t h e phrases " s o n s o f

humans" a n d " s o n s of rams, " f o r t h e second w k h "sons o f power"

and " c h i l d r e n of God. l1 Gregory s a y s :

F o r when they a r e called ' scns 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 U T ~ ~ L J +uoiv 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 rpoa~p io~w$ a s n o longer 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 so 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 L G become sons

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 char

our nature (or perhaps " s u b s t a n c e l ' j r emains w h a t i t i s .

T h e r e f o r e , i n t h e case 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

m e t a p h o r i c a l l y ( € K ~ E T ~ Q o ~ ~ s ) when w e a r e r e f e r r e d t o a s s o n s of

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 produces a s imi la r argument about l ower a n d h i g h e r n a t u r e s i n A d 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

works of darkness [and] b y decent l i f e . " - " In ocher words, 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 reach, 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

bestows 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 n Je c o n f i n s ( r n e c h o r ~ o s i <he: Greqoire 3e Nysse," 3 ~ h e r c h e s de sciencs re l io ieuse 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 himself ths e n e m i s s with God, ~hrcugh his 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

i n f e r i o r t o a s u p e r i o r s t a t e . Nor dces h e n e e d a n o t h e r S o n t o

b e s t o w a d o p t i o n upcn h im. A c c o r d i n g l y , G r e g o r y m a i n t a i n s t h a t

t h e O n l y - b e g o t t e n 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 the

, - Son of God b y nature:- The d i s t i n c c i a n b e t w e e n "by nature" and

"by 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

i t severa l t i m e s . Yet t h e case of 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 case 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 uncompounded n a t u r e , l o o k s ever a he same way, and i s n e v e r c h a n g e d by the i m p u l s e s o f c h o i c e ( ~ a i s q~ r p o a ~ p i a c w s bppaip! , 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 ~ i K U ~

b o u k a i i h p i m i v ~ a i ion r r a v ~ w s i 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 never s e v e r e d f r o m hat w h i c h is more 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 nexac tness , 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 power fu l a n d i n the P l o t i n i a n

t r a d i t i o n . T h e y a r e p o w e r f u l b e c a u s e i n t h e d i v i n e c a s e ,

s o n s h i p - b y - n a t u r e a n d s o n s h i p - b y - w i l l converge i n t h e s a m e

d i r e c t i o n of t h e g o o d . 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 :149 .

'"CE - 111, 1, 125; NPNF 2.5:149.

223

goodness o f the d i v i n e n a t u r e a n d t h e good ( o r r a t h e r s u p r e m e l y

good) chcice t h e Son makes. 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

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 is

" a l l power, r e a l l y master of i t s e l f , b e i n g what i t wills to

. . be. " - " The Son i s t h u s presenred a s a w i l l i n g subjecr. SUE h i s

will a p p e a r s a s boch the will CJ choose :rpoaipeo~.;;, 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 good, a n d t h e w i l l t o be what

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 .

Gregory 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

cur 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." Gregory s a y s t h a t che

meaning of this verse is c h a t t h e H o i y S p i r i t comes LO b e " i n th?

m i n d of the f a i t h f u l " i ~ f j Sialwiu T ~ L ) T ; L O T & P ~ , b e c a u s e i n many other

p a s s a g e s the Apostle Paul uses " s p i r i t " (weirpa) 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 mean ing 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 ' i 6 G 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 Nyssa i n C h a p t e r Two.

'"CE - 111, 5, 3; NPNF 2 .5 :191 .

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. U n f o r t u n a t e l y ,

Grzgo ry d o e s 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 Gregory

writes t h a t o u r adop t ion a s c h i l d r e n of God i s a grace of God.

. . We become c h i l d r e n "by g r a c e n o t b y n a t u r e " (XUPLTL ~ a i oil ~ C K J E L 1 . -'-

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

remain 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

and 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 ,

Gregory a l s o s a y s t h a t t h e peacemake r s w i l l b e crowned w i t h rrhe

g r a c e of a d o p t i o n ( T ~ S ciokoia.; ~ a p m a~~dav6eqoq) . - ' - Bccorninq

" c h i l d r e n o f God" i n h i s v i ew i s t o b s treasured above 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 by 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 taaci t h e sommunim o f che good. -.' They show

in their lives God'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 . i n o r d e r for humans t o become

"'Ref - 55; NPNF 2.5:109.

, - - * O L D e b e a t i t u d i n i b u s 7 , GNO 7 .2 :151 , 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. John 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.

. - - - " B e a t i t . 7 ; GNO 7.2:149, 16-19.

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 e Holy Spirit..' The issue cf our adop~ion as

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 e idea of the three stages in salvation

hiscory: bondage, friendship with God, adoption as children of

God. R a ~ h e r , he prefers LO conc2iv3 of the recurn of the human

race to God more in terms of what I call a "~heolsgy of 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 goes a f t e r c h e lost sheep to bring her back to

t h e f o l d w h e r e s h e bc4ongs . 3 f ccu rso , 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 as a w i l l i n g s u b j e c t who a l w a y s chooses 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 Lsnauaae in Reference to God

Like the previous section, this section is a corollary to the

issue of divine relationality. It allows me t o glimpse even

closer at the divine persons. 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 he 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 r was

the Son," because some "more c a r n a l l y minded," learning o f the

Father, may b e l ed 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 imagery 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 accura te ly noticed in two recent articles,

Gregory used more explicit feminine language in reference to God

-- - - --

. * . -"TE - 111, 2 , 19; NPNF 2 .5 :154 .

"'CE - 11, 419; NPNF 2 .5 :292 .

227

. -. i n later works. - - Thus , i n t h e s e v e n t h h o m i l y o f t h e Commentarv

on t h e Sono 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 . A c c o r d i n g

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 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 (Gal 3 2 8 ) . - -

Elsewhere i n t h e same Commentarv on t h e Sonq 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 , c h a t i s , t h e c a u s e of its

. - existence. - - 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 conrrexcs may refer 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 one 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 Xo ly Spirit i n t h e same

Comrnentarv o n t h e Sonq . 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 idem, "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 , " The 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 6:212-213; ET i n S a i n t G r e g o r y of Nyssa, Commentary

on t h e Sonq 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 .

1 - ' ~ a r r i s o n , "Gender , " 40.

: ' 4 ~ e perfectione, GNO 8 . 1 : 2 0 5 .

. - a o f P r o v e r b s . - - The Holy S p i r i t who d e s c e n d s as a d o v e upon

C h r i s t from h e a v e n a t t h e bap t i sm 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 as 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 anguage can be used t o r e f e r t o each member of t h a

Holy T r i n i t y , a s long as o n e keeps i n mind hat God i s n e i t h e r

m a l e n o r f e m a l e . I n G r e g o r y ' s v iew, so were humans in the

original s c a t e , and so w i l l t h e y be i n i h s e s c n x o n : I n 3ef 5

Gregory conrends that t h e names 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 revealed by 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 enouoh 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

Ho ly S p i r i t ' i n o r d e r t o app rehend t h e absolutely existent, who

is one and yet n o t one" (en~hasis mine? . ' This statemenc does

not s u p p o r t the categorical ccnclusicn ~ k i s 5 . Har r i son reaches

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 of Christian

. - -%NO 6 : 2 0 - 2 3 ; McCambley, 46 f.

, - - - "GNO 6 : 4 6 8 - 4 6 9 ; McCambley, 276.

. -- ; For a recent d i s c u s s i o n of t h e p a r a d i s i a c s t a t e of A d a m

and t h e d i v i s i o n of sexes in Gregory of Nyssa, see Peter Brown, 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 i n E a r l v C h r i s t i a n i t v ( N e w Y o r k : Columbia U n i v e r s i y Press, 1 9 8 8 ) , 293-297.

:%ef - 5; NPNF 2 .5 :102 .

. - faith and further cheolcqical reflection" (emphasis mine) . - "Ic

2s enough" ( a p ~ ~ i v i in 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 it 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 ay ivvq~os for the Father, but because

Eunornius tried to misinterpret it, they recommended the use of

"Facher" inscead, as being Less 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 cn ~oorroq ri-q urrapE~wc in the Capoadocian Fathers

In modern languages ~ p o a o s f l s ur rap&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, " 4 1 .

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 rom e a c h o t h e r . L o u t h thinks

that the T~OTOS Tils V T T U ~ ~ E W S was i l ~ ~ d b y the Cappadocians and 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 refer t o a p e r s o n

. - ( e s p e c i a l l y a d i v i n e p e r s o n ) :'- The purpose 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 Cappadoc ians never u s e t h e p h r a s e under

c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o i n d i c a t e a p e r s o n ; rhe g h r a s e i c s e l f only a s a

r h e t o r i c a l dev i ce - - a oars Dro co to - - can be csed t o d e s i g n a c e a

p e r s o n . Tporros q s imap&us o c c u r s t h r e e times i n Gregory of

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

t o d i s c u s s i t a t t h i s p o i n t . T h e Cappadocians b e l i e v e cha t ihe

F a t h e r ' s mode o f exis tence i s to be ungeneraced a n d g e n e r a t o r ,

t h e S o n ' s t o be genera ted ( 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 F a t h e r .

A s P r e s t i g e a l r eady n o t e d , t h e p h r a s e ~ p t j r r o ~ ;is u~rCIp&us

f - . - "seems t o h a v e been resczed b y Sasil -;r :;?sarea; rrcm t h e

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

t h e o l o g i c a l t r a d i t i o n . " ' - : U n f o r t u n a t e l y , Prestige was no t more

s p e c i f i c about which " s c h o o l s o f l o g i c " h e had i n mind. T h e

T h e s a u r u s L inauae 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 case of e x t a n t t e x t s . Before t h e

""E.. Andrew L o u t h , "They Speak t o Us a c r o s s t h e C e n t u r i e s . 4 . S t Maximos t h e C o n f e s s o r , " The Expositorv T i m e s 109, n o . 4 ( J a n u a r y 1998) : 1 0 3 .

. -. -"G. L. Prestige, God i n Patristic Thouoht , 2d ed .

(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,

Athanasius of and Gregory of N a z i a n z u s . 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 of Nyssa's. I shall presenc he occur rences in c h e

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

t h e above-mentioned phrase before t h e Cappadocians does not

necessarily mean c h a t c h e lattzr had access to Alexander's

commentaries. I t is more plausible that t hs 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

. , .. -'-Alexander of 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 che phrass ~ p o n q q s

u a a p ~ ~ w s ir! 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 he 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 , 19921, 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~iritu sancrrc the "mode sf

existence" of the Holy Spirit is s a i d to be 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 ~ a m ~ s does not indicate God's nature or sc ;bs rance . - '

The context of the discussion in 1, 15 is roughly

Aristotelian, and B a s i l pretends zo be snbarrasssd because h s

"cons trained" to use such language. T5.e ~ p ( i r i o ~ -i$ ~ ~ T F ~ ( ~ T ~ G C W S

refers here to God the Father's ungensratedness, because the

u~generatedness shows how (Godl is (ijm&o?-i) not what rhel is

. - . €on) . - * -

. - . 35, 2 (Courtonne 3 : 4 5 ; ET in Deferrari, vol. 3, 373 slightly nodif ied) .

. . - -"De Spirit~ sancto 18, 46.8 (SC 17:195).

" ~ A E 1 - , 15; 545b. See also my discussion of 1, 15 in my "Prosdoon and Hv~ostasis in Basil of Caesarea," 378. A

I now t u r n t o Gregory o f N y s s a . A t I , 216 Gregory 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 ank 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 one o r i g i n a t e s f rom the o t h e r ; and, so 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 rom 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 T T ~ ~ ~ E W ~ ~ , h e resis ts t h e p r i n c i p l e o f n a t u r e , b o t h by s a y i n u that one oriainaces from a n o t h e r and 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 of c h s o n e who g e n e r x s d h i m [ emphas i s added] .

The second o c c u r r e n c e o f t h e T ~ ~ T T O S T ~ S UTU~[EWS in Gregory of

N y s s a ' s CE i s e v m more illuminating. 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 and Abel 3s a n a n a l o g y o f what

happens i n cne godhead, c h u s showing 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 humani ty i s p roduced 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 p roduced i n he d i v i n e n a t u r e sither because of t h e

e x i s t e n c e of ~ h r e e d i f f e r e m modes a f ex i s t ence t h e r e , and 3)

e x c e p t fo r t h i s example , 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 by 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

o f e x i s t e n c e . N y s s e n ' s t e x t r e a d s :

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 found i n Pseudo-Bas i l , AE 5 ( F G 29: 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. [San 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 him, 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 by 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 f rom t h e d u s t , are b o t h b e l i e v e d t o b e two 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 word f o r t h e i r b e i n g i s the same f o r rhem b o t h : e a c h i s mor 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 . I f 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, since 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 s u~ lap t~us) i m p o r t s a n y change 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 same, a n d no one would 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 , what n e c e s s i t y i s the re 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 . . o f c h e d i v i n e n a t u r e ? - ' - [ e m p h a s i s a d d e d ]

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 p E ~ w ~ i n G r 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 . Crego r l i 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~)S V T ~ U ~ < E W ~ i 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; NPNF 2 . 5 3 5 7 .

or l a t e r o c c u r r e n c e s o f rporros fls i l r r ap&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 c Greek L e x i c o n , ed. Lampe , which 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.

C o n c l u s i o n s

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 ew o f

d i v i n e r e l a t i o n s a s i t e m e r g e s m a i n l y f r o m h i s a a n d 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 been

made. The 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 , as 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 and 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 c o n c e p t o f d i v i n e r e l a t i o n s , G r e g o r y o f 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 ss t h e

A l e x a n d r i a n t h e o l o g i a n s ( O r i q e n , C i o n y s i u s , A l e x a n d e r ,

A t h a n a s i u s ) o r h i s b r o t h e r B a s i l o f Caesarea . M c r e o v e r , a l l o f

t h e m seem t o be i n f l u e n c e d by 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 ~ h t h e name of 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 Father , 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 a u t h o r s d e v e l o p e d

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 o f t h e s e c o n d d i v i n e p e r s o n , t h e S o n .

S i m i l a r l y , t h e Ho ly S p i r i t i s i n r e l a t i o n w i t h t h e o t h e r two

p e r s o n s .

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 . I t 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,

glorification of each by ~ h e other cwo, perfect knowledge of one

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 of che relationship beiween God

and humans . If compared to Origen's, Gregory's theology of c h e

humans' adoption as children of God is underdeveloped aichough

s ~ l l l quite 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 on 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 it is necessary to

study the concept of divine persons in Gregory of Nyssa's works.

M y 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 C G recover a fourth-century C.E. concept

of person. 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 LO 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 ~ h person 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 npoamov" 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 LO 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

w r i t i n g s . First, t o re fer L O 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 L ~

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 two

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 of t h e i n d i v i d u a l a n d t h e

u n i v e r s a l . 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 o s c h o o l s ; it may a l s o be a P o r p h y r i a n

i n f i u e n c z . Also, L O 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 che 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

e n u m e r a b l e e n t i t i e s . The 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

s e p a r a t i o n d u e t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r i z i n g p r o p e r t i e s s b s e r v e d 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 each 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 , he a d a p t s f o r C h r i s t i a n usage t h e

P l a t o n i c v i e w o f a n i n d i v i d u a l a s a u n i q u e c o l l e c t i o n o f

p r o p e r t i e s . A c c o r d i n g t o t h i s a d a p t e d view, e a c h divine p e r s o n

c a n be desc r ibed 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 no o t h e r cause, i . e . ,

h e i s u n g e n e r a t e d , and i s genera tor ; t h e Son i s g e n e r a t e d f r o m

t h e F a t h e r a s t h e O n l y - b e g o t t e n , and 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 Holy 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 ;

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 H o l y 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 , and 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 each

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 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 , and 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 wh ich 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 expressed by 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

g e n e r a t e d ( o r O n l y - b e g o t t e n ) , 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

the F a t h e r . 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 predecesso rs from O r i g e n

onward , 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

p e r s o n s . 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

o n e a n o t h e r . A t t h e same t i m e , G r e g o r y a d d e d t h a t " f a t h e r " i s

the name o f a p e r s o n . 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 two 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 Son . 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 more t h a n s i m p l e

o n t o l o j i c a l c a u s a l i t y . They are m a n i f e s t e d i n c h e perfecr

communion among t h e t h r e e divine persons . Comrnunim ( ~ o i v w ~ ~ i a ) i s

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 persops 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 p e r s o n ? " R e l a t i o n a l i t y a s communion

means t h a t t h 2 Son , "who is i n t h e bosom of 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 be 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 is c o n t 2 m p l a t e d a s "power and wisdom of God" i l Cor 1: Z G ) ,

" t r u t h , l i g h t , a n d sanctification" (1 Cor 1: 3 0 ) , " p e a c e " (Eph

2 : l 4 ) , " l i f e " a n d t h e like. A s f o r t h e S p i r i t , G r e g o r y 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 between C h r i s t and

h i s a n o i n t i n g , between t h e k i n g and h i s k ingdom, b e t w e e n wisdom

and 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 and t h e Spirit of t r n t h ,

be tween p o w e r a n d the S p i r i t o f power . " S i n c e t h e S o n 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 is communion a n d it 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 perfect u n i t y

among them.

Last b u t noc least, God is a willing s u b j e c t . Grego ry

conceives of God as 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

i n f l t r e n c e .

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 . Pa r i s : Cerf, 1982.

Horn i l i en zum Hexaemeror., eds. E . Amand de >!.rendiera a n d Stig Y . R u d b e r g . S e r l i n : Akademie V e r l a g , 1997.

Lettres, ed. a n d t r . Yves Courtonne, 3 v o l s . P a r i s : L e s Belles Lettres, 1 9 5 7 , 1961 , i966.

The Let ters , tr. Roy J. D e f e r r a r i , 4 v c l s . Locdon: W . qe inernann, 1 9 2 6 , 1 9 2 8 , 1 9 3 0 , 1 9 3 4 .

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 : Anton 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.

P s e u d o - B a s i l , A d v e r s u s Eunomium IV-V, i n t r . , t r . and comm. F r a n ; Xaver R i s c h . L e i d e n : B r i l l , 1 9 9 2 .

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 . Par is : C e r f , 1 9 7 8 .

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 , 1991 .

Gregory of Nyssa:

A d A b l a b i u m Ouod non s i n t t res de 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 : Brill, 1 9 5 8 ) , 35-

58 . 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: The 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.

A d 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, ed . 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 -16 . An E n g l i s h t r a n s l a t i o n p r i o r L O M u l l e r ' s c r i t i c a l e d i t i o n c a n b e found 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 , 326-330.

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 ) , 17 - 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 Is t h a t W e Say 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 Say 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 Commona l i ty 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 , jr , The 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 ) : 381-391. 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. Vogt , 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): 204-218.

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 ~ o s i n S a i n c Basile, L e t t r e s , 2d. and 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 , 19571 , 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 Letters , t r . Ray J. D e f e r r a r i , v o l . 1 (London: W . He ine rnam, 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 work 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 be 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 series, 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 m o r e 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 by S t u a r t G e o r g e Ha l l 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. Mateo-Secc 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. I t a l i a n 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 . C o n t r o 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. C l a u d i o M o r e s c h i n i ( M i l a n o : R u s c o n i , 1 9 9 4 ) .

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 , ed. J o h n F. C a l l a h a n . L e i d e n : B r i l l , 1 9 9 2 .

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 N v s s e n i O ~ e r a . L e i d e n :

Brill, 1958-.

Migne, J. P., ed. Pat ro loa iae 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~hvsica Commentaria, ed. M. Hayduck, Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 1. Berlin: Reimer, 1 8 9 1 .

. Alexandri in Aristotelis analvticorum ~riorum librum 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, tr. 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. Ackrill. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963.

Aristoteles, Metaphvsica, ed. W. Jaeger. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957.

. 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, 18921, 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. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

. 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 .4ristotlsfs C a w c o r i e s , Er. John Dillon. London: Duckworth, 1990.

Eunomius, The Extant Works, c r . Richard ? a u l Vaggione. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.

John of Damascus, Expositio fidei, ed. Bonifatius Kot ter . 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 Gos~el accord ina to John Books 1-10, tr. Ronald Heine. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1989.

. Contre Celse, vol. 4 (Books 7 - 8 ) , ed. Marcel Borret, SC 150 . 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. Rifaa t Y.

E b i e d , A l b e r t v a n Roey and L i o n e l 3. Wickham. 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 e t r i C a l l i n i c e n s i s P a t r i a r c h a e A n t i o c h e n i T r a c t a t v s 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 , 32 , a n d 35. T u r n h o u t : Brepols, 1 9 9 4 , 1996 , and 1 9 9 8 .

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 . The! Loeb C l a s s i c a l L i b r a r y , Ncs. 44G-445, 4 4 8 . C a m b r i d g e , Harvard University P r e s s , 1966-1988 .

. 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 , 8 ( 3 9 ) 1 , 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 .

P s e u a o - P l u t a r c h . P l a c i t a ~ n i l o s o ~ h o r u r n i n P l u t a r c h i Mora l ia , ed. Jurgen Mau, v o l . 5 . 2 . 1 . L e i p z i y : T s u b n e r , 1 9 7 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 , 1 8 8 7 .

P o r p h y r y t h e P h o e n i c i a n , Isaaoae, tr. Edward W. Warren. T o r o n t o : 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.

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 Press , 1935) .

. P v r r h o n i a e h v p o t v ~ o s e s v c l . 1 of S e x t i E m ~ i r i c i o o e r a , ed . 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 . Annas 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, ed. C a r o l K a l b f l e i s c h , Commentar ia i n A r i s t o t e l e r n Graeca 8 . B e r l i n : Reirner, 1907.

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: SPCK, 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, C o m m e n t a r i a i n A r i s t o t e l e m G r a e c a 23 .3 . B e r l i n : R e i m e r , 1 8 8 4 .

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 u s Eerrniae" in Paxlvs R e a k n c v c l a ~ a d i e Jer classischen Alterturnwissenschaft, vol. 1 3 , cols. 1863-1865. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzlersche, 18%.

F\nastos, Milcon V. "Basil's K a ~ a Evvopiou" 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 Sc~dLas, 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 und 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 r die Seele und die Auferstehuna". f r a n k f u r r an Main: Peter Lang, 1 9 8 5 .

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 ( 1 9 7 7 ) : 4 9 - 6 8 .

. "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. Gresorv 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 ~atristica 14 (1976):

, "Plenitude humanitacis: The Unity of Human Nature in the Theology of Gregory of Nyssa" in Disci~lina nostxa: 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 Nyssa (331/340-ca. 395)," Theoloaische Realenzvkhpadie 14 iBerlin: W. dz Gruyter, 1985) : 173-181.

Balthasax, Hans Urs von. Presence and Thouaht: Essav on the Reliaious Philoso~hv of Greaorv of Nvssa, tr. Mark Sebanc. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 19%.

Barnes, M i c h e l Rene. "ACvaps and t he 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) , 327-334 .

. "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., Univ~rsicy of St. Michael's College, Toronto, i W 2 .

. "The Background and Use of Eunomius' Causal Language" in Arianism After Arius: Essavs on th? Develo~ment of the Fourth Centurv Trinitarian Conflicts, eds. Michel R. Barnes and Daniel H. Williams (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 19931, 217-236.

. "Contempora ry Reflec~ions on 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): 51-79 .

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, 1956 -1975 .

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 Review 1 2 , n o . 3 ( 1 9 6 7 ) : 369-393.

B e r a r d i n o , Angelo d l , ed . E n c v c l o o e d i a o f the E a r l v Church , t r . A. W a l d o r f , 2 v o l s . 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 .

Berg jan , S i l ke-Petra. T h e o d o r e t von C v r u s und d e r N e u n i z a n i s m u s : Aspekte der 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 . , "The Cappadcc ian Roots c~f Maximus 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 svmposium 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 e i980, e d s . F e l i x H e i n z e r and 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 dans l a - l i t t e r a t u r e ~ a t r i s c i o u e . Vol . 5 : E a s i l e de ~ e s a r ~ e , G r e g o i r e de Naz i anze , G r 2 g o i r e de Nysse, Pmpniloque d' Iconium. Produced by 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 de 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 Be l iwe i n Ideas 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 the Embodied Scul. T h e Hague: M a r t i n u s N i j h o f f , 1971.

Bohm, Thomas . 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 zu 'De V i t a M c v s i s ' von G r e a o r v c n Nvssa . Leiden: B r i l l , 1 9 9 6 .

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 and Art is ts i n t h e Middle Aaes, t r . E . Hansen. 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 .

Bradley, James E, and R i c h a r d M u l l e r . Church H i s to rv : 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 Rapids , M I : Eerdmans, 1 9 % .

B r e n n e c k e , Hans Christof. "Erwagungen zu 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 , Wol fgang 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 ) , 241 -257 .

Brown, F e t e r . The Body a n d S o c i e c v : Men, Women a n d S e x u a l R e n u n c i a t i o n i n E a r l v C h r i s t i a n i t y . 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 e des ramcrrs en t r e le Lanaaae ?t la cannaissance de Dieu. Paris: ~tudes augustiniennes, 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, 1 9 7 5 .

Cavarnos, John P. " Gregory of Nyssa on the Nature of the Soul, " Greek Orthodox Theoloqical Review 1, no. 2 (1955) : 133-141.

Cherniss, Harold Freder ick. 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 de 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, eds. S. Coakley and D. A. Pailin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, l W 3 ! , 35-36.

Cross , 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 ~atristica 24 (1993) : 2 3 9 - 6 5 .

Danielou, Jean. Platonisme et theoloaie mvstiaue: essai sur la doctrine s~irituelle de saint Greaoire de Nvsse. Aubier, France: Montaigne, 1944.

. Review of Greaorii Nvseni Opera doamatica minora I, F. Muller, Gnomon 3 1 ( 1 9 5 9 : 6 1 2 - 6 1 5 .

ed.

Drobner, Hubertus R. Person-Exeaese und Christoloqie bei Auwstinus: Zur Herkunft der Formel 'Una Persona'. Leiden: Brill, 1986.

and Christoph Klock , eds. Studien zu 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. Encvclo~edia of Psvcholoav. New York: Herder, 1 9 7 2 .

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 Sixteenth- Hundredth Anniversarv Svrn~os iu rn , ed. Paul J. Fedwick, v d . 1 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1981), xix- xxxi.

. "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, ed. 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~edia of 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. Essavs in Ancient Philosoohv. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1987.

Gain, Traductions latines de Peres arecs: La collection

du 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 Nysse. Paris: 3. W i n , 1953.

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 Concep~ of Person in Greek Philoscphy?" in Psvchologv, ed. Steven Everson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, l991), 166-93.

Glucker, John. "The Origin of uaap~w and unap[~s as Philosophical Terms" in Hvparxis e Hv~ostasis nel 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 Nisa. Rome: Gregorianum, 1 5 3 9 .

. . Gribomonc, Jean. " In r r ans ig~ .n . ce and 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 (ca . 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.

. " Z u r 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 18 (1991) : 416-419.

. " H y p o s t a s i s ( ' r ; ~ o a ~ u a ~ s ) " 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 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 . 9 8 6 - 1 0 3 5 .

Hanson, R , P . C- 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 Arian C o n t r o v e r s v 318-381. E d i n b u r g h : T 6 T C l a r k , 1 9 8 8 .

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 de Nysse: a p o r r o i a e t les 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.

, ed . E c r i t u r e st c u l t u r e ~ h i l o s o p h i q u e d 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 de C h s v e t o q n e (22-26 s e p t e r n b r e 19691 . L e i d e n : Brill, 1 9 7 1 .

. " R e f e r e n c e s p h i l o s o p h i q u e s e t r 2 f e r e n c e s b i b l i q u e s d u l a n g a g e de Grigoire de Nysse 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 Hadwia H o m e r , ed 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 ) , 117-131.

Harnack , 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, 1992.

, "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 Theo logy , " 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 ) : 38- 6 8 .

, "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 ~ g y , ~ The 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 von 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 ib ingen : 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 von 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~ektasis. 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 Ch. 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 ) , 463-490.

. 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 a der ' p h v s i s c h e n ' E r l o s u n q l e h r e . L e i d e n : 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 F a i t h a n d G r e e k P h i l o s o ~ h v i n L a t e A n t i a u i i v . E s s a v s i n T r i b u r e to G . C . S tead , e d . L i o n e l R . Nickham 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 , ed . G . W . H . Lampe (Oxford : 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. Mendoza . " N a t u r a l e z a d e l a ' s u s e b e i a ' e n G r e g o r i o d e Nisa ," 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 , 1 8 . - 2 3 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 , 1 9 7 6 1 , 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 C o n t r a Eunomium de 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 Nyssa, t d s . Lucas F . Ma t2o -Seco and 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 Navarra, 1 9 8 8 3 , 329-337 .

J a e q e r , W e r n e r 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 Doctrine cf C a t e g o r i c s i n he Light of Modern 3esearch," i n O u e s c i o n s , ed . Henry Hit (Dord reck : Reidel, 1978) , 227-278.

, "Discover ing 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 T h e 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 and A . A . Long ( 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 . The God of J e s u s C h r i s t , t r . M a t t h e w J. O ' C o n n e l l . New York : C r o s s r o a d , 1989.

Kees, R e i n h a r d J akob . Die L e h r e v o n d e r O i k o n o m i a Gottes i n der O r a t i o Catechetica G r e o o r s v o n Nyssa. 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 Eunomius 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 ) : 60-88.

K e l l y , J. N . D. E a r l v C h r i s t i a n C r e e d s , 3d ed. New York , N Y : Longman, 1972.

, 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, Harper a n d Row, 1978.

S a n F r a n c i s c o :

Kopecek, Thomas A . A H i s t o r v o f Neo-Arianism, 2 v o l s . Cambr idge , 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 Us: The T r i n i t v and C h r i s t i a n L i f e . 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 . O x f o r d : O x f o r d University Press, 1 9 6 1 .

Leroux , G e o r g e s . " I n t r o d u c t i o n " t o P l o t i n , T r a i t s s u r l a l i b e r t e 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 Leroux ( P a r i s : J. V r i n , l W O ) , 23-123.

L i e n h a r d , J o s e p h 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 ) : 415-37 .

. " E a s i l of Caesarea, Marcellus o f A n c y r i , and ' S a b e i i u s ' , " Church t i i s rory 5s (1989) : i51-161.

- . "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 Deve lopment 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 ams (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.

L l o y d , A . C . " N e o p l a t o n i s t L o g i c anti Aristotelian log^ 11," P h r o n e s i s 1 (1956) : 146-159.

. The Anatomv o f N e o o l a t o n i s r n . O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n Press, 1990.

Lucke , 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 N i d a i t c h . 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 Though t i n S t o i c i s m " i n P r o b l e m s i n Stoicism, ed. A . A . Long (London : 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 P h i l o s o o h v : S t o i c s . E o i c u r e a n s . S c e p t i c s , 2d e d i t i o n . London: Duckwor th , 1 9 8 6 .

Long, A . A. a n d D . N . S e d l e y . 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

v o l s . 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 , 1 9 8 7 .

L o r e n z , 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 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 e u t e s t a m e n r l i c h e W i s s e n s c h a f t und d i e Kunde der alteren K i r c h e 7 1 (1980): 109-128.

Lou th , 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 imes 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 Gregory o f N y s s a : I\ T h e o l o g i c a l Word Ir. T r s n s i r i m , " Thsoloaical Studias 40 ( 1 9 7 9 ) : 728-738.

Madden, John D . "The 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 du s v r n ~ o s i u m s u r Maxime l e C o n f e s s e u r . F r i b o u r q , 2-5 s e o t e m b r e 1980 , e d s . Felix H e i n z e r a n d C h r i s t o p h S c h d n b o r n ( 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 , 1 9 8 2 ) , 6 1 - 7 9 ,

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 der Warke des G r e q o r von Nyssa" 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 e d a n s l a peng&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 (22 -26 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. Bri 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 e e t l ' e r n o i r e a u IVe s i ec l e , e d . A l b r e c h t D i h l e (Geneva: 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 ( 1 9 8 2 ) : 1 1 2 0 - 2 6 .

. "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 de 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 , eds. Lucas F. Mateo-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 d d e Navarra, 1 9 8 8 ) , 339-351.

. The Cap~adocians. C r e s t w o o d , NY: S t . Vladimir's S e m i n a r y P r e s s , 1 9 % .

M e r i d i e r , L o u i s . L I I n f l u e n c e d e l a s e c o n d e s o p h i s t i a u e s u r l ' o e u v r e de Greaoire de Nvsse. P a r i s : H a c h e t t e , 1 9 0 6 .

M e r k i , H u b e r t . 'Ouoiwo~c 8 ~ 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 v o n Nvssa . F r i b c u r g : 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.

Michel, A . " H y p o s t a s e " i n D i c ~ i o n n a i r e de 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 .

. " 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. Persana i n t m l o a i a . .?.lie a r i ~ l ~ i del 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. " 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 ( 1 9 9 4 ) : 5 5 - 2 7 4 .

M u h l e n b e r g , E k k e h a r d . 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 s K r i t i k am Gottesbeqriff der 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.

, " S y n e r g i s m 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 , Sean . " 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 .

N e d o n c e l l e , M a u r i c e . "P rosdpon 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 sciences r e l i o i e u s e s 22 ( 1 9 4 8 ) : 2 7 7 - 9 9 .

T h e N e w Oxford Annotated 3ib le 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 , eds. B r u c e M e t z g e r a n d R o l a n d Murphy. Oxford: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 9 1 .

Olson, Eric T., The Human Animal : 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, Mar ia C . S . G r e a o r i o de Nissa. Criacac e t e m p o . Braga: F a c u l d a d e de 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 . 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-~ersity of Faris-Sorbonne, i968.

Parys, Michel J. van. "Exeg€se et theologie trinitaire: Prov 22 chez fes Peres cappadociens," in Ecriture et culture ~hiloso~hiaue dans la pensee de Greqoire de Nysse: Acres du cdloque de Cheveroane 122-26 s e ~ t e m b r e 1969), 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~ianirv and 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[~g et h o o ~ a o ~ s en Cappadocel' irk Hvparx i s 2 Hv~ostasis nel NeoplatonFsmo. Acti del I Colloauio In~ernazionale del Centro di Ricerca sul Neo~latonismo (Universita deali Studi di Catania, 1-3 octobre 19921, eds. F. Romano and D. P. Taormina (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, l994), 59- 78.

Peroli, Enrico. I1 olatonismo e I'antro~oloaia filosofica 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.

. "Gregory of Nyssa and the Neoplatonic Doctrine of the Soul, " Viqiliae Christianae 51 (1997) : 117-139.

Phillips, John F., "Stoic 'Common Notions' in Plotinus, " Dionysius 11 (1987) : 33-52.

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. God in Patristic Thouaht, 2d ed. London: SPCK, 1952.

Regnon, Theodore de . ~tudes de 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.

Plotinus, " Classical

. Eras and Psvche: Studies i n Flato, Plotinus and Oriaen. Toronto, 1 9 6 4 .

. 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: Fondat ion Hardt, l975), 103-117 .

"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 Sixteenth- Hundredth 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, 1982 .

. 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): 308 -328 .

Robertson, David G. "Stoic and Aristotelian Notions of Substance in Sasil of Caesarea , " 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 Chris~ian Literature: A Survev. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1993.

Schonborn, Christoph von. "La 'letcre 38 de s a i n t Basile' et 12 problbrne christologique de l'iconoclasme," Revue des sciences philoso~hioues ec theolooiaues 60 (1976): 446-450.

Seifert, Josef. Das Leib-Seele-Problem und die aeqenwartiqe philosophische Diskussion. Ein svstematisch-kritische Analvse, 2d ed. Darmstadt : Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 198 9.

Sirnonetti, Manlio. La crisi ariana nel IV secolo. Rome: Augustinianum, 1375.

Spoerl, Kelley McCarchy, " T h e Schism at 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, eds . Michel 8. Barnes and Daniei H. Williams (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, EW), 101-126.

Stead, Christopher. "Cnioloqy and Terrninolcqy in Greqory of Nyssa" in Creqor von Yvssa 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 of Nyssats 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 Drobner 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 "Con 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 Co l l oqu ium o n Grego ry o f N y s s a , eds. Lucas 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 Nava r r a , 1988), 303-320.

. Philoso~hv in C h r i s t i a n A n t i a u i t v . Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 9 4 .

S t e v e n s o n , J . , ed . 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 q che H i s c o r v of t h e Church AD 337 -461 , r e v . ed. W . H . C . Frend. London: SPCK, 1 9 8 9 .

Stramara jr., D a n i e l F . "Unmasking t h e Meaning of ~ I ~ O ~ I T T O V : Prosbpon 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 , and 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 d N i e d e r a a n q der Romischen Welt, e d . Wolfgang Haase (Serlin: Walter de G r u y t e r , i987), 955-74.

S t r i t z k y , Mar i a -Ba rba ra yon, Zurn Prob lem der Erkenntnis bei Greuor von Nvssa . M u n s t e r : . J . schendor f f , 1573.

S t u d e r , B a s i l . "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 der P h i l o s o e h i e , r e v . sd. Jcachin .?.itter, ~ o l . 3 . Easel : 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 e 5 7 ( 1 9 8 2 ) : 161-77 .

. 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 of t h e Early Church, 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 .

Tanne r , Norman P . , ed. Decrees of t h e Ecumenica l C o u n c i l s , v o l . I . London: Shed & Ward, 1 9 9 0 .

Tanner, R . G . " S t o i c I n f l u e n c e on t h e Log i c o f S t . G rego ry 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 Concep t of t h e Pe r son 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. , version D. Irvine, CA: Uniwrsicy of California, 19%.

Todd, Robert B. "The Stoic C~mmon ? lcc ions : F, 2e-Examination and Reincerpretation," Svrnbolae Osloenses 48 (1973): 47-75.

Troiano, Marina Silvia. "11 eonc3no 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~on and Hv~ostasis in Basil of Caesarsa's Aaainst Eunomius and the fpis:l?stl' Ylailiae Christianae 51, no. 4 (1937): 374-395.

Ullmann, W. "Der logische und der theolcgische Sinn des Unendlichkeitsbegriffes in der Gotteslehre Gregors von Nyssa," Biidraaen 48 (1987): 150-171.

Vaggione, R icha rd 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. de . "The Concept of Personality in Greek and Christian Thought," in Studies in Philoso~hv and the Historv of Philoso~hv, ed. John K. Ryan (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1963), 20 -60 .

V o l k e r , Walther. "Zur Gotteslehre Gregors von Nyssa," Vioiliae Christianae 9 (1955) : 103-128.

. Greaor von Nvssa als M v s t i k e r . 1955.

Wallis, R. T. Neo-Platonism. New York: 1972.

Wiesbaden: F. Steiner,

Charles Scribner's Sons,

W e s t r a , L a u r a . 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 6 . 8 . L e w i s t o n , N Y : T h e Edwin Mellen Press, 1 9 9 0 .

W h i t t a k e r , J o h n . " ' E a & a v a 1106 mi oloias, " V i o i l i a e C h r i s t i a n a e 2 3 !1969) : 91-104 .

Widdicombe, P e t e r . The F a t h e r h o o d of God f rom O r i q e n t o A t h a n a s i u s . Oxford: C l a r e n d o n , 1 9 9 4 .

W i l l i a m s , R o w a n . "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 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 . Review of 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 .

W i c t , 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 (London: U n i v e r s i t y of London P r e s s , 1 9 3 3 ) , 319-43 .

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. G o t h a : n . ~ , 1867.

Z iegler, T h i e r r y . " L e s petits t r a i t s s t r i n i ~ a i r t s de Grego i re de 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 . Ph . D. d i s s . , U n i v e r s i t y o f Human Sciences of 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 : S t . V l a d i m i r ' s Semina ry Press, 1 9 8 5 .