INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript
has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the
text directly from the original or copy submitted.
Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typemiter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality ofthis reproduction is dependent upon Ule quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that ihe author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also. if unauthorized copyright
material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by seco tinn ig the original, beginning at the upper lefthand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 8" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illusmons
appearing in this copy for
an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
Bell & Howell information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 481061346 USA
THE CONCEPT OF DIVINE PERSONS IN ST. GREGORY OF NYSSAiS WORKS
Lucian T u r c e s c u
A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Theology of the University of St. Michael's College a n d the Department of Theclogy of che Toranto School of Theology in partial fulfilment of :he requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology awarded by the University of St. Michael's C o l k g e
Toronto 1 9 9 9 O
Lucian T u r c e s c u
Nationai Library Canada
Bibliotheque nationale du Canada
Acquisitions and Bibliographic Services
Acquisitions et services bibliographiques
395 Wellington Street
395,rue Weil+ngton Ottawa ON K1A O N 4
I*(of
OttawaON K1AON4 Canada
Canada
Your irk Volre relbrenm
Our fib Notre reference
The author has granted a nonexclusive licence allowing the National Library of Canada to reproduce, loan, distribute or sell copies of t h ~ sthesis in microform, paper or electronic formats.
L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive pennettant a la Bibliotheque nationale du Canada de reproduire, prster, distribuer ou vendre des copies de cette these sous la forme de microfiche/fiim, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format electronique.
The author retains ownershp of the copyright in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts from it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission.
L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur qui protege cette these. Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent &re imprimes ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation.
Abstract of the Dissextation
"The Concepc of Divine Persons in St. Gregory of Nyssa's Works"
Doctor of Philosophy in Theology, 1959 Faculty of Theology of t h e University of St. Michael's College and the Department of Theology of t h e Toronto School of Theology Lucian Turcescu Chapter One deals with the status auaestionis and t h e methodology, as well as the fact a notion of person did n o t exist i n a n t i q u i t y p r i o r t o t h e Cappadocian Fathers.
Chapter Two
considers some philosophical concepts which contributed to a prehistory of the concept of person: individuals a n d relations in Aristocle, individuals in Stoicism, the individual as a collection of properties in Platonism, and the Plotinian will of t h e One.
I contend that Gregory p r o b a b l y used these concepts to
shape his own concept of person.
Besides philosophical sources,
h o w e v e r , he used extensively t h e Bible and t h e writings of his
Christian predecessors.
In Chapters Three to Five I analyze the m o s t relevant works i n w h i c h Gregory d e a l s w i t h divine persons.
Here is a summary of
the concept of divine persons emerging from t h e s e writings. First, t o refer to a person in general, Gregory uses Greek terms
such as : hyoostasis,
P ~ O S ~ D Operiaraohousa ~ ,
merike ousia, i d i k g ousia and even atornon.
(or periqraphs),
Second, to
distinguish a divine person from the nature which that person
owns in common w i t h two other persons, h e uses the analogy of the
i n d i v i d u a l and t h e c n i v e r s a l .
Also, t o d i s t i n g u i s h be~wee~.
n a c u r e a n d p e r s o n s , Gregory b e l i e v e s t h a t , u n l i k e n a t u r e , p e r s o n s
a r e enumerable e n c i t i e s .
T h i r d , t o e s t a b l i s h t h e i d ~ n r i r yo f
e a c h d i v i n s p e r s o n and why each i s u n i q u e , Gregory a a z p ~ sf o r C h r i s t i a n usage t h e P l a r o n i c view of a n i n d i v i d u a l a s a u n i q u e collection of properties.
Fourth, co e x p r e s s t h e p a r t i c u l a r i z i n g
noces o f e a c h d i v i n e p e r s o n , G r e g o r y a l s o speaks o f causal r e l a r i o n s : t h 2 F a t h e r i s t h e c a u s e , t h e Son i s f r o m the c a u s e o r
directly f r o m t h e f i r s t , and t h e S p i r i t i s from t h e c a u s s ( i - e . from t h e F a t h e r ) t h r o u g h t h a t which i s d i r e c t l y from t h e first
(i.e. t h r o u g h t h e S o n ) .
Under t h e influence o f A r i s t o t k ' s
c a t e g o r y of r e l a t i o n , Gregory u n d e r s c o r e s t h a t t h e c h r e d i v i n e persons are r e l a t i o n a l e n t i t i e s .
F i f t h , relations i n Gregory's
t h e o l o g y mean more t h a n mere o n t o l o g i c a l c a u s a l i t y .
They a r e
manifested i n t h e p e r f e c t communion e x i s t i n g among che t h r e e divine persons.
T h i s communion a l l o w s f o r b o t h t h e d i s t i n c t i o n
of each p e r s o n a n d t h e p e r f e c t u n i t y among t h e m .
I t i s communion
t h a t makes t h e t h r e e c o l l e c t i o n s o f properties p e r s o n s .
Last b u t
n o t l e a s t G r e g o r y c o n c e i v e s o f God a s a willing subject who
always chooses t h e good a n d wishes t o be what h e i s .
The
o n t o l o g i c a l view o f t h e w i l l o f God betrays a F l o t i n i i n influence.
Acknowledgements My s p e c i a l t h a n k s go to my ~ w oc o - d i r e c t o r s , P r o f 2 s s o r s Paul Fedwick a n d J o h n R i s t , for t h e i r h e l p , e n c o u r a g e m e n t , p r o m p t n e s s a n d p a t i e n c e a s I researched a n d wrote t h i s dissertation. I also w i s h to acknowledge the work done b y t h e committee r e a d e r s a s well a s t h a c o f o t h e r s who showed i n t e r e s t i n my c h a p t e r s a n d offered s u g g e s t i o n s , or supported m e i n a n y o t h e r w a y s . T h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n could not have b e e n i n i t i a t e d a n d eompkted without t h e c o n s t a n c s u p p o r t o f my wife, L a v i n i a S t a n , t 3 whom I owe v e r y special t h a n k s .
iii
TABLE 3 F CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS
INTRODUCTION
.............................................. ...............................................
The Necessity o f S t u d y i n g t h e Concept o f D i v i n e P z r s o n s in Gregory of Nyssa and the S c o p e of rhe P r e s e n c S m d y 1 Chapter
I . STATUS QUAESTIONIS ANC P!ETHCDOLOGY
......................
1 . Did a N o ~ i o nof Person 3xisc in Antiquity? . . . . . . . . . 1 . The Status Quaestionis in Pagan and Christian T h o u g h t 2 . Mechodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 . PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPTS THAT SHAPED GREGORY OF NYSSA'S VIEW OF AM INDIVIDUAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . Individuals i n A r i s t o t l e ........................... 2 . R e l a t i o n i n Aristctle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . I n d i v i d u a l s in Stoicism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . The individual a s a c o l l e c t i o n o f p r o p e r t i e s i n
Platonism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . T h e F l o t i n i a n wili cf the One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conchsicns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13 12 24 50
54
55 65 76
34 90
103
3 . THE L E S S E R T R I N I T . 4 R I A N TFlEP-TISES I: TO H I S BRCTHER PETER. ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OUSIA AND I-IYFOSTASIS . . . . . . . . . . . 104
1 . T h e Common a n d the Particular . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . Further Differences between oucria arid u ~ o o ~ a o i.s. . . . 3 . Definitions of u ~ r & ~ ~ a o. i.q. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . Divine Persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
.
107 111 116 121 130
THE LESSER TRINITARIAN TREATISES 11: TO EUSTATHIUS. ON THE HOLY TRINITY. TO ABLABIUS. ON NOT THREE GODS AND TO THE GREEKS. BASED ON THE COMMON NOTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
.
1 . To Eustathius On the H o l y Trinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . Tc Ablabium On Not T h r e e Gods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . 1 T h e c o n c e p t o f enumeration o f individuals . . . . 2.2 Causal differences among che divine persons . . 3 . To the Greeks Based on the Common Notions . . . . . . . . . 4 . Eustathius of Antioch. G r e g o r y of Nyssa and t h e i r possible philosophical sources ...................
.
.
133 137
143 147 150 163
5 . AGAINST EUNOMIUS AND THE REFUTATION OF THE CONFESSION OF FAITH
OF EUNOMIUS
1 . Patristic antecedents of divine relationality . . . . . . 2 . G r e g o r y of Nyssa's view of divine relationality . . . . 3 . Biblical views of divine relationality in Grogoryts works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Homecoming vs . adoption and the will of God . . . . . . . . 5 . A note on Gregory of Nyssa's use of gender language in r e f e r e n c e to God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. A note on ~ p d n o pTi)sc ~ u p & in ~ ~ he Cappadccian Fathers Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY ANG CONCLUSIGNS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
....................................
...............................................
ABBREVIATIONS GCS GNO
Loeb
Die g r i e c h i s c h e n chrisclichen Schriftsteller G r e g o r i i N y s s e n i Opera L c e b Classical L i b r a r y
LXX
Septuaginc
NPNF
The N i c e n e and P o s t - N i c e n ? P a t r o l o g i a Graeca Sources c h r e t i e n n e s
PG SC
Fathers
INTRODUCTION T h e Necessity o f S t u d y i n a t h e C o n c e p t o f D i v i n e P e r s o n s i n
G r e a o r v o f N v s s a a n d t h e S c o ~ eo f t h e P r e s e n t S t u d v T h e c o n c e p t a n d d e f i n i t i o n of p e r s o n h o o d h a v e become c e n t r a l i n
s t n i c a l d e b a t e , n o t o n l y b e c a u s e o f i s s u e s s u c h a s c l o n i n g humans hut a l s o t h e n e e d t o a n s w e r q u e s t i o n s s u c h a s : S h o u l d
"personhood" d e t e r m i n e t h e a l l o c a t i o n o f s c a r c e m e d i c a l r e s o u r c e s , a n d s h o u l d its p e r c e i v e d a b s e n c e a l l o w the t e r m i n a t i o n of l i f e ?
cf p e r s o n .
The a n s w e r s t o these q u e s t i o n s d e p e n d o n o n e ' s c o n c e p t T h e r e a r e two d o m i n a n t v i e w s i n t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y
Many s c h o l a r s , i n c l u d i n g p h i l o s o p h e r s , a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s ,
s o c i a l t h e o r i s t s , and t h e o l o g i a n s , d e f i n e a person as a c e n t e r of z o n s c i o u s n e s s . T h i s view,
known a s t h e P s y c h o l o g i c a l A p p r o a c h c o
p e r s o n , c a n b e t r a c e d back t o D e s c a r t e s ' famous b u t u n p r o v a b l e d i c t u m C o a i t o , e r a o sum.
Nonetheless,
i t was t h e s e v e n t e e n t h -
c e n t u r y p h i l o s o p h e r J o h n Locke who d e f i n e d a human p e r s o n i n t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l s e n s e when h e w r o t e :
" [W]e m u s t c o n s i d e r what Person s t a n d s f o r ; w h i c h , I t h i n k , is a t h i n k i n g i n t e l l i g e n t B e i n g , t h a t has r e a s o n and r e f l e c t i o n , a n d c a n c o n s i d e r it self a s i t s e l f , t h e same t h i n k i n g t h i n g i n d i f f e r e n t times a n d p l a c e s ; w h i c h i t d o e s o n l y b y t h a t c o n s c i o u s n e s s , w h i c h i s i n s e p a r a b l e from
t h i n k i n g , and as i t seems t o m e e s s e n t i a l t o i t . " ' Based on t h i s c o n c e p t , some t w e n t i e t h - c e n t u r y p h i l o s o p h e r s o f
mind a r g u e t h a t a human p e r s o n c e a s e s t o e x i s t when h e r m e m o r i e s , reason, and consciousness a r e i r r e t r i e v a b l y l o s t . ;
The
' J o h n L o c k e , An E s s a y Concernina Human U n d e r s ~ a n d i n q , e a . Feter Niddicch ( O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1 9 7 5 ; o r i g i n a l work 2 5 b l i s h e . J . 1G;9T_I) 1 . , 9. -Here a r e some a d v o c a t e s of t h e P s y c h o l o g i c a l A p p r o a c h : H . " Mind 50 ( l 9 4 l ) , 330-350; J o h n H o s p e r s , An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h i c a l A n a l v s i s , s e c o n d e d i t i o n , ( E n g l e w o o d C l i f f s , N J : P r e n t i c e H a l l , 1 9 6 7 ) , 410-414; P!ark J o h n s t o n , "Human B e i n g s , " J o u r n a l o f P h i l o s o ~ h v8 4 ( 1 9 8 7 ) : 53-83; idem, " F i s s i o n a n d t h e Facts," P h i l o s o ~ h i c a lP e r s ~ e c t i v e s 3 ( 1 9 8 9 ) : 369-397; David L e w i s , " S u r v i v a l a n d I d e n t i t y , " i n T h e I d e n t i t i e s o f P e r s o n s , e d . A . Rorty ( B e r k e l e y , C a : U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1 9 7 6 ) ; J. L . Mackie, P r o b l e m s f r o m Locke ( O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1 9 7 6 ) ; Thomas N a g e l , The V i e w f r o m Nowhere ( N e w York: O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , l 9 8 6 ) , 40; H a r o l d Noonan, P e r s o n a l I d e n t i t v ( L o n d o n : R o u t l e d g e , 1 9 8 9 ) , 1 3 ; R o b e r t N c z i c k , P h i l o s o p h i c a i E x p l a n a t i o n s ( C a m b r i d g e , MA: H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, l M l ) , c h a p t e r 1; Derek P a x f i t , " P e r s o n a l I d e n t i t y , " P h i l o s o ~ h i c a lEieview 8 0 ( 1 9 7 1 ) : 3-27; idsm, R e a s o n s a m Persons ( 3 x f o r d : Clarendon P r e s s , 1 9 8 4 ) , 207; John Perry, "Can t h e Self D i v i d e ? , " J o u r n a l of P h i l o s o ~ h v69 ( 1 9 7 2 ) : 4 6 3 - 4 8 8 ; J o h n P o l l o c k , How ts B u i l d a P e r s o n : A P r o l e a o m e n o n (Cambridge, >!A: MIT Press, N a g ) , c h a p t e r 2 ; H . H . Price, Essavs i n t h e P h i l o s o p h v o f R e l i a i o n (London: O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 7 2 ) , 104 f . ; A n t h o n y Q u i n t o n , "The S o u l , " J o u r n a l of P h i l o s o ~ h v5 9 ( 1 9 6 2 ) : 393-403; Jay F. R o s e n b e r g , T h i n k i n a C l e a r l v About D e a t h (Englewood C l i f f s , N J : P r e n t i c e H a l l , 1 9 8 3 ) , 92 ff, 2 2 3 ; B e r t r a n d R u s s e l l , "Do W e S u r v i v e D e a t h ? " i n Whv I Am Not a C h r i s t i a n a n d O t h e r E s s a y s o n R e l i a i o n and R e l a t e d Subjects, t h i r d e d i t i o n (London: Unwin B o o k s , l 9 6 7 ) , 7 3 ; Sydney S h o e m a k e r , " P e r s o n s a n d T h e i r P a s t s , " A m e r i c a n P h i i o s o p h i c a l Q u a r t e r l y 7 ( 1 9 7 0 ) : 269-285; idem, " P e r s o n a l i d e n t i t y : A M a t e r i a l i s t ' s A c c o u n t " i n S . Shoemaker a n d R . Swinburne, P e r s o n a l I d e n t i t v ( O x f o r d : B a s i l B l a c k w e l l , 1984), 90; P . F. S t r a w s o n , "Comments o n Some A s p e c t s o f P e t e r U n g e r ' s I d e n t i t v , C o n s c i o u s n e s s and V a l u e , " P h i l o s o p h v a n d P h e n o m e n o l o o i c a l R e s e a r c h 5 2 ( 1 9 9 2 ) : 145-148; P e t e r Unger, I d e n t i t v . C o n s c i o u s n e s s and V a l u e ( N e w York: O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, N g O ) , c h a p t e r 5; D a v i d W i g g i n s , "Locke, B u t l e r , a n d t h e S t r e a m of C o n s c i o u s n e s s : And Men A s A N a t u r a l Kindf' i n The
-
r.
Grice, " P e r s o n a l I d e n t i t y ,
proponents of this view hold that the life of such a human being can be terminated, without any moral reservations, because the
person is no longer c h e r e .
The following example best explains
how a person can irr2trievably loose her memories, reason and
eonsciousness: Imagine that you fall into what physiologists call a persistent v2gezative state. As a result of temporary heart failure, your b r a m is deprived of oxygen for ten minutes before circulation i s restored, by which time the neurons of your cerebral cartex nave died of anoxia. Because thought and consciousness are impossible unless the cortex is intact, and because brain sells do not regenerate, your higher mental f u n c t i c n s are irretrievably lost. You will never again b e able c o rerwrnber the past, or plan for the future, or hear a loved sns's voice, or be consciously aware sf anythlng at 311, for t h e equipment you needed to do t h o s e chinqs is d s s r r ~ y e dand cannot be replaced. You have become, as t h e z l ~ n i c a lidiom has it, "irreversibly noncoqnitive." The subcorrical parts of the brain, however, such as the thalamus, kasal ganglia, brainstem, and cerebellum, a r e more resistant c o damage from lack of blood than the cerebrum is, and they somerimes hold out and continue functioning e v e n when the cerebrum has been destroyed. Those are the x g a n s t h a i sustain your "vegetative" functions such as respiration, circulation, digestion, and metabolism . . . . The result is a human animal that is as much like you as a n y c h i n g could be without having a mind.' When moving frsn pnilosoph:~and psychology to theology and when attempting to apply the psychological definition of person
Identities of Persons, ed. A. Rorty (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, N Y 6 ) , 168, 1 7 3 n . 4 4 ; idem, Sameness and Substance (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980), 160, '~ricT. Olson, The Human Animal: Personal Identitv without Psvchologv (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 7 ff.
t o t h e C h r i s t i a n God, t h e o l o g i a n s a r e c o n f r o n t e d w i t h t h e
f o l l o w i n g dilemma: How c a n t h e r e b e o n e v o l i t i o n , o n e c o g n i t i o n , a n d o n e a c t i o n i n a x i - p e r s o n a l God?
I n o t h e r words, b e c a u s e
t h e o p e r a t r i n i t a i i s ad e x t r a sunt i n d i v i s a ,
it a p p e a r s t o these
~ h e o l o g i a n st h a t there i s i n the T r i n i t y o n l y o n e c e n t e r of s o n s c i o u s n e s s which zhey a r e i n c l i n e d t o c a l l "parson." C o n s e q u e n t l y , they a s k : "Why a d m i t t h r e e p e r s o n s ? " zase f o r
exampie
WIX
Karl B a r t h . '
This was t h e
He c o n s i d e r e d t h a t t h e t e r m
p e r s o n "was n e v e r a d e q u a t e l y c l a r i f i e d . " '
I n s t e a d he p r e f e r r e d
z s s p e a k s f F a t h e r , Son a n d H o l y S p i r i t a s t h r e e "modes o f existence" ( S e i n s w e i s e n ) o f the o n e God.
Y e t B a r t h was n o t t h e
o n l y on2 t o e x p e r i e n c e d i f f i c u l t i e s b e c a u s e t h e c o n c e p t o f person
same t o b e u n d e r s t o o d p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y . D u r i n g t h e iasc t h r e e d e c a d e s a n i n c r e a s i n g number o f v o i c e s have f o u n d t h e psyzbological u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f p e r s o n u n a c c e p t a b l e
and a d v o c a t e d a l t e r n a t i v e s o l u t i o n s . t h e responses
LO
These s o l u t i o n s depend on
q u e s t i o n s r e l a t e d t o t h e human v e g e t a b l e i s s u e .
Some o f t h e s e q u e s t i o n s a r e :
Is t h e human v e g e t a b l e i d e n t i c a l
w i t h t h e o n e you were b e f o r e o r i s he s o m e o n e e l s e ?
In other
w o r d s , c o u l d I e x i s t a t a n o t h e r t i m e i f a n d o n l y i f I now s t a n d i n some p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n t o m y s e l f a s I was, o r s h a l l be,
'Cf. Karl E a r t h , C h u r c h D o a m a t i c s , t r . G. W . B r o r n i l e y ( E d i n b u r g h : T & T C l a r k , 1 9 5 6 - 1 9 7 5 ) , I . 1, 355; I V . 1, 205; I V . 2 , 44.
'Church D o u r n a t i c s 1.1, 3 5 5 .
then?
Could I survive if my nind were lost?
Advocates of the
Psychological Approach argue chat any past or future being that has my mind is me.
A philosophical opponent of the Psychological
Approach has convincingly argued that the Psychological Approach does not work in many particular instances." Therefore, to the
questions raised above he would respond "Yes, the human vegetable is myself," whereas proponents of the Psychological Approach would say "No, t h 2 nxman vegecable is no longer myself."
Theological ethics has addressed the issue of personhood b y proposing the recovery of ore-Cartesian concepts of person rooted in the Judeo-Chrisilan tradition.
Sarah Coakley has offered a
Vlson, The Hurnan Animal, passsim.
Other proponents of
c h e same ideas, known as the Biological Approach, are the
following: Michaei A y e r s , iocke, vol. 2 (London: Routledge, i990); Peter van Inwagen, "The Possibility of Resurrection," International Journal for the Philoso~hvof Reliaion 9 (1978): 114-121; idem, "PhiLosophers and the Words 'Human Bodyt" in Time and Cause, ed P. van Inwagen (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1980); idem, "Plantinga on Trans-world Identity" in Alvin Plantinqa, ed. J. Tomberlin and P. *4ra2Inwacjm ! Dordrecht: Reidel, 1 9 8 5 ) ; idem, "And Yet They Are Not Three Gods but One Godttin Philosophv and the Christian F a i c h , ed. Thomas Morris (Notre Dame, 1N: University of Not re lame P r e s s , 1 9 8 8 ) ; idem, "Four-Dimensional ObjecCs," NoGs 24 i 1 9 9 0 ) : 245-255; idem, Material Beinas (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990); P. F. Snowdon, "Personal Identity and Brain Transplants, " in Human B e i n a s , ed. D. Cockburn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 111; Judith Jarvis Thomson, " Parthood and Identity Across Time," Journal of Philoso~hv80 (1983): 201-220; idem, "Ruminations On an Account of Personal Identity, " in On Beino and Savina: Essavs for Richard Cartwriaht, ed. J. J. Thomson (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987) ; Bernard Williams, "Are Persons Bodies?" in The Philoso~hvof the Body, ed. S. S p i c k e r (Chicago: Quadrant Books, 1970; reprinted in Williams, Problems of the Self [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1 9 7 3 1 ) .
c o g e n t summary of o n e s u c h alternate t h e o l o g i c a l view w h i c h i s b a s e d o n w h a t i s kncwn a s t h e C a p p a d o c i a n c o n c e p t o f p e r s o n a n d l a t e r Greek Orthodcu i h o u q h t .
She h a s s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h i s v i e w
r e s t s on a n u n d e r s i a n d i r i g o f t h e C h r i s t i a n T r i n i t y a s p r o t o t y p e of p e r s o n s - i n - r e i a i l o n .
According t o t h e proponents of t h i s
n e w , t h e d o c t r i n e sf the T r i n i ~ yc a n b e u s e d a s a b l u e p r i n t f o r
numan sociality a n d s t h i c s .
T h e y a r g u e t h a t t h e c o n c e p t o f human
p e r s o n , w h i c h i s z e n t r a i t o human s o c i a l i t y a n d e t h i c s , h a s i t s a n t e c e d e n t i n a t h e o l o g i c a l d e b a t e o v e r d i v i n e p e r s o n s , most c l e a r l y a r t i c u l a t e d b y a g r o u p of t h r e e Greek t h e o l o g i a n s known
a s t h e "Cappadocizn 'athers"
o f the f o u r t h c e n t u r y .
Although
many p r o m i n e n t t h ? o h g i a n s h a v e w r i t t e n w i t h e n t h u s i a s m a b o u t
this t o p i c , ' t h i s c h e o l o q i < a l view i s f a r f r o m b e i n g u n i f o r m o r c o h e r e n t , l e t alcne i n c o n t e s t z d .
the t h e o l o g i e s o f :he
M o r e o v s r , my own research i n t c
above-mentioned contemporary a u t h o r s , a s
S a r a h C o a k l e y , "Why Three? Scme F u r t h e r t h e O r i g i n s of t h e D o c t r i n e o f t h e T r i n i t y , " i n Rernakinq o f C h r i s t i a n D o c t r i n e , e d s . S . C o a k l e y (Oxford: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1993) , 35-36. Rudman, C o n c e p t s of Person and C h r i s t i a n E t h i c s C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 9 7 ) , 1 7 1 - 1 8 9 .
R e f l e c t i o n s on T h e Makinq a n d a n d D. A. P a i l i n Cf. a l s o Stanley ( C a m b r i d g e , MA:
' ~ e o n a r d o B o f f , T r i n i c v a n d Societv ( M a r y k n o l l , N Y : O r b i s Books, 1 9 8 8 ) ; P a c r i c i a W i l s o n - K a s t n e r , F a i t h , Feminism a n d t h e C h r i s t ( P h i l a d e l p h i a , PA: F o r t r e s s Press, 1 9 8 3 ) ; C o l i n E . G u n t o n , T h e P r o m i s e o f T r l n x a r i a n T h e o l o g v , 2d ed. ( E d i n b u r g h : T&T C l a r k , 1 9 9 7 ) ; J o h n D. Z i z i o u l a s , B e i n q a s Communion ( C r e s t w o o d , N Y : S t . V l a d i m i r ' s S e m i n a r y Press, 1 9 8 5 ) ; C h r i s t o s Y a n n a r a s , The Freedom o f M o r a l i r v ( C r e s t w o o d , N Y : S t . V l a d i m i r ' s S e m i n a r y Press, 1 9 8 4 ) ; C a ~ h e r i n eMowry LaCugna, God f o r U s : The T r i n i t v a n d C h r i s t i a n Life (San F r a n c i s c o , CA: Harper, 1 9 9 1 ) . -
many t o a c c e p t the p a r a d o x o f t h r e e i n c n e o r o n e i n t h r e e ; t o a c c e p t t h a t o n e p e r s o n i s the c a u s e o f t h e two o t h e r s i n t h e Holy T r i n i t y , b u t that a l l a r e God; t h a t tie t h r e e a r e e q u a l a n d o f t h e same s u b s t a n c e w i t h o n e a n o t h e r ;
c h a t t h e a f f i r m a t i o n of
t h r e e p e r s o n s does n c c i m p l y t h r e e g o d s ; t h a t the t h r e e p e r s o n s
a r e r e a l , n o t mere masks o f t h e u n i q u e God. I n t h e p r e s e c c scudy I propose t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n o n e sf c h e C a p p a d o c i a n F z t h e r s , n a m e l y G r e g o r y o f
Nyssa, made t o tnc c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f
he t r i n i t a r i a n dogma.
e x a c t l y , I shall a c a l y z e h i s z o n c e p t ~f d i v i n e p e r s o n s .
More
Since he
i s t h e C a p p a d o c i a n r h o r e l i e d on p h i l ~ s c p h i c a ls k i l l s t h e m o s t , a n a n a l y s i s o f h l s w c r k s will p r o v i d e m e w i t h t h e m o s t
i n t e r e s t i n g rnaterlal a b o u t t h e c o n c e p c o f d i v i n e p e r s o n s .
As
some o f G r e g o r y ' s c c p h n a c i o n s w e r e l s a r n e d f r o m h i s o l d e r b r o t h e r , Basil, o r p e r h a p s f r o m t h e i r ccrnmon f r i e n d , G r e g o r y of N a z i a n z u s , o c c a s i o n a i l y I s h a l l a l s o r e f e r t o t h e t e a c h i n g s of the l a t t e r t w o .
N e 7 ~ c r t h e l e s s ,because of c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f t i m e
a n d s p a c e , the b u l k sf t h e d i s s e r t a t i o n d e a l s w i t h d i v i n e p e r s o n s l n G r e g o r y of N y s s a . I w o u l d Like t o nake i t c l e a r from t h e o u t s e t t h a t I i n t e n d t o d e a i x i t h t h e c c n c e p t of human p e r s o n a n d
human a n a l o g i e s Gregory u s e s o n l y i n a s m u c h a s t h e y h e l p me t o c l a r i f y t h e d i v i n e persons.
Conversely,
in this dissertation I
do n o t i n t e n d t o p u r s u e t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s t h e c o n c e p t of divine
F e r s o n s h a s on t h e c o n c e p t o f human p e r s o n .
D i s c u s s i o n of the
human p e r s o n p e r se would certainly require considering such i s s u e s as free wrll, human f r e e d o m , g e n d e r , t h e image of God i n humans, a n d t h e body-soul
problem.
Some o f t h e s e i s s u e s h a v e
a l r e a d y b e e n dealc w i t h , ' " others n e c e s s i t a t e a t l e a s t a n o t h e r
dissertatmn.
: S e e David 6. a a l a s , METOYEIA OEOI': M a n ' s P a r t i c i ~ a t i o ni n God's Perfections a c c o r d i n a t o S t . Greaorv o f Nvssa (Rome: " I B C " L i b r e r i a H e r d e r , 1 3 6 6 ) ; J o h n P . C a v a r n o s , " Gregory of Nyssa o n t h e N a t u r e o f t h s S O U L , " Greek O r t h o d o x T h e o l o a i c a l Review 1, no. 2 ( 1 9 5 5 ) : 133-141; X a u d i a D e s a l v o , L f " o l t r e " n e l presente. La f i l o s o f i a d e l l f ucmc :n G r e g o r F o d i Nissa ( M i l a n : V i t a e P e n s i e r o , 1 9 9 6 ) ; A l b r e c h t 3rhle, T h e T h e o r v o f W i l l i n C l a s s i c a l A n t i q u i t v ( B e r k e l e y , CA: Ur.l.:-trsity of " a l i f o r n i a Press, 1 9 8 2 ) ; J+rorne Salth, L a c o n c e o t l s n d e l a liberr* c h e z G r e q o i r e d e N v s s e ( P a r i s : 3. V r i n , 1 9 5 3 ) ; V e r m E . F. H a r r i s o n , G r a c e a n d Human Freedom a c c o r d i n q t o S t . G r w o r v of Nvssa ( L e w i n s t o n , N Y : E . M e l l e n Press, 1 9 9 2 ) ; eadem, " G e n d e r , G e n e r a t i o n , a n d V i r g i n i t y in C a p p a d o c i a n T h e o i o g y * , " The J o u r n a l o f T h e o l o a i c a l S t u d i e s n.s. 4 7 ( 1 9 9 6 ) : 38-68; eadem, "Male a n d Female i n t h e C a p p a d o c i a n T h e o l o g y , " T h e J o u r n a l of T h e o l o ~ i c a lS t u d i e s , n . s . 4 1 ( 1 9 9 0 ) : 441-471; S a l v a t o r e L i l l a , " P l a t o n i s m a n d t h e F a t h e r s " i n E n c v c l o ~ e d i aof t h e E a r l v C h u r c h , sd. A n g e l o d i B e r a r d i n o , tr. A. W a l f o r d , v o l . 2 ( O x f o r d : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 3 9 2 ) , 689-698; E k k e h a r d Muhlenberg, " S y n e r g i s m i n G r e g o r y of Nyssa, " Z e i t s c h r i f t fur n e u t e s t a m e n t l i c h e W i s s e n s c h a f t 68 ( 1 9 7 7 ) : 93-122; L. G . P a t t e r s o n , M e t h o d i u s of O l v r n ~ u s : D i v i n e S o v e r e i a n t v , Human Freedom, and Life IR Christ ( W a s h i n g t o n , DC: The C a t h o l i c U n i v e r s i t y of A m e r x a Press, 1997); E n r i c o P e r o l i , I1 ~ l a t o n i s m o e l ' a n t r o p o l o a i a f i l o s o f i c a d i G r e a o r i o d i Nisa: c o n p a r t i c o l a r e r i f e r i m e n t o asli i n f l u s s i d i P l a t o n e , P l o t i n o e Porfirio ( M i l a n o : Vita e p e n s i e r o , 1 9 9 3 ) ; M a r i a - B a r b a r a von S t r i t z k y , Zurn Problem d e r Erkenntnis b e i Sreaor von Nvssa ( M u n s t e r : A s c h e n d o r f f , 1 9 7 3 ) .
CXAPTER
I
STATUS Q U A E S T I O N I S AND METHODOLOGY
I n t h i s c h a p t e r I shall e s t a b l i s h t h e s c a t e o f t h e q u e s t i o n i n c h e area of p r o p o s e d r e s e a r c h a n d t h e n p r e s e n t t h e m e t h o d o l o g y o f S t u d i e s d e a l i n g w i t h t h e c o n c e p t of d i v i n e
t h i s dissercation.
p e r s o n s o r t h e Gr3e.k words used t o e x p r e s s i t
( 2 .g .
npoawtrov.
ivroo~aoig)c a n b e ; r a p e d i n t o trhree c a t e g o r i e s : a ) s t u d i e s w h i c h e i t h e r b r i e f l y r n e n z b n t h e C a p p a d o c i a n F a t h e r s r works in a l a r g e r -.
c o n t e x t o r a r e ccn-rned LO one o r t w o o f their w o r k s p r e s e n t e d cursorily.;
b ) sczc;Fes t h a t d e a l w i t h e i ~ h e rrrpdawarrov o r u.rro~~acns,
'The m o s t i m p o r t a n t s u c h s t u d i e s a r e t h e f o l l o w i n g : e n san S e v e r i n o G o n z a l e z , La f o r m u l a tMI.4'O'CCIATPEIC'Y~O~T~EI~ G r e ~ o r i od e N i s a iRome: G r e g o r i a n u m , 1 9 3 9 ) ; G . L . P r e s t i g e , God i n P a t r i s t i c T h o u u k , 2d e d . [London: SPCK, 1 9 5 2 ) ; C a r l A n d r e s e n , "Zur Encstehung ~ n G d zschichce d e r t r i n i t a r i s c h e n Personbegriffes," Z 2 i t s c h r i f t f u r neutestamentliche Wissenschaft u n d d i e Kunde d e r a i t e r e n K i r c h e 5 2 ( 1 9 6 1 ) : 1-39; G . W . H . Lampe, a n d "Q~oowrrov" e d . A P a t r i s t i c G r e e k Lexicon, s . v . "'~'riocsraa~~~' (Oxford: Oxford V r x - ~ e r s i t yP r e s s , 1 9 6 1 ) ; B a s i l S t u d e r , " H y p o s t a s e " in H i s t x i s c h e s W o r t e r b u c h der P h i l o s o p h i e , r e v . e d . Joachim R i t t e r , v o l . 3 (Basei: Schwabe, 1 9 7 4 ) ; M a n l i o S i r n o n e t t i , La c r i s i a r i a n a ne: IV s e c o l o (Rome: A u g u s t i n i a n u m , 1 9 7 5 ) ; L u i s e .Abramowski, " T r i n i t a r i s c h e und ~ h r i s t o l o g i s c h e H y p o s t a s e n f o r m e l n , " T h e o l o a i e und P h i l o s o ~ h i e54 ( 1 9 7 9 ) : 38-49; J o h n Lynch, " P r o s b p c n i n G r e g o r y o f N y s s a : A T h e o l o g i c a l Word i n T r a n s i t i o n , " T h e o i o a i c a l S t u d i e s 40 (1979): 728-38; B a s i l S t u d e r , "Der P e r s o n - B e g r i f f i n der f r u h e n k i r c h e n a m t l i c h e n T r i n i t a t s L e h r e , " T h e o l o a i e und P h i l o s o ~ h i e5 7 ( 1 9 8 2 ) : 161-77; A n d r e a Milano, Persona i n t e o l o a i a . A l l e o r i a i n i d e l s i a n i f i c a t o d i p e r s o n a nel c r i s t i a n e s i r n o a n t i c o (Naples: D e h o n i a n e , 1 9 8 4 ) ; A n d r e de Halleux, " P e r s o n a l i s m e ou e s s e n t i a l i s m e t r i n i t a i r e c h e z l e s Peres c a p p a d o c i e n s ? Une m a u v a i s e c o n t r o v e r s e , " Revue t h e o l o a i a u e d e L o u v a i n 1 7 ( 8 6 : 129-55, 265-92; M a r i a S i l v i a T r o i a n o , "I1
b u t do n o t c o n s i d e r the C a p p a d o c i a n s ' ;
c ) s t u d i e s that deal with
npocrwrrov and u r o a ~ u o ~i sn t h e C a p p a d o c i a n s , t h e t r i n i t a r i a n nczion o f p e r s o n s . '
s h o w i n g how they shaped
A l t h o u g h I refer t o s t u d i e s
from a l l t h r e e g r c c p s throughout t h e d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
it i s m a i n l y
s t u d i e s i n t h e t n l r i q o u p i h a t d e f i n e t h e status q u a e s t i o n i s for
aoncetco d i numerazlone d e l l ? i p o s t a s i i n B a s i l i o d i Cesarea," V e t e r a C h r i s t i a n o r u r n 2 4 (19873: 337-52; J. I b a d e t a n d F . Mendoza, " E l v a l o r d e l t e r m i n c ' h y p o s t a s i s ' e n e l l i b r o I C o n t r a Eunomium 3e G r e g o r i o d e N i s a " i n E l " C s n t r a Eunornium I " e n l a ~ r o d u c c i o n l i t e r a r i a d e G r e q o r i o de N i s a . S i x t h I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o l l o q u i u m o n G r e a o r v o f Nvssa, e d s - Lucas F . Mateo-Seco a n d J u a n L . B a s t e r o (Parnplona: U n i v e r s i d a d d e N a v a r r a , 1 9 8 8 1 , 329-37; J a r o s l a v Pel i k a n , C h r i s r i a n : t v a n d C l a s s i c a l C u l t u r e : The M e t a m o r ~ h o s i s o f N a t u r a l T h e o l o a v iz m e C h r i s t i a n E n c o u n t e r w i t h H e l l e n i s m ( N e w Haven, CT: Yale 3n:-:ersity Press, 1993); G . C h r i s t o p h e r S t e a d , Philosophv i n C h r i x i z n Ant~ouitv (Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1394) ; Jean P e p i n , ""Trrap& e t Qrrcia~aaise n Cappadoce" i n H v p a r x i s e H v ~ o s t a s i snel N e o ~ l a t o n i s m o . Atti d e l 1 C o l l o a u i o I n t e x z z i o n a l e del C s n t r o d i R i c e r c a sul Neoplatonisrno LJr.i-:srsita deal: S t u d i d i C a t a n i a , 1 - 3 o t t o b r e L g W ) , e d s . F . Rornanc a n d D . ? . Taormina ( F l o r e n c e : Leo S . O l s c h k i , 1994), 5 5 - 5 . - F o r example: R . E . H i t t , " H y p o s t a s i s , " i n A m i c i t i a e C o r o l l a : A Volume s f E s s a v s P r e s e n t e d t o James R e n d e l H a r r i s , e d . H. G. Wood (London: University o f London Press, l933), 319-43; Maurice N e d o n c e l l e , " P r o s d p o n a n d p e r s o n a d a n s l ' a n t i q u i t e c l a s s i q u e , " Revue d e s s c i e n c e s r e l i s i e u s e s 22 ( 1 9 4 8 ) : 277-99; H e i n r i c h D o r r i e , " ' 1 8 ~ o o i a o i $ :Wort- und B e d e u t u n g s g e s c h i c h t e " o r i g i n a l l y p u b l i s h a d i n N a c h r i c n t e n der Akademie der W i s s e n s c h a f t e n i n Gotrinoen, p h i l . - h i s t . K l a s s e J a h r g . 1955 ( N o . 3 ) : 35-92 ( r e p r i n t e d in i d e m , P l a t o n i c a Minora [Munchen: W . F i n k , 19761, 1 2 - 6 9 ) . 'A. M i c h e l , " R y p o s t a s e t f i n D i c t i o n n a i r e d e t h e o l o s i e c a t h o l i a u e (Paris: p r i n t e d for Letouzey e t Ane, 1 9 2 2 ) , 369-437; Jiirgen Hammerstaeaz, " H y p o s i l a s i s [ ' U T ~ ~ T U "~ Li Sn ) R e a l l e x i k o n fiir A n t i k e und C h r i s t e n c u m v o l . 1 6 ( S t u t t g a r t : A. H i e r s e m a n n , 1 9 9 4 ) : 986-1035; Andre de S a l l e u x , " ' H y p o s t a s e ' e t ' p e r s o n n e ' d a n s l a f o r m a t i o n d u dogme t r i n i t a i r e ( c a . 375-381),11 Revue d'histoire ecclesiastiaue 7 9 : i W 4 ) : 3 1 3 - 3 6 9 , 625-670.
me,
A s I shail ercieavor t o snow, however, t h e l a t t e r a r e e i t h e r
coo s h o r t o r s e r i m s l y d e f i c l a t .
B u t before t h i s ,
I would l i k e
t o a n s w e r t h e quescion w h e t h s r a c o n c e p t o f p e r s o n e x i s t e d b e f o r e t h e Cappadocians.
1. Did a N o t i o n of 3 e r s o n E x i s t i n A n t i q u i t v ?
There i s a whole c c n c 2 m p o r a r y d e b a t e on w h e t h e r t h e a n c i e n t s had a notion of p e r s x .
Tn o r d c t o u n d e r s t a n d t h i s d e b a t e a n d why I
t h i n k t h a t t h e a n c i a x s bid w t have a n o t i o n of p e r s o n b e f o r e
the Cappadocians I n e e d t o i n d i c a t e what I mean by a p e r s o n . Such a d e f i n i t i c n i s no e a s y -.ask, a s p r o v e d by t o d a y ' s numerous,
and many times contradictory, d e f i n i t i o n s of a p e r s o n . attempting t o do s o , I wanc :J
.'
In
i n d i c a t e as b a s i c a d e f i n i t i o n a s
p o s s i b l e , s o t h a ~2 ran b e x c e p t e d a s a x i o m a t i c f o r p o s s i b l e t h e o r i e s of p e r s c c 2); b o i h s l l e s o f
d e f i n i t i o n t h a t wxid
he d e b a t e .
A working
s a t i s f , a i l t h e s e c r i t e r i a i s probably t h e
. .. following: a perscc i s "an : x u v i s i b l e ,
u n i q u e and t h e r e f o r e non-
r e p l i c a b l e u n i t y ir. hcman existence. "' T h e i s s u e of ;he
person i n c l a s s i c a l a n t i q u i t y i s e s p e c i a l l y
'For a b r i e f overview, see E n c v c l o o e d i a o f P s v c h o l o q v , eds. H. J. Eysenck, W. A r n o l d , and R . Meili ( N e w Y o r k : H e r d e r , l 9 7 2 ) , 777 f .
'W. A r n o l d , " P e r s o n , " i n E n c v c l o ~ e d i aof Psvcholoay, eds . H. J. Eysenck, W . A r n o l d , a n d R . Meili ( N e w York: Herder, l972), 778.
important for my thesis.
If the ancients were aware of, or
interested in, the notion of p e r s o n o r individual, t h e n the Cappadocians could nave drawn on a p r e v i o u s development.
such a notion exist?
But did
There are some s c h o l a r s of antiquity who
believe that the ancients did have s u c h a notion.
They contend
that ancient writers' interest in the various traits of human personality--such as courage, rationality, love, even
consciousness--is a pertinent proof that the ancients were aware of a notion of person.
As I shall exemplify a little later when
analyzing such an irgurnent extensivelyfW these scholars either confuse "person" ~ ~ i "personality," i h or "person" with "soul."
As
m y definition of a person makes it clear, a person is a unique
human existence, wi-.ile personality is perhaps best understood as "the relatively stabie organization of a person's motivational dispositions, arising from the interaction between biological' drives and the s o c i a l and physical environment."'
child, a
"Cornelia J. de Vogel, "The Concept of Personality in Greek and Christian Thought," in Studies in Philoso~hvand the Historv of Philoso~hv,ed. john K. i3yan (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1963), 2 0 - 6 0 . Daniel F. Stramara, jr., "Unmasking t h c Meaning of ~ p o o w r r o v : Prosdpon as Person in the Works of Gregory of Nyssa" (Ph.D. dissertation, St. Louis University, St. Louis, MO, 1996). '1n the definition of personality, I would replace the word "biological" with "natural1' so as not to exclude the soul.
'T. Takuma, "Personality," in Encvclo~ediaof Psvcholoq~, eds. H. J. Eysenck, W. Arnold, and R. Meili (New York: Herder,
mentally deranged !urnan, or a human vegetable can be considered persons; they should be acknowledged as existential units, sven if they do not have a personality or are not "ego-conscious."
I
do acknowledge char the ancients were preoccupied with the soul and its traits.
But they did not connect soul with the
~ndividual,because bdore che Cappadocians they only had
rudiments of a c n e c r y of the individual.
I shall examine these
rudiments short iy . Another nuance x h i c h some of these scholars are willing ro
concede is that "there is probably not a (post-Cartesian) concept of 'personf in Grzek philosophy.
But there is a concept of
rational animal, at least in Aristotle and the Stoics."' What the author of this statement means is that the ancients did not have the modern, post-Cartesian concept of person, but they did have a certain c o n e p t of person, even if underdeveloped.
I
think that the k i n d sf arguments zhese scholars use to ccntend that there was a notion of person in Greek philosophy (even if different from the nodern notion, they concede!) prove only that the ancients were i n t e r e s t e d in distinguishing between the human
species and various animal species. The ancients, I should reemphasize, were hardly interested in distinguishing two human individuals from on2 another or a human individual from an
'Christopher Gill, "Is There a Concept of Person in Greek Philosophy?" in P s v c h o l o ~ v , ea. Steven Everson (Cambridge: Cambridge University P r e s s , 1 9 9 1 ) , 1 9 3 .
individual animal. Another series of studies has actually demonstrated that for various reasons the ancients did not identify, nor were they interested to elaborate on, che human individual?
Although
Plotinus came closest to recognizing a distinctive human individuality, he actually did not achieve this.
Another step
forward was made by Plotinus' best known disciple, Porphyry, who gave a definition of an individual as a unique collection of properties.
In a first arciclt on "Forms of Individuals in Plotinus," John Rist remarks = h a t one of the major contributions Plotinus made to thought was his recognition of the role of individuality.
For Aristotle, the individual could not be defined."
Philosophy
should therefore be concerned with the individual only inasmuch as he is a member of a class.
As for a Platonic philosopher's
"John M. Rist, Human Value: A Studv in Ancient Philosophical Ethics (ieiden: Brill, 1982), 145-52; idem, "Forms of Individuals in Plotinus," Classical Ouarterlv n o s . , 13 (1963): 223-31; "Ideas of Individuais in Plotinus: A Reply to Dr. Blumenthal," Revue internationale de hil lo sop hie 24 (1970): 298303; "Prohairesis: Proclus, Plotinus et alii" in Oe Jamblique a Proclus, ed. 8. D. Larsen (Vandoeuvres-Geneva: Fondation Hardt, 1975), 103-117. Cf. also H. J. Blumenthal, "Did Plotinus Believe in Ideas of Individuals?," Phronesis 11 (1966): 61-80; A. H. Armstrong, "Form, Individual and Person in Plotinus," Dion~sius1 (1977): 49-68; Charles H. Kahn, "Discovering the Will: From Aristotle to Augustine" in The Question of 'Eclecticism' in Later Greek Philosoohv, eds. John M. Dillon and A. A. Long (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, l988), 234-59.
view on the issue of individuality, Rist quotes a good summary of lt
by Grube: We must rernemb2r that from first to last the aim of the Platonic philosopher is to live on the universal plane, to lose himself more and more in the contemplation of truth, so that the perfect psyche would, it seems, lose itself completely in he universal mind, the world-psyche. Hence it remains individual only in so far as it is imperfect, and personal imrnorcality is not something to aim at, but s o m e t h i n c j ro w r j r o w . : -
Plato and Aristotle spoke cf F o r m (or Ideas) as corresponding to ,one set of things :hat have 3 common name,-' that is, Forms are
of universals.
Mcrmver, '
bcth ;f
them agr2ed that there is a
,
Form of Human,-'* bur c h e y di5 not accept that there could also be a Form of the indi- dual known as Socrates.
Although not
rejecting Forms of miversals, Plotinus raised the question of the possibility of existence of Forms of individual humans and believed in the existence of such Forms. speak of a Form of S o c r a t e s :
In his view, one can
This strange view of Plotinus led
Rist to state: "I b d i e v e is may now be assumed
...
that Plotinus
was one of those Flatonists who subscribed to a heretical version
of Platonism according to which =here are not only forms of
.-
--GeorgeM. A. Grube, Plato's T h o u a h t (London: Methuen, 1935; several reprints until 1980), 148. -
7
-'Platof Republic 596a5-7.
-
1
-'E.g. 1096bl.
Plato, 3hilebus, i 5 a ; Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics
s p e c i e s b u t a l s o f o r m s o f i n d i v i d u a l s , a t l e a s t i n t h e c a s e of i n d i v i d u a l men.
"lC
P l o t i n u s d i s c u s s e s Forms o f i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h e f o l l o w i n g t r e a t i s e s : Ennead ; i . 9 [ 5 ] 1 2 ; Enn. V . 7 4 2 ; Enn.
IV.3
VI.7.8.1-5;
Enn. V I . 3
[27! 5.8-11 a n d IV.3.6.15-17; Enn. V I . 7
VI.'.
[44]
9 . 3 - 4 6 ; VI.7.11.14-15; Enn. V I . 2 .-
9.2-3.-
[23] 8.21[ 3 8 ] 3.13;
[ 4 3 ] 22.11-17;
T h e s e x i o n s t h a t o f f e r much o n t h e
subject are t h e f l r x chree.
Enn. V.9 -
[18]; Enn. VI.5
,
-
A s R i s t h a s r i g h t l y noted, - ' i n
[ 5 ] 1 2 P l x i n u s i s somewhat h e s i t a n t a b o u t Forms o f
i n d i v i d u a l s , but here f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e h e r a i s e s t h e q u e s t i o n
'9. R i s t , %man V a l u e : A Study i n A n c i e n t P h i l o s o ~ h i c a l . . E t h i c s ( L e i d e n : Brr-it 19821, 101. .,
- F o r G r e e k ; s : x a n d English t r a n s l a t i o n see P l o t i n u s , E n n e a d s , 7 v o l s . , z r . A . H . Armstrong ( C a m b r i d g e , MA: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1365-1988). I n s q u a r e b r a c k e t s I m a r k t h e c h r o n o l o g i c a l order i n which t h e Enneads were w r i t t e n , a s i n d i c a t e d b y Porphyry i n h i s e d i t i o n o f t h e E n n e a d s .
I ~ l c i i v i d u a l s in P l o t i n u s , " 2 2 4 . H e ree m p h a s i z e s t h e sams p o s i t i o n s e v e n y e a r s l a t e r i n "Ideas o f I n d i v i d u a l s i n P l o c i n u s : A R e p l y to D r . B l u r n e n t h a l , " Revue i n t e r n a t i o n a l e de o h i l o s o ~ h i e24 (1970): 2 9 8 - 3 0 3 a g a i n s t a r e j o i n d e r t o h i s first article p u b l i s h e d b y H . J. B l u r n e n t h a l , "Did P l o t i n u s B e l i e v e i n I d e a s o f I n d i v i d u a l s ? , " P h r o n e s i s 11 ( 1 9 6 6 ) : 61-80. B l u m e n t h a l ( p . 7 6 ) a r g u e d t h a t i n b o t h Enn. V. 9 [ 5 ] 1 2 a n d V I . 5 [ 2 3 j P l o t i n u s d e n i e d t h e e x i s t e n c e o f Forms of i n d i v i d u a l s . After R i s t ' s c r i t i q u e , B l u m e n t h a l r e c o g n i z e d t h a t i n t h e e a r l i e r a r t i c l e "I probably adduced VI.5.8 a s n e g a t i v e e v i d e n c e [for the s x i s t e n c e of Forms of i n d i v i d u a l s ] t o o c o n f i d e n t l y " ( B l u r n e n t n a l , P l o t i n u s ' Psvcholoav: H i s D o c t r i n e of t h e Embodied S o u l :The Hague: W a r t i n u s N i j h o f f , 19711, 1 2 2 f , n . 2 4 ) . Later, t w o o r h e r P l o t i n i a n s c h o l a r s agreed with R i s t : A . H . - - R i s t , "Forms ~f
A r m s t r o n g , "Form, Individual a n d P e r s o n i n P l o t i n u s , " D i o n v s i u s 1 ( 1 9 7 7 ) : 49-68, ana L l o y d P . G e r s o n , P l o t i n u s ( N e w York: R o u t l e d g e , l W Q , "7 f .
J?
o f t h e p o s s i b i l i t y ~f t h e i r e . x i s c e n c e :
But i f t h e F o r 3 of man i s i h ? r e . . . t h e n o n e m u s t s a y t h a t t h e Forms o f a n i v e r s a l s ( ~ a 0 o X o u ~ h ~ i Gaqr e ) t h e r e , n o t of S o c r a t e s b u t ~f man. But m u s t e n q u i r e a b o u t man w h e t h e r t h e form o f :his i n d i v i d u a l ( u ~ a & ~ a t s - r ai)s there; t h e r e i s i n d i v i d u a l i t y , b e c a u s e t h e same [ i n d i v i d u a l f e a t u r e ] i s d i f f e r e n t i n d i f f e r e n t people.:' The t r e a t i s e w h e r e ? l o r i n u s nos;
c l e a r l y a f f i r m s the e x i s t e n c e o f
Forms of i n d i v i d u a l s and h i s b2iief i n t h e m i s Enn. V . 7
[181.
The q u e s t i o n openi.,; his t r e a ~ i s ti s " I s there a n idea o f e a c h particular thing?" b a s e s h i s argurnenr: "If Sccrates,
And t h e a n s w e r t o i t i s "Yes." 3.".
Plotinus
che i m m o r z a l i t y of t h e s o u l , s a y i n g t h a t
t h a c i s r;he s o u l - f S o c r a t e s , a l w a y s e x i s t s ,
there
will be an absolui? Socraces i n c h e sense t h a t , i n s o f a r a s t h e y a r e s o u l , individuaLs a r e a l s o s a i d t o e x i s t i n t h i s way i n t h e i n ~ e l l i g i b l eworld. "" Yet Plotinus d o e s b e l i e v e i n r e i n c a r n a t i o n , a s ~ n o c h e rt r e a t i s e c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s w i t h Enn. V . 7 s u c h a s Enn. 3 . 4
* - - .
I.:;
shows.
T%xefore,
when r e a l i z i n g t h a t s u c h
a d o c t r i n e c o u l d ,;:*ie a d e a ~ hblow t o t h e t h e o r y of Forms of individuals i f
he l a i r z e r is b a s a d on t h e i m m o r t a l i t y o f the
s o u l , h e i m m e d i a t e l y t r i e s t o a d d r e s s t h i s i s s u e a n d accommodate i t t o h i s new t h e c r l i .
And h e does seem t o accommodate t h e two
t h e o r i e s by c o n s i d e r i n g i n Enn. V . 7 . 3 . 7 - 1 0
that e v e n a c r a f t s m a n
who makes two i d e n t i c a l t h i n g s i s a w a r e o f their
logical
difference."
By " l o g i c a l d i f f e r e n c e " h e means " n u m e r i c a l
difference."
I n g i s t ' s words, " a l t h o u g h X is r e i n c a r n a t e d a s Y,
h e c a n n e v e r blot 3uc t h a t f o r m e r X-nsss
Once e x i s t e n c e h a s x c u r r e d ,
e l i m i n a t e d . ""
Thersfore,
so
LO
t h a t d i d i n fact e x i s t .
speak, i t cannot be
the Form o f X w i l l c o n t i n u e t o e x i s t
i n t h e i n t e l l i g i b l e world, even i f X i s r 3 i n c a r n a t e d a s Y . The reason why ? l o t i n u s f o c n d i t n e c e s s a r y t o p o s t u l a t e a Form f o r each h u m a n , a s w e l l a s a Form o f Human,
is t h u s s t a t e d :
No, t h e r e c a n n o t be t h e same f o r m i n g p r i n c i p l e (,\6yos) for d i f f e r e n t F n a i T : i d u a l s , a n d o n e man w i l l n o t serve a s a model f o r s e v e r a l men d i f f e r i n g from e a c h o t h e r n o t o n l y b y r e a s o n o f t h e i r m a t t e r b u t with 3 v a s t number of s p e c i a l Men s r e n o t r e l a t e d t o t h e i r f o r m a s d i f f e r e n c e s cf f o r m . p o r t r a i t s o f S s c r a t e s a r e z o their o r i g i n a l , b u t t h e i r d i f f e r e n t s c. .r x t u r e s m u s t r e s u l t f r o m d i f f e r e n t f o r m i n g p r i n c i p k s . -Compared w i t h Enn. Y.3.12, E n n . V. 7 r e p r e s e n t s a p r o g r e s s i n t h e
sense t h a t t h e t s e
2f
such
s o u l to a c c o u n t fcr :he i n d i v i d u a l s s h o w s :hat
a R
srprnent a s t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e
d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e Forms o f v a r i o u s
P l o t i n u s has r e a l i z e d t h e i m p o r t a n c e " o f
d i f f e r e n c e s of c h a r a c t e r ,
a s a c a i n s t t h o s e o f b o d i l y features. " - '
E l s e w h e r e P l o i i n u s i n q u i r e s about t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e Forms o f i n d i v i d u a l a n i m a l s 2 ' o r i n d i v i d u a l
-. --Rist, "Forms s f I n d i v i d u a l s i n P l o t i n u s , " 2 2 8 . --Enn. - V.7 +.
-'Rist,
8
1.19-23.
"Forms 3f I n b i v i d u a i s , " 2 2 7 .
-'Erin. V.7.3.2-3. I
-
--
fires."
Nevertheless, he finds the hypothesis of Forms of
animals less attrac~ivethan that of Forms of human individuals and completely rejects the F o r m of individual fires because in his view Fire is a zontinuum.
Hzving turned his attention twice
t o t h e relevant passages where Plotinus discusses the Forms of
individuals, gist zoncludes t k x : [Flrorn the tiae he wrote 5.7, Plotinus accepted certain Ideas of individuals, and . . . his conviction was strongest in the cass cf individual men. Ir is possible that he positively resffirms his sosition in 4 . 3 . 5 , but at least we must rnaintsin z h a r he nowhere withdraws or rejects it, explicitly or implicitly.- "
Who could kav+ possibly influenced Plotinus' theory of Forms
of individuals?
4ist suggests that it might be Aristotle who
alludes to this in FIet. 990514 and the Stoics through their distinction betwem
KOLVI;)STTOLOP and i S i w l ; ~ o i o v . - -
.
.
.
present the A r i s t z x ~ a nr x x a c e . -
7
I shall first
In the above-mentioned
passage Aristotle ~ r c c s :
For accordin9 : c the 5rgKrnents from the existence of the sciences there will be F c r z s of all things of which there are s c i e n c e s , and according to the argument that there is one a t t r i b u r r e ccmmon L O mar+- things there will be Forms even of negations, and according to the argument that t h e r e is an object for thought even when the thing has perished, there will be Forms of perishable things; for we can have an image
VI. 5
-. -"Rist, "Ideas af Individuals," 303. Cf. also J. M. Rist, Plotinus: The Road tc R e a i i t v (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1 9 6 7 1 , ill. .- Rist, "Forms of Indi-iiduais in Plotinus," 229 f .
In his recent book an Plotinus, Gerson has paid close attention to Aristotle's influence.
Yet, besides alluding to Met. 990b14,
Gerson adduces ~ h testimony e cf the Peripatetic Alexander of
nphrodisias (fl. ca. 200 passage in Arisrocls.
?.D)
who attempts to explicate the
I now quste Alexander:
The argumenc r h a c tries c s establish that there a r e Ideas O is z s follows. If whenever we think from thoughr - o 6 L of man or f o c x d or animal, we ars thinking of something that is b c ~ hz r o n g tt? c t i x ~ s;hat exist y t t is not one of the p a r t i c x l a r s &v lia8'i~ua;ov) (fcr when c h e latter have perished the same chs~;q.h.c remains), clearly there is something besides p a r ~ i c u l a r sand perceptibles, which we think of wherhsr the l a ~ ~ exist 2 r or not; for we are certainly noi = h e n thinking of something non-existent. And this is the " a r m and a n Idea. Now he [Aristotle] says that this argument also es~ablishesIdeas of things that are perishing and have p s r i s t x i , and in general of things that are both particulars and p x i s h a b l e - - e . g . , of Socrates, of Plato; for we think of t h e s e men and preserve some image of chem even when t h e y no i c q e r exist. And indeed we also think of th.in9.s that do R o c exist at all, like a hippocentaur, 3 chimaera; zonsequently neither does this argument si-.ci..i 13.3: t 5 . c ~313 Ideas.-'
Alexander explains r k a i , Aristotle says z i a :
. , . 1. nrs
(critique of the Platonic Forms,
ih? "argomezt from thought" would lead the
Platonists to c o n c h d e that there are Forms of particulars, a conclusion which :hey
may u a n i zo avoid.
Gerson contends that
"Plotinus certainly knew the argument as it appears in the
--
-'Alexander of Aphrodisias, In Aristotelis Meta~hvsica Commentaria 81.25-82.7, ed. M. Sayduck, Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca I (Berlin: Rsimer, 1891). ET by L. Gerson, Plotinus (New Y o r k : Routledge, l994), 7 3 .
Metaphvsics and quire p o s s i b l y knew of the longer version" as it
appears in Alexander's
commentary.
"
What is surprising,
however, is that 2lxinus accepced the conclusion envisaged by -qrlscotle, c h u s beesrning :he
represent~civeof a heretical
version of Platonism.
I shall now r u n to the s3cond influence on Plotinus' theory of Forms of individuals, F A . , K O L V Grroiov ~ and ibiws ;roiJv, :he .
-.
category, the qua-:r:ed
the S t o i c distinction between
cvc components of the second Stoic ..
f 5 ) m ) i o i f ; .' -
Thesaurus Linauae Zraecae CD-ilorn, mi-
never occurs
I.-.
A search t h r o u g h the
r e v e a l s t h a t t h e phrase
-~nneads,2nd neither do its two
KOLV&S
components
within four l i n s ~f eac?. t h e r , while i 6 i w ~ - r o t uo c c u r s once at E n n . VI.1 never
[ 4 2 ] 30.6, rhough its t w o components (i6iws and mi-)
occur elsewkre in :he
ocher.
E n n s a d s wlthin four lines of each
Yet Enn. Y . 1 . 3 0 is a later treatise, number 42 in
Porphyry's c h r o n o l m y of r h e f n n e a d s , and the passage concerned is nothing but ? l c z F ~ . u s ' famous critique of the Stoic categories. So, it is normal t:
find a r 2 f e r e n c e
qualified" in Enn. -2. i. 30.
LJ
the "individually
I therefore conclude t h a t i t is n o t
i n this treatise =?.at one should look for Stoic influences on
."Gerson, P l o t i n u s , 74. -.
'-It is probably worth mentioning t h a t G e r s o n (Plotinus, 7 2 7 8 ) is t o t a l l y uninterested in t h i s influence on Plotinus, a l t h o u g h Rist mentions it explicitly in his "Forms of Individuals," 226 f.
P l o t i n u s ' Forms of i n d i v i d u z l s .
N e i t h e r i t s date n o r i t s c o n t e n c
make i t r e l e v a n t far o u r p u r p o s e s .
Rather, one should look f o r a
~ r e a t i s ewhich p r e z s d e s o r a c c h e l a t e s t i s c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s with
Enn. V . 7
[ I 8 3 and :his
can
%?
c o u n t e d a s a s e c o n d method o f
detecting a n i n f l c e n c e o f c h s s e c o n d S t o i c c a t e g o r y o n P l o t i n u s . R i s t p o i n t s o u t t%c
Chronologically, Ern.
Enn. 11.4 [ 1 2 ] 4 c a n b e s u c h a r e f e r e n c e . ' 11.4 [12] 4 was w r i t t e n a f t e r E n n . V.9 [ 5 ] ,
w h e r e P l o t i n u s i s s c i l l h e s x a n t a b o u t Forms o f i n d i v i d u a l s , b u ~ b e f o r e Enn. V . 7
[I;], where ne a f f i r m s h i s b e l i e f i n s u c h Forms.
T h u s , i n Enn. 11.4 . ? 2 - 4 h e x r i t e s : " I f ,
hen, t h e Forms a r e
many, t h e r e musc b 2 somethinu in them common t o them a l l ; a n d a l s o s o m e t h i n g ~ n a l - ~ i d u a ;b,:; T h i s i d e a , ?As:
w h i c h one d i f f e r s f r o m a n o t h e r . "
s ~ ; j 5 s t s , xay be o f S t o i c o r i g i n .
The s u g g e s t i o n
should be taken s e r r o u s l y , ? s p e c i a l l y s i n c e a l a t e r Neoplatonist -.
s u c h a s S h p l i c i u s sertizres that the P l o t i n i a n n o t i o n o f Forms o f i n d i v i d u a l s was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e S t o i c " i n d i v i d u a l i y
qualified. "" By s p e c i f i c a l l y i n q u i r m g into t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of t h e e x i s t e n c e of Form sf i n d i v i d u a l s , o t h e r ancient this;:?r
P l o t i n u s went f a r t h e r t h a n a n y
b e f o r e h i m in e l a b o r a t i n g a f o r m a l t h e o r y
o f t h e human i n d i v i d u a l .
One w o u l d expect t o f i n d i n t h e E n n e a d s
a deeper reflection o n t h i s x o p i c .
U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h i s was n o t
--
'-Rist, ''Forms o f I n d i v i d u a l s , " 226. -'3~implicius3 , n A r i s t o t l e ' s On S o u l 217,
36.
t h e case a n d w e h a v e c o be satisfied w i t h what i s l e f t w h i c h t e s t i f i e s t o a n u n d e r d e v e l o p e d u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e c o n c e p t o f
individual. A l t h o u g h g e n e r a l l y agreeing w i t h R i s t a b o u t t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of t h e Enneads p a s s a g e s where P l o t i n u s deals w i t h Form of i n d i v i d u a l s , Armscrong a r g u e s t h a t P l o t i n u s h a d a more
e l a b o r a t e t h e o r y of i n d i v i d u a l humans."
Yet, h e b a s e s h i s
a r g u m e n t o n t h e c o n f u s i o n b e ~ w e e np e r s o n a n d p e r s o n a l i t y w h i c h I mentioned e a r l i e r .
2 . The S t a t u s O u a e s t i o n i s i n Paqan a n d C h r i s t i a n T h o u a h t
Next I s h a l l disccss s e v e r a l s t u d i e s d e a l i n g w i t h t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e concept o f person i n a n t i q u i t y and l a t e a n t i q u i t y and t h e
h i s t o r y o f two ma jar ~ e c h n i c 8 1terms (~rpommov.urroo~aois) u s e d b y t h e Cappadocians cs indicate t h e d i v i n e p e r s o n s .
First, I shall consider a n a r t i c l e b y the Dutch scholar C o r n e l i a J. de V o g e l , " T h e C o n c e p t o f P e r s o n a l i t y i n G r e e k a n d C h r i s t i a n Thought.""
De Vcgel w a n t s t o show t h a t a word f o r
e i t h e r " p e r s o n " o r " p e r s o n a l i t y " i s by n o means l a c k i n g , either
"Armstrong, --
"
Form, I n d i v i d u a l a n d P e r s o n i n P l o t i n u s , " 5 9
J. d e V q e l , "The C o n c e p t o f P e r s o n a l i t y i n Greek a n d C h r i s t i a n Thought," i n S t u d i e s i n P h i l o s o o h v and t h e H i s t o r v of P h i l o s o a h v , e d . John K . Ryan ( W a s h i n g t o n , DC: T h e C a t h o l i c U n i v e r s i t y o f America Press, 1963), 20-60. "C.
in Greek or in Latin, and that "the first metaphysics of man as a moral person is found in Greek philosophy, and of man in his individuality as well" (p. 22).
Initially, the author defines
"person1'and "personality" as distinct: "Person is man as a rational and moral subiect, free and self-determining in his actions, responsible for his deeds," whereas "lolersonalitv is manrs individual character, his uniaueness" (p. 23) .
In the
notion of "person," then, she emphasizes rationality and morality.
These two elements make humans superior to both
inanimate things and animals, since self-determination and responsibility depend on the faculty of reason.
De Vogel
contends that in this general sense "there is a great deal of reflection on che 'person' in Greek phiiosophy" ( p . 23).
To support her claim, de Vogel resorts to some seventeenthand eighteenth-century philosophers such as John Locke and Christian Wolff, or Neo-Kantians such as Georg Windelband, who define the person in terms of self-reflection and self-consciousness.'b Having set this theoretical framework, de Vogel then goes back to Homer and the lyric poets, trying to show that their world appears to us " a s a very personal world: the Homeric heroes appear to us as personalities" (p. 57). Other Greek poets
%Tohn Locke, An Essav Concerning Human Understandinq (first published in 1 6 9 0 1 , 11. xxvii, § 9; Christian Wolff, Psvcholooia rationalis (n. p. : 1734), 660; Georg Windelband, Einleitunq (Engl. transl. 1921), 281. Apud C. J. de Vogel, "The Concept of Personality," 24 n. 11.
also are eager to portray scrcng characters or what we would call today "strong personalities."
One of the charac~eristicsof the
Homeric heroes is their self-determination, which is respected
In referring to these characteristics of the
even by the gods.
Homeric heroes, de Vogel concludes: " [t]hat is what we called person" ( p . 2 6 ) .
Next, she moves from poetry to philosophy,
considering both Greek and Latin philosophers: Heraclitus, Pythagoras, Anaximenes, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Marcus Aurelius and Plotinus, to mention but the most important. to
All of them are
various degrees preoccupied with issues related to the human
being and his soul.
Again she concludes that their preoccupation
with these aspects of the human life b e c r a y s their interest in persons. Only Plotinus leads her to conclusions more relevant to my
present study.
De Vogel considers Enneads V . 7 and VI.5.8.21-42
which, are important for his theory of Forms of Individuals, as I pointed out earlier.
After introducing the arguments of Enn.
V.7.1, de Vogel concludes: "I do not hesitate to say: here we have a full-grown metaphysics of the personality" ( p . 54). Indeed, it might have been better if she had hesitated, because the passages in question only point to Plotinus' attempts to grasp a notion of individual, not personality, and these attempts constitute only a beginning, not a full-grown theory.
De Vogel's article is only partially faithful to its title.
A l t h o u g h d e a l i n g r a t h e r s a t i s f a c t o r i l y w i t h the c o n c e p t o f p e r s o n a l i t y i n Greek thought,
the a r t i c l e a l l o t s n o more t h a n
t h r e e p a g e s , m a i n l y i n c h e c o n c l u s i o n s , t o the c o n c e p t o f personality i n Christian thought.
Nor d o e s s h e jive a p r o p e r
t r e a t m e n t t o the c o n c e p t o f p e r s o n , which i s conscantly c c n f o u n d e d wich t h e c o n c e p c 3f p e r s o n a l i t y , despite their being r e c o g n i z e d a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f r h e article a s f o r m a l l y distinct. M o r e o v e r , d e V o g e l u s e s a p s y c h o l o g i c a l definition of c h e p e r s o n , i n s p i r e d by m o d e r n p h i l o s o p h y , e s p e c i a l l y J o h n Locke's.
Yet, a s
A . Michei s h o w e d i n a n a r t i c l e a b o u t t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e word
" h y p o s t a s i s , " t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l v i e w o f c h e p e r s o n i s wrong, s i n c e i t c o n f u s e s t h e self w i t h t h e perception of c h e self s r , p u t i n a more g e n e r a l way, :he i t s e l .
o b j e c t known w i t h the k n o w l e d g e
, 3 y s s s e r c i n g tke s e l r-- m c x l e d g e cf the s e l f , modern
p h i l o s o p h e r s s u c n a s chose n e n i i m e d a b o v e and many o t h e r s i n t h e i r t r a d i t i c n p r o v e o n l y chat t h e s e l f can know i t s e l f , n o t what t h e self
is
nor that the s e l f e x i s t s .
As I d e m o n s t r a t e e s p e c i a l l y i n C h a p t e r s One a n d Two, p r i o r t o t h e C a p p a d o c i a n s t h e r e s c a r c e l y w a s a c o n c e p t of p e r s o n i n ancient philosophy.
Moreover, i t was t h e C a p p a d o c i a n s who were
t h e first rc p r o v i d e a r a t h e r complex c o n c e p t cf p e r s o n . T h e r e f o r e , w h a t de V o g e l does in h e r s t u d y i s t o j u d g e a n e p o c h --
' A . M i c h e l , "Hypostase" in D i c t i o n n a i r e de T h e o l o q i e C a t h o l i a u e , ed. E . Amann e t a l . , v o l . 7 / 1 ( P a r i s : p r i n t e d f o r L e t o u z e y e t Ane, 1 9 2 7 ) , c o l . 433-34,
b y t h e c a t e g o r i e s o f a l a t e r e p o c h ; t h i s i s known as
" a n a c h r o n i s m " and u s u a l l y leads t o m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s .
De Vogel
d e p i c t s h e r e not t h e n o t i o n a f " p e r s o n " w h i c h we f i n d i n t h e
Church F a t h e r s a n d w h i c h was v a g u e l y s u g g e s ~ e d , f o r example, b y Plato i n Theaetetxs and f u r t h e r elaborated by P l o t i n u s and P o r p h y r y , but r a c h e r a n o t i o n o f p e r s o n in agr3ernent w i t h a modern, p s y c h o l o g i c a l def i n i ~ i o n . Yzt, a n e v e n n o r 2 i n ~ e r 2 s t i n g a n d f o r me a f a r more c h a l l e n g i ~ g-as? o f psychological
u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e p e r s o n i s Stramara's d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n which I s h a l l p r e s m t n e x t . W h i l e I was w r i t i n g m y d i s s e r ~ a ~ i o n ,t h e American s c h o l a r
Daniel F. S t r a m a r a , fr., w r o t e and d e f e n d e d a d i s s e r t a t i o n on t h e concept o f d i v i n e p e r s o n s i n G r t g o r y of Nyssa, e n t i t l e d "Unmasking t h s Meaning of n p h m o v : P r o s d p o n a s P e r s o n i n t h e
Works o f G r e g o r y cf Nyssa.""
Stramara p r o p o s e s t o demonstrate
t h a t d he term r r p d o w ~ ~ion~ ~G r e a o r y sf N y s s a f s r o r k s : l ) dces n o t mean mask but 2 ) i t i s u s e d a s a p s y c h o l o g i c a l term referring t o p e r s o n , a n d t h i s a s a s e l f - a w a r e psychological a g e n t ( p . 1) .
To
be more a c c u r a t e a b o u t t h e s e c o n d p o i n t , S t r a m a r a p r o p o s e s t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t G r e g o r y d i d u n d e r s t a n d s p e r s o n i n t h e modern sense o f a c e n t e r of c o n s c i o u s n e s s .
To s u b s t a n t i a t e the meaning o f ~~poawrrovi n G r e g o r y ' s works W a n i e l F. Stramara, jr , 0 S . . , "Unmasking t h e Meaning o f ~ ~ O O W T I O V : Prosapon a s P e r s o n i n t h e Works o f Gregory o f Nyssa" ( P h . D. diss., S t . L o u i s U n i v e r s i t y , S t . L o u i s , MO, 1996) . A
A
3 1 3 instances are analyzed.
Strarnara considers only those works
which a r e u n a n i m o u s l y accepted a s w r i t t e n b y G r e g o r y o f N y s s a .
G r e q u r y applies the term to d e n o t e
he d i v i n e p e r s o n s 2 8 9
of the
time, exegetical personage 16.7% of the time, human face 15.6% of the time, and human person 12.3'5; r r p o ~ w a o ~oj ~ l ymeans m a s k 0 . 7 % of the time.
Including prepositional p h r a s e s and the connotation of
rpdowrrov as person, the term refers to a p e r s o n (whether divine or
human) 7 1 . 4 % of the time. I n C h a p t e r s T h r e e ~ h r o u g hS i x :he
psy:hclcgical
meaning is
studied by way of i) a philological analysis cf psychclogical
terms used i n connection w i t h p e r s o n , and 2 ) contextualizing Gregory's t h o u g h t with Stoic and Meoplatonic psychology.
Stramara concludes ~ h a cG r e g o r y o f hlyssa u n d e r s t o o d npbowmw as a
psychological being, cperating out o f
i
zenrrer = f self-awaraness,
being b o t h s u b j e c t and objecc to sneself.
I a g r e e w i t h S t r a r n a r a ' s f i r s t point, n a m e l y t h a t most of the time t h e term rrpoowrrov in Gregory of Nyssa's works d o e s not mcan mask.
Stramara's comprehensive a n a l y s i s of t h e 313 instances of
t h e term rrpo~wrrov i n G r e g o r y ' s works i s most wdcome and brings an
important contribution to patristic scholarship.
~ p o m t r o vis
shown to nave a wide spectrum of meanings in G r e g o r y ' s works,
ranging from a n a t o m i c a l f a c e , surface, f a c e to face, gaze, a n d mask t o p e r s o n , s u b j e c t , f a c e o f God, exagetical personage, and
incarnate Logos ( p p . 29-110). To e x p r e s s t h e i d e a o f mask, most
of t h e t i m e G r e g o r y p r e f e r s the more t e c h n i c a l t e r m ~ p o a o m i o vt o -rrpoawnov.
He was
wzli acquainted with the theat?r, a s one o f h i s
b r o t h e r s , Naucratius, was a n a c ~ o r ...
I n EJ.
9.1,
Gregory
p r o v i d e s a d e t a i k d accounc o f s ~ a q sQ Z G P S a n d d r a m a t i c
paraphernalia.
only difficulty with Strarnara's f i r s t p a r t is that n o n e
My
of th2 a u t h o r s he c i ~ e sr e f e r s
KO
Gregory whom S c r a m a r a c l a i m s to
h a v e s a i d that G r e g o r y means n a s k b y ~ i p o o w a o v . S a r c h , f o r
example, w r i t e s " B u t did n o c p a r s o n a ,
Mighc n o t che term give new s u p p o r E
LO
TT~~)OWTTOLJ, a l s o
rnean " m a s k ' ?
c h e Sabellian i d e a o f
t h r e e mere r n a n i f e s ~ a ~ i c nbse h i n d w h i c h s r o o d a h i d d e n fourth?""
I am sur? c h a t when h e w r o m c h i s 3 a r c h was ~ h i n k i n gof Basil sf Caesarea a n d his attempts to b a n i s h :he rrerm ; ~ p d o w m v from *.
trinitarian v o c a b u l a r y because of i t s Modalisr overtones.'* A l t h o u g h simplifying t h e issues, B a r t h disapproves of the use of p e r s o n b o t h i n the modern s e n s e ( t h e z o n c e p t cf p e r s o n a s a
c e n t e r o f c o n s c i o u s n e s s that S t r a m a r a cries to promote) and in
.-
"See
G r e g o r y of Myssa, V i t a s . M a c r i n a e 8, GNO 8.1.378,
9-15.
" ~ a r l B a r t h , Church Doomatics I . 1 ( E d i n b u r g h : T & T C l a r k , T h i s is the text Stramara summarizes on p. 4 of his dissertation. l 9 7 5 ) , 355.
my " P r o s d ~ o n and Hv~ostasisin Basil of Caesarea's Aoainst Eunomius and the Epistles," Viailiae C h r i s t i a n a e 51, no. 4 (1997): 3 7 4 - 3 9 5 . "See
the p a t r i s t i c and medieval sense.'' use "mode of existence," because
d a n g e r s of :he
I n s t e a d h e p r o p o s e s that w e his phrase a v o i d s all the
overused word "person.""
Neither does Karl
Rahner, the s e c o n d d e f e n d a n t on Stramara's list, envisage G r e g o r y o f Nyssa when saying t h a t irpoawrov meanE m a s k .
Like Barth,
Rahner
p r o b a b l y h a s i n m i n d Sasil's l e c t e r s where nphw.rrov i s s a i d to be
Medalist.
Even less dces Waiter Kasper, c h s third defendant on
S t r a m a r a ' s l i s t , " s i m p l y e q u a t e the t e r m rrpoamov with mask."" For c o n f o r m i t y , I quote K a s p e r ' s text:
Tertullian's d i s c 7 n c c i c r - i becwsen n a t u r a and o e r s o n a was difficult for i h e E a s i , becszse p e r s o n a was translated a s p r o s d o o n ; prosdpon, h o w e v a r , meant a m a s k , c h a t i s a mere a p p e a r a n c e , and t h u s suggested modalism. For this reason B a s i l " i s s u e d a warning t h a t , a s u n d e r s t o o d i n the c o n f e s s i o n of f a i t h , t h e p e r s o n s ( p r o s 8 ~ a )of God txist as hypostases.''
If m e reads K a s p e r ' s cext w i t h more care t h a n Stramara, o n e discovers c h a t Kasper i s a w a r e t h a t rrpcjowrro~ scunded Modalis t ic,
""what i s callsd 'personality' in the conceptuai v o c a b u l a r y of t h e 19th century is distinguished f r o m the p a t r i s t i c a n d m e d i e v a l persona b y t h e addition o f t h e attribute o f s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s " ( B a r t h , C h u r c h Dosmatics I. 1, 3 5 7 ) . Church Doumatics
"Stramara,
"Unmasking,"
5.
" ~ a s i l of C a e s a r e a , Q. 210, 5; &. 214, 4; Q. 2 3 6 , 6 . Because analyzing extensively these e p i s t l e s i n my " P r o s W o n and Hvpostasis i n Basil," 3 8 7 - 3 9 4 , I c a n c o n f i r m K a s p e r ' s statement. '"alter K a s p e r , The God o f Jesus Christ, tr. Matthew J. OIConnell ( N e w York: Crossroad, 1989), 2 5 9 . 1 would like t o add t h a t I a l s o c o n s u l t e d t h e German o r i g i n a l f o r c o n f o r m i t y .
and could have meant mask to Basil, but t h a t even Basil accepted it if understood in the sense of hypostasis.
To conclude my ccmmentaries on Strarnara's first p a r t of the dissertation, I should say hat
he problem does not r e s i d e in
the fact t h a t B a r ~ hor R a h n e r or Kasper say in a qualified way that rrpdowrrov means m a s k a t o n e point in ihe history of
Christiani~y. The problem is thac Basil of Caesarea believed t h e same thing and in his disseriation Stramara ignores Basil's contention. Next I shall c o n s l d e r Strarnara's second p o i n c of the
dissertation, namely t h a t irp6owirov a s F e r s o n in Gregory means a
self-aware psychclogical a g e n t . ,
Ti
is worth noring from t h e
.
outset thac throughout h i s x s s e r t a t i c n S t r a r n a r a h a s an unwarranted tendency io s p r i n k l ? words such as "~sycho?ogical," "personality," and "consciousness." instances 3f
T T P ~ ) ~ T O L ' ,Strarnara
When he c o n s i d e r s the 313
has to sckncwledge chat in ai
l e a s t several c a s e s Gregcry uses irpdaw~iov wich the sense of mask.
But he contends t h a c "'mask' does not denote a false reality, a fapde.
It is a psychological disposition" ( p . 54).
i argue
that a "mask" is not limited to psychological disposition and can be used to denote a r e a l i c y o t h e r than t h e true, i . e . natural,
reality.
For example, at the beginning of the twentieth century,
white actors who played Othello had to paint their faces black;
this is an example of a mask that is neither a psychological
I a g r e e w i t h S t r a m a r a that a
d i s p o s i t i o n n o r a true r e a l i t y .
mask can be a p s y c h o l o g i c a l d i s p o s i t i o n a s w e l l , b u t I d i s a g r e e w i t h h i m t h a t s u c h a d i s p o s i t i o n c a n n o 1 s i g n i f y a f a l s s reality. If i c is a d i s p o s i t i o n a g a i n s t nature,
i t s o m e ~ i m e shas a n a u r a
.-
of false r e a l i t y . -
When d i s c u s s i n g t h e m e a n i n g o f ~ p o o w n t i w , Strarnara quotes a t z ~ from t L u c i a n o f Szmcsara:
Ncticing c h a t t h e d a n c e r had f i v e rnas:ks i;rpcjawira) r e a d y - - t i . ? drama h a d t h a t number sf a c t s - - s i n e h e [ a c a r b a r i a n ] saw b u r o n e d a n c e r , h e e n q u i r s d who were t o dancs a n d act t h e o c h e r r 6 k s (rrpoowmia) , a n d when h e l e a r n e d hat t h e d a n c e r himself was t o a c t a n d d a n c e them all, h e s a i d : I d i d n o t r e a l i z s , m y f r i e n d , chat ihough y o u h a v e o n l y t h i s o n e body, you h a v e many s o u l s
.
($VXUS) :-
S t r a r n a r a ' s comment i m e d i a t d y follcvinq t h i s t e x t i s : "The apocrwrreio~~i s c o n n e c t &
wirh personality"
q . 561
.
1 believe chat
t h e t e x t c l a a r l y ccnneccs npoowrr~iov wich s o u l , not w i c h
personality.
S t r a m a r a f a i l s ~o see these n u a n c e s .
"See C i c e r o , De c f f i c i i s I, 3 2 , 1 1 5 : "The r o l e ( p e r s o n a ) w e c h o o s e i n l i f e , h o w e v e r , depends e n t i r e l y o n o u r own w i s h e s . Thus some a p p l y t h e m s e l v e s t o p h i l o s o p h y , o t h e r s t o j u r i s p r u d e n c e , o t h e r s to o r a t o r y " ( " i p s i a u t e m g e r e r e quam p e r s o n a m v e l i m u s , a n o s t r a v o l u n t a t e p r o f i c i s c i t u r . I t a q u e se a l i i ad p h i l o s o p h i a m , a l i i a d i u s c i v i l e , a l i i a d e l o q u e n t i a m a p p l i c a n t , " i n Marcus T u l l i u s Cicero, D e o f f i c i i s , e d . M . W i n t e r b o t t o m [ N e w Y o r k : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 13941. ET i n C i c e r o , On M o r a l O b l i q a t i o n , t r . J o h n H i g g i n b o t h a m [ B e r k e l e y , CA: U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1 9 6 7 1 , 80) . F o r more o n r o l e p l a y i n g see C i c e r o , De o f f i c i i s I, 31-33.
' % u c i a n o f S a m o s a t a , De s a l c t a t i o n e 6 6 , Loeb 5 2 6 8 ; Harmon 2 6 9 . Apud Strsrnara, " U n m a s k i n g , " 5 7 .
a s " p e r s o n a l i t y o r p s y c h o l o g i c a l persor." ( p p . 67-69) g i v e s two e x a m p l e s from G r e g o r y of Nyssa's w o r k s .
, Stramara
I n both cases,
t h e r e f e r e n c e i s actually ~s ~ p c j o w l r o v a s t h e image of God i n
I t i s w e i n t h e m o d e r n e r a who c o n s i d e r the s o u l o r the
humans.
image o f God i n humans
LO b e
p a r t o f the p e r s o n a l i t y .
Stramara
a g a i n t r i e s t o f o i s t a p s y c h o l c g i c a l m e a n i n g o n Gregory rsrmrnology . E v e r s i n c e I d i s c o v e r e d t h i s dissertation I h a v e a s k e d
myself, What c o u l d h a v e influenced S t r a m a r a t o r a k e c h i s psychological x r n ?
1 b e l i e v e sne answer can be f o u n d i n :he
f o l l o w i n g s t a t a n e n t h e makes i n a n endnoce a t r h e ~ e g i n n i n go f
Chapter Three: "With r e g a r d co t h e whcle q u e s t i o n o f t h e o r i g i n of t h e idea s f s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s ,
t h e P l o t i n i a n a n d Stoic
s c h o l a r s u g g e s t s c h a t D e s c a r t e s i s indebted t o Auguscine who i s i n t u r n i n d e b i e d t o Plotinus; see A n d r e a s C r a e s e r , Piocinus and t h e S t o i c s ( L e i d e n : E. 3. 3 r i l l , 19721, 1 2 6 . " "
Strarnara t h u s
has i n f e r r e d t h a t i f Descartes i s indebted t o P l c c i n u s ( v i a A u g u s t i n e ) , t h e n s o s h o u l d G r e g o r y o f Xyssa be a s well. Moreover,
i f D e s c a r t e s had a p s y c h o i o g i c a l n o t i o n o f p e r s o n
( a f t e r a l l , s c h o l a r l y agreement f a v o r s D e s c a r t e s ' i n f l u e n c e on
L o c k e ) , t h e n s o does Gregory o f Nyssa; and t h a t i s why Stramara attempted t o demonstrate t h e l a t t e r point. become e v e n m o r e evident o n p p .
"Stramara,
Stramara's intentions
193-194, where h e q u o t e s Wallis'
"Unmasking, " 2 7 0 n. 6 .
34
-.
"Basil's 'Necplatonisrn'. "'- This a r c i c i e demonscrates that Plotinus' influence on both Basil sf Caesarsa and Gregory of
Nyssa is extremely limited.
If Srramara had used this article in
his dissertation, he could not have assumed Plotinus' unproved influence on Gregory of Nyssa.
Second, even if P l o ~ i n u smade
such an important zcntributicn to
ih?
notion of s e l f -
c m s c i o u s n ~ s s ,he did not connect i t with the n o ~ i o nof person for the sirnpie reason chat he did not have a notion of person beyond the very primitive sne r ~ ~ r e s e n ~b ys di h i~h s ~ r l /of F o r m s of Individuals.
The definition of a person as a x n t e r of
consciousness implies at k a s t ~ w oc2rms: person and consciousness.
If the ancisnts spoke of consciousness, ic does
not follcw that t h s y necessarily :onnected moderns do).
F r o m c h e sxamplss
it w i z h p e r s o n (as we
alrtady presented and the ones I
shall present, it appears that the ancients connected consciousness with soul.
To avoid condemning thecrics before
presenting them, 1 shall now turn my attention ta Stramara's p r e s e n t a t i o n of the center ~f consti~usness in Plotinus.
Stramara says that t h e notion and imagery of a center of consciousness can be traced back to t h e Stoics ( p . 2 1 9 ) .
He uses
V o h n M. Rist, "Basii's 'Neoplatonism': Its Background and Nature" in Basil of Caesarea: Christian, Humanist, Ascetic. A Sixteenth-Hundredth Anniversary Svm~osium,ed. Paul J. Fedwick, vol. 1 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 19811, 137-220. One cannot maintain that Stramara did not know the two volumes edited by Fedwick, because in the bibliography he mentions another a r t i c l e c o ~ t a i n e din one of the volumes.
a n e x a m p l e p r o v i d e d i n Rist's Sroic P h i l o s o o h v : C h r y s i p p u s d e p i c t s t h e h e o e m o n i k o n a s a s p i d e r i n t h ? c e n t e r o f a web i t h a s spun, c a u s i n g c h e f i l a m e n r s co v i b r x e .
Hence R i s t a r g u e s t h a t
f o r Chrysippus t h e governing principle f u n c t i o n s as " t h 2 c e n t r s of c o n s c i o u s n e s s " w i t h i n t h e human b e i n g . - -
Toward r h e e n d o f
h i s b o o k , h o w e v e r , Rist w a r n s that, a l t h o u g h t h e t e n d e n c y o f t h e O l d Stca c a n c h u s be s e e n a s e x p l a i n i n g human a c t i v i t y a s psychosomatic accivicy, it did n o t b r i n g t h e m much n e a r e r t o a n e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e n a t u r e o f the human p e r s o n i t s d f , a s d i s t i n c t frorr! its activities . . . . T h e f a c c is chat Chrysippus did n c c go f a r e n o u g h for h i s own p u r p o s e s i n e x o r c i z i n g t h e t a l k o f s c u l
and body which he h a d inherited from earlier philosophers. t h e same p a g e 219 o f h i s disserraiion Stranara q u o r s s
u m e n t h a l a s f i n d i n g r e n a r k a b l t P l c r i n l ~ 's " c c n c e p t zf ' h e 'we'
a m o b i k c e n t r e o f consciausness."
'
.. ~ e St c r a m a r a E a i i s t o
n o t i c e t h a t B l u r n e n t h a l , a few pages p r e v i o u s l y ,
confirms Ristls
fears a b o u t t h e Stoics i n t h e c a s e of Plctinus: i n r e g a r d t c t h e d o c t r i n e of t h e S o u l , " P l m i n u s follswed i n the d i r e m i o n o f
The s o u l was a s e p a r a w 3ubsiance, a n d a t l e a s t i n
Plato.
i n t e n t i o n , i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e b o d y with w h i s h i t was merely
associated.
-
On t h i s b a s i s Plorinus c o n s t r u c t e d h i s
.
'-J. M . Rist, S t o i c P h i l o s o ~ h v ( C a m b r i d g e : Cambridg? University Press, l 9 6 9 ) , 87. Stoic P h i l o s o ~ h v , "H. J. B l u m e n t n a l , P l o t i n u s ' P s v c h o l o c r v : t h e Embodied Soul ( T h e Hague: M a r t i n u s N i j h o f f ,
H i s D o c t r i n e s of
1971), 1 4 0 .
'
--
psychology. ""
The examples Stramara gives from Plotinus (pp. 2 2 0 - 3 )
refer
to
che soul as possessing consciousness, not to a person as
a center of consciousness.
Stramara himself avers that "Plotinus
nowhere explicitly refers to a 'center of consciousness"'
-7 -7 2 ) .
all
B u t he is ready to forgive F l c ~ i n u slor chis I
ao noi fault h m for
his," p . 2 2 2 )
ip* '
, however,
and a l s o ready to p a r a p h r a s e
PLocinus in order io make hin s p e a k in f a v o r cf a sencer of
Then, as if he had demcnstra~ed i h e idea of
3
center of
consci~usness in Plotinus, Stramara proceeds to demonstrate ir in Gregory of Nyssa, of course, Laking f o r g r a n t e d :hat Plotinus v e r y well.
Gregory knew
Scrarnara Goes sc far as to zoin he Greek
expected, is not evident in any sf the ancient a u ~ h n r she studies.
I quote one example
f r c m Stramara
and then Stramara's intsrpretacion. commentaries ( p p . 2 2 3 - 7 )
siczs f r c m Sregorl;
C t h e r sxamples and
a r e s i m i l a r a n d can be easily checked
for con£o r m i t y :
Let w h a t has been said be demonstrated by what happens in your soul when you think about God. Look u p t o the s k y a n d consider with your imagination ( i o y ~ o p $ the depths b e n e a t h , reach o u t w i t h y o u r mind ( 6 i a v o ~ a v= conscious understanding) to the sides and corners of the subsistinq universe. and consider what is the power which h o l d s these thingsvt o g e t h e r like a sort of bond of everything, and you will see how -
"Blumenthal, Plotinus ' F s y c h o l o a v , 1 3 5 .
Two thirds of it deal exceliently with the
philosophical use of the term.
'
Yet, as he enters the final
- .
'7"'Y.noo~aols: Wort- und Bedeutungsgeschichte" in idem, Platonica Minora (Munich: W. Fink, l976), 12-69 ( o r i g i n a l l y published in Nachrichten der Akademie d e r Wissenschaften in Gottinaen, phi1.-hist. Klasse Jahrg. 1955, N o . 3: 3 5 - 9 2 ) . Cf also Christopher Stead, Dhilosoohv in Christian Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 173-186. -
-
'Tlorrie's interpretation of the Stoic Lise of imap& a s form o f existence subordinate to baoo~au~p has been challenged meanwhile: see A. A. Long, "Language and Thought in Stoicism" Problems in Stoicism, ed. A. A. Long (London: Athleton, 1971)
third of his effort with considera~ior-of he Christian use of hoa~acris, Dorrie exaggerates the influence of Athanasius of Alexandria, basing himself on some pseudo-Athanasian fragments. Dorrie says that Dsoo~alrir (=subs~antia)was one of the strongest technical terms of late antique philosophy ( p . 13). Nevertheless, as the Church historian Socrat2s r e l a w s in h i s Ecclesiastical Historv, the term was n c t used by earlier Greek philosophers.
Dorrie c i ~ e sthe passage:
[ I ] t appears to us t h a ~.he Greek philosophers have given us various definitions a f ousia, but have n o r c a k e ? c k - . slightest natic2 21 nv~cscasis. 1 r ~ n a e u . s he Grammarian indeed, in his A l p h a b e c l c a l [Lexicon entir led] At ticistes, even declares ic c o be a barbarous t3rrn; for it is not to be found in a n y of the ancients, except occasionally in a sense. quite different from c h a t which i s attached t o i t in the presenc day. Thus S o p h o c l e s , i n his tragedy axitled Phoenix, uses it to signify " ~ r e a c h e r y " : in Msnander i~ implies "sauces"; as if o m should cail the "sedinenc" at the botrorn of a hcgsnsad ~f wine hv~ostasis. 3uc although the ancient ~hilosophicaivriiers s c a r c e l y noticed this word, the m c r e rnodcrn snes have f r q u e n t l y used iz instead of ousia.'.
Dorrie himself notes thai P l a ~ c ,fcr example, did zct s e the
89-90; Victor Goldschmidt, " ' T a a p x ~ ~et v uchoravai d a m la philosophie stoicienne," Revue des etudes arecaues 8 5 (1972): 336-340; John Glucker, "The Origin of unapxw and hap[is as Philosophical Terms1' in Hvparxis e H v o o s t a s i s nel Neoplatonismo. Atti del I Colloauio Internazionale del Centro d i Ricerca sul Neoplatonisrno (Universita deali Studi di Catania, 1-3 ottobre 1 9 9 2 1 , eds. F. Romano and D. P . Taormina (Florence: Leo S Olschki, l994), 21. "socrates Scholasticus, The Ecclesiastical Historv 3, 7, 17-20, tr. A. C. Zenos, NPNF 2:2 (New York: The Christian Literature Company, l89O), 81.
t e r m u-rroa~aa~s ac a l l .
''
N e v e r t h e l e s s , h e adds t h a t P l a ~ oused the
v e r b uc$io~apai (of which imoo~acrt~ i s the v e r b a l s u b s t a n t i v e ) twice
i n Philebus 19A and t h e L a w s 6 , 7 5 L E i n t h e sense o f " z o assert c h a t one c a n do s c r n e t h i n g . " " -
D o r r i s s c a n s c h e a n a l y s i s of t h e Christian x s e o f ir-rrda~acns by a f f i r m i n g t h a t ,
prior t o A t h a n a s i u s ,
Fcs u s e did not differ at
all from i t s use by n o n - C h r i s t i a n authors ( p . 5 2 ) . New Testament
UTTOOTUOLSo c c u r s
T h u s , in the
o n l y f i v e times: in 2 Cor 9:1 a n d
L1:17 ic neans "state, condition" i p p . 17, 52); in Heb 1:3 and 3:14,
"reality" o r e v e n "being" 1 9 . 5 2 ) ; in Heb 11:1, something
between " r e a l i z a t i o n " 62).
(Realisierunq) a n d " r e a l i t y "
R
a
t
;p.
T h e Epistle to D i o c n e t 2, 1 discusses the "reality"
(urioo~aois)o f pagan g o d s , and T a c i a r ! ( a c G r a e c o s 5 ) z a i h God c h e
"basis" or "foundation" ;ilmjo~uo~.;) 3f a v e r y t h i n g ( p . 5 2 ) .
According t o D o r r i a , i m 6 o ~ a owas ~ ~ n c t a central concept for Clement, whereas f o r O r i g e n i t was almcst i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m ousia ( F . 5 3 .
N e v e r t h e l s s s , E o r r i e xentions Origen's CCeis
VIII,12 w h e r e t h e g r e a t A l e x a n d r i a n s a y s :
"...we worship t h e
F a t h e r of the T r u t h a n d che Son who i s the Truth: they a r e ~ w o
r e a l i t i e s i n h y p o s t a s i s ( 6 v ~ bifo a
~ brrocs~aoe~r r p a y p a ~ a ) , b u t
-.
one
in
"&I checked i t w i t h the T h e s a u r u s Linauae Graecae CD-Rom
( I r v i n e , CA: U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , 1 9 9 5 ) .
unanimity, concord and idencity o f the will.""
-
Here, Origen
envisages the Father and the Son as ~ w distinct o realities; Dorrie believes that this text was important for A t h a n a s i u s -d-m-i he
formulated a distinction b e t w e e n oljoia and urroa~acsi~( p . 5 4 ) . In my opinion, CCels VIII,12 is n o t necessarily t h e most
important
Eext
in which Origen s u g g e s t s the distinction between
otoia and i m 6 a ~ a ~ i Other ~. texts make CcrnJn TI, 10,' 5 - 7 E
clear."
Holy S p i r i c .
his distinc~ioneven more
ever. a p p l i e s r_he K e n imjo~ao~.;t o
he
Yet, despite Origen's endeavour ts distinguish
between oucsia and imoo~ao~.;,his opinion d i d n o t carry i n f l u e n c e .
This l a c k sf influence is attested b y fourth-cencury difficulties in f ~ r r n u l a t i n g he irinitarian doctrine.
Dcrrie then observes
hat the Council 3 f Nizaea
i 3 2 5 AD)
explicit1 y condemned those x h o disc inquished b e w e e n ucoia and bnbo~acns with r e s p e c t to the F a c h e r and rrhs Scn
anathema following ~ h confession e of faith of
p. 5 5 ) .
The
his council r e a d s :
"If anyone says that the S o n is of another subsianie o r hypostasis (ic h pas oiloias
-
bnooi-doeus; , rrhe catholic and apostolic
-
"Origen, Contre Celse, vol. 4 (Books 7 - 8 ) , ed. Marcel Borret (Paris: Cerf, 1 9 6 9 ) , SC 1 5 0 : 2 0 0 . Dorrie ( p . 5 4 ) quotes Koetschau's edition of Origen.
"ComJn I,2 4 , 1 5 1 - 1 5 2 ; I I , 1 0 , 75-76; see Origen, Commentaire sur Saint Jean, v o l . 1 (Books 1-51, ed. Cecile Blanc (Paris: C e r f , l 9 6 6 ) , SC 120:1 3 6 - 7 a n d f 5 4 - 7 .
Church anathematizes him.""
Dorrie also notss ( p . 57) that,
despite his support for che Niczne creed, Achanasius of Alexandria ackncwledges in his Tomus ad A n t i o c h e n o s 5 ( w r i c c m i n 362) the nacsssity of distinguishing bstween oiaiu and
UTT~)OTUOLS
and of accepting "three h y p o s t a s e s " in r e g a r d tc the H o l y - .
Trinity. ""
Dorrie a s s e r r s that in his O r x i 3 contra Arianos IV.1
Athanasius "defended with s c r o n g words the unicy of being and hypostasis," thus bringing
"LO
a n end cne h i s t o r y sf t h e m e a n i n g
cf urrborao~s, by es~ablishing its u s e " i p p . 5 7 , 5 %
. In
orher
words, i t was Athanasitis who t s i ~ k l i s h ~ cr hi a c brrtkmm.; m e z n t .
.
"individual or p e r s o n 1 ' and a s s u c h x x a s r o be dis~inguishsd
from substance.
Yet, scholars t o d a y agree that b o t h the Oratio
contra Arianos IV and other works D o r r i ? invokes to buttress his arguments a r s unlikely tc b e b y Athanasius."
Therafore, as
"'Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. N o r m a P. T a n n e r , vol. 1 (London: Shed & Ward, I W O ) , 5 .
.
'"Athanasius, Tonus ad Antiochenos 5 ( P G 26:801 A - D ) For t h e text of the Tornus a d Antiochenos, see J. Stevenson, ed.,
Creeds. Councils and Controversies: Documents Illustra~inathe Historv of the church A. D. 3 3 7 - 4 6 1 , rev. ed. W. H. C. F r m d (London: SPCK, l989), 8 0 - 8 3 . > -
' For the authenticity of Or. c. Ar. IV (PG 2 6 : 4 6 8 - U S ) , see Timothy D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius: Theolosv and Politics in the Constanthian E m ~ i r e (Cambridge, MA: ffarvard University Press, 1 9 9 3 ) , 254 n. 26. For Expositio fidei, see R . P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversv 318-381 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1 9 8 8 ) , 8 6 2 n. 170.
previously stated, it is clear that Dorris exaggerates the
influence cf Athanasius in he s h a p i n g of theological concept.
~~TTOOT~O asL Sa
Moreover, if Athanasius had played such an
important role in this matter, the difficulties encountered b y t h e Cappadocians i n t h e i r fight a g a i n s ~ he Nec-Arians would n o t have e x i s t e d .
But this was not c h e case.
Another important s m d y o f G r 3 e k v c r d s
L I S :2~
designace
divine p e r s o n s is ths c o r n p r z h e n s i v e encyciopedia encry "Hypostase"" w r i t t e n by rhe F r e n c h scholar A. Michel.
The
a r t i c l e in q u e s t i o n c o n t a i n s a n analysis o f the r a m il.rroa~aoi9
beginning from early Christian w r i ~ z r s , in b o t h E a s t a n d West, t o
Modernist soman Cathoiics such as .Alfred Loisy.
U n l i k e Dorrie,
when treating of he Cappadocians, Mishel recognizes their ~~ paramount role in establishing the meaning sf i l r r d o ~ a ofor
trinitarian ~ h s c l o g y . ,
17.
ar. s r t i d e of s u c h a
large scope it is not pcssibl? 1 s aliot acre ~ h a nc v o to four
columns to each historical figure.
Hence, alrhough accurate,
Michel's treatment of the Cappadocians ( c o l u m n s 381-385) is quite brief.
In addition, his article is cccasionally influenced by
the views of the nineteenth-cencury French Jesuit Theodore de
Regnon whose insights have been seriously challenged in recent
"A. Michel, "Hypostase" i n Dictionnaire de T h e o l o q i e Catholique, ad. E. Arnann e t al., vol. 7 / 1 (Paris: printed f o r Letouzey st Ane, N U ) , col. 369-437.
years.
"?
In his expositicn cf ihe history cf i l n b o ~ a o i ~A. , Niche1 mentions Letter 38, a dubious work by Basil.
Letter 38 of the
Basilian corpus, an important piece treating che differences berrween o u d a and
Caesarea.
used to be actribuced c o Basil of
UTIOBTCLCTL~,
Yet, scholarly scudiss
.
. -
have shown char: in reality
this letter belongs to Gregory of Nyssa, a conclusicn which mosE
contemporary scudencs of Basil a c c e p c .
..
-
Regrertably, Michel
.. "'See Andrci de Halleu:.:, "Personna~lsmsGLI sssentialisme trinicaire chez iss Peres ca~padccicns? [Jns mauvaise controverse," Revue ~h8oloaiauede Lsuvain 17 (1386): 1 2 9 - 1 5 5 and 265-292. M i c h e l R. Barnes, "De Regnon Reconsidered," Auaustinian Studies 26 (1995): 51-79. Ic is de Regnon's ~ t u d e sde cheologie positive sur la saints Trinitk, four volumes bound as three (Paris: Victor Retaux, 1892/18981 , that has been v e r y influential throughout the twentieth c e n c u r y . I n zhrcnological order, ~hs1; a r e che followi~g: P.nders Cavallin, Studien zu den Sriefen des h l . Basilius (Lund: G l e e r u p s k a Universitecsbokhandein, 13?:) , 71 f f. R. Hubner, "Gregor von Nyssa als Verfasser aer s o q . Q. 38 des Sasilius. Zum unterschiediichen Verstandnis der ousia bei den kappadozischen Brudern" in E~ektasis.Melanqes oatristiaues offerts au Cardinal Jean Danielou, eds. J. Fontaine and Ch. Kannengiesser (Paris: Beauchesne, lgiZ), 463-490. P. J. Fedwick, "A Commentary of Gregory of Nyssa or t h e 38th Lerter of Basil of Caesarea," Orientalia Christiana Periodica 44 (1978): 31-51. *. -Nonetheless, there is a group of German scholars who do not a c c e p t the Gregorian authorship: Wolfgang-Dieter Hauschild in his German translation of Basil's letters (Basil of Caes,area, Briefe, tr. W. - 3 . Hauschild, vol. 1 [Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1 9 9 0 1 1 8 2 ff n. 181); Jiirgen Hammerstaedt, " Z u r Echtheit von Basiliusbrief 38," Tesserae: Festschrift fur Josef Enoernann. Jahrbuch fur Antike und Christenturn 18 (1991): 416-419 and Volker H. Drecoll, Die Entwicklunq der Trinitatslehre des Basilius von Casarea: Sein Weg vom Homousianer zum Neonizaner (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19961, 297-331.
does n o t quote L e t t e r 38 d i r e c t l y , b u t T i x e r o n t ' s summary o f i t : Ouoia i s t h a t which i s common i n t h e individuals of t h e same species (TO K O L V O V ) and which rrhey possess e q u a l l y . . . . B u t t h i s ouoia could not r e a l l y e x i s t u n l e s s i t i s c o m p l e t e d by individual characteristics which d e r t r r n i n z i t . T h e s e c h a r a c r e r i s t i c s receive v a r i o u s names: ~ ~ L O T ~ ThEi Sp. a x . i 6 ~ u c o v ~oqpeia. a ibta y ~ u p i o ~ a~~aap. a ~ ~ i p popbai cAess," z h a ~is, as zhe
"substratum" of everythirq ~ n a tw i s t s .
The Stgics zlso
''A. A. Long, .-.eAeniscizPhilasoohv: s ' t o k s , Eoicureans, Sce~tics,? d ed. : L o n d o n : 3uc%wsrrh, 13861, 160; see also Long & - 7
7
Sedley, iiellenistic Philosoohers, 1: 166. Where p s s i b l e for Greek original and English cranslatisns of Stoic cexts, I use A. A. Long and D. N. Sedley, Ths Hellenistic Phiioso~hers,2 vols (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1487). I-J. M. Rist, Stoic Phiiosoohv (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 154. Other scholars r e n d e r t h e m as substrate, qualified, disposed and relatively disposed (Long Sedley, Hellenistic Philosoghers 1:167).
&
'% what follows, I rely in part on explanations p r o v i d e d by Rist, Stoic Philoso~hv, 152-172; A. A. Long, Hellenistic Philoso~hy, 2d ed., 160-163; Long & Sedley, Hellenistic Philoso~hers, 1:162-166, 1 7 2 - 1 7 7 . "~ccording to Stobaeus, Ecl. 1 a 6 i 6 v a f~l u T&V o v m v rravmv n p G q v iAqv ( SVF 1 . 8 7 )
.
p. 132, 26 w: ouoiav
conceived of particulars as bits of substance.
The p a r t i c u l a r s
can undergo qualitative c h a n g e s which the Stsics viewed as reconfigurations, but not changes, of the very substance.
The
qualitative changes a r e caussd by c h e second ccnstitucive element
of c h e Stoic reality, the r r v c i ~ ~ (a " s u r r m t of a i r " o r " b r e a t h " ) . T h i s oneurna is what Chrysippus called "qualities" and, like
us n o t forget that the subsmnce, it is a corpcreal e n u t y ( l e ~ gua corporeal, these currer-xs sf
Stoic universe is rnat?rial!).
air are capable of r u n n i n g chrough a body and infsrming it.
can mix w i t h
m e
They
a n o ~ h e rand w i t h he "subsranc&' (SVF I, 85) .
Therefore, in a n y particular e n c i t y
here is b o t h "substance" and
"quality."
I m w ;urn r o :ne s e s m d c a i l e g o r y .
- . c- second Siois
n'L
category is not strictly s p e a k i n g "quality" ( r r o i d q s ) b u t the
"qualified entity" (rroitiv! , that i s , u s u a l l y a substance having c e r t a i r . qualities.
Justice is a q u a.l. x y , b u r rhe corresponding .
q u a l i f i e d e n t i t y i s a jusc x a i v i d u a ! . 9
On c h e m e hand, this
situation is due to the Stcic metaphysics' concern with
particulars and its use of many human examples; on the other hand, it i s due to the impossibility to separate in reality the
first two Stoic categorias.
;'
Sometimes, however, t h e Stoics
--Sirnpliciusof Cilicia, In Aristotelis Cateoorias Commentarium 214, 24-37 ( = S W 2. H I ) , ed. Carol Kalbfleisch, Commentaria in Aristotelern Graeca 8 (Berlin: Reirner, 1907).
-.
themselves neglected this distinction.'- The Stoics f u r ~ h e r divided their second cacegory into the "commonly qualified" ( K O L V ~ rSr o ~ o v )
and the "peculiarly qualified" ( i G i w s notovi
.
Ir, is
n a t really easy to understand what they meant by the "commonly
qualified," since they g r s a t l y emphasized r h e "peculiarly (or individually) qualified."
However, scme help car. be found in
Diogenes Laerrius who claims that the S x i c Diogenes cf B a k y l o n ( t h e head o f the S t o i c school i n e a r l y co mid-second century B C )
said t h a t "an appelia~ivei s a part of language which signifies a
common qualiiy ( ~ o i v j v r r o ~ 6 ~ q e~ .ag)., 'man', 'horse'; a name is a .. part of language which indizates a p e c u l i a r q u x x l i (ibiav a
,
.
' Disgenes ', ' S o c r a ~ 3 's . "
.
-
Thus, t h s Stoics used
t h e "commonly qualified" a a d the "individually qualifiedr1co
distinguish between what the Aristo~eliansand wc ioday c a l l species and individuals r e s p e c t i v e l y . used t h e i r second cacqcr:;,
Z?E
In s t h s r words, the S t o i c s
- . -.
.
--
" q ~ a i ~ : :U, v " ,, x k e a
distinction f o r which Arisrotle used his f i r s t category, "substance . " 'I -
-
The testimonies we have about the Scoics shed more l i g h t -.
'-Long & Sediey, Hellenistic Philoso~hers 1 : 1 7 2 . ..
'-Diogenes Laertius 7 . 5 8 (SVF 3 Diogenes 22; ET in Long Sedley, Hellenistic Philoso~hers 1: 1 9 8 ) . --Steadseems to confirm my observation: " . .. Stoic theory could accommodate the o b v i o u s distinction between the species and t h e i n d i v i d u a l ( s e e p . 49) - but in terms of 'quality' (poion), not o u s i a . " (Philosoohv in Christian Antiauitv, 1 8 2 ) . etrum 2 we see c h e
e x a m p l e o f S o c r a t e s i s r e p l a c e d with t h a t o f A p o s t l e s P e t e r o r P a u l w h o a r e d e s c r i b e d a s u n i q u e :oilecrisns
of p r o p t r t i e s .
T h u s , A p o s t l e Peter i s d e s c r i b e d a s c h e son o f J o n a h , b o r n i n
B e t h s a i d a a n d c n e b r o t h e r of Andrew.
Even i f , a s R i s c has
c o n v i n c i n g l y shown, - S a s i l knew v 3 r y l i t i i e ? l c t i r , u s , we h a v e a c c e p t t h a t h e r e a d ? o r p n y r y l s Isaccae
r e p r o d u c e d P o r p h y r y ' s arguments.
of N y s s a .
7
.. '
:G
or a h a r d b o o k c h a t
And s o q u i ~ el i k e i y did G r e g o r y
T h e Isaaoae c a r . be used a s a beqinr.erls guide to
-
' J o h n M . Rist, " B a s i l ' s ' N e o p l a t o n i s m ' : I t s B a c k g r o u n d a n d N a t u r e " i n B a s i l of C a e s a r e a : C h r i s t i a n , H u m a n i s t , Ascetic, A S i x t e e n t h - H u n d r e d t h A n n i v e r s a r v S v m ~ o s i u m , ed. P a u l J. Fedwick, v o l . 1 ( T o r o n t o : P o n t i f i c a l I n s t i t u t e of M e d i e v a l S t u d i e s , 1981), 137-220. --
' I n s p e a k i n g af Gregory o f N y s s a ' s P l a t o n i s m i n a r e c e n t a r t i c l e , R i s t a l l o w s t h a t " f u r t h e r i n v e s c l g a t i o n of t h e i n d i r e c t e f f e c t s of P o r p h y r y m i g h t a l t e r t h i s p i c t u r e i n some d e t a i l s " ( J o h n M. R i s t , " P l o t i n u s a n d C h r i s t i a n P h i l o s o p h y " i n T h e C a m b r i d a e Comaanion t o P l o t i n u s , ed. L l o y d P . Gerson [Cambridge:
Aristotle's Cateaories and, given i ~ sintroductory purpose, Isaaaae's a r g u m e n t s are less scphisticxed ~ h a nche
arguments
Porphyry provides in his other Aristotelian commentaries.
What
is perhaps most important is that the particular doctrine of an individual as a collection cf ~roperticidcss not occur in such a
clear formulacion in any paqan author (still less in Christian
authors!) prior to Porphyry.
Therefcre, the Zappadocians and
later N e o p l a ~ o n i s ~might s have bcen f a s c i n x e d by ic and adopted i ~ uss e in : x l r 9
.
.
.
wrx~r.gs.
5. The PLotinian %ill of the One
In searchirig for a c o n c e p c sf p e r s m in c i a s s i c a l sntiquity, scholars often also look for something that is tssentiai in the constitution of human persms, namely the will, or r a t h e r free willing, as a f a c c m a r
a s p z t dis~inc:
. frzm, ana. ~rr?ducible to,
intellect and d e s i r e or r e a s o n and emotion.
One example is
Dihle's The Theorv of Will in Classical Antisuitv.-" DFhle
claims that there was no t h e o r y of will throughout t h e Greek philosophical tradition, because reason and intellectual knowledge played an e x t r e m e l y important role.
Cambridge University Press, 19961,
I n his view, the
401)
"~lbrecht D i h l e , The Theorv of Will in Classical Antiquitv (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1982) .
concept of will was implicit from the beginning in the biblical notion of obedience to the commands of God, and i~ was Augustine who formulated the first classical t h e c r y of the will.
While
other scholars today agree chat Augustine formulated t h e f i r s t
th2ory o f will, they r e g a r d Dihlets book a s h i g h l y f l a w e d primarily because h e ~ i ~ p 1 i s ~ i c a l il.ayb e l s ch.e Greek ~ r a d i t i o n "intellectualist" and ignor2s historical evidence which speaks
be reduced ~o a discussicn sf E r e 2 will, since ic includes ocher
major components as well, as I show in this dissertation. From c h e point of view of my investiqation into i h e patristic concept of d i v i n ? persons, i t w c u l d be taui~Logiea1L G speak of fres wiii i n God. that God was free.
I t was e v i d e n t LC the C h u r c h
Fathers
In their view, to deliberat2 is to cake time
to think of the disiinctio~Between righ; and w r m g ; t h a t is, n o t
to know this disiinczix i~.~.xi:~~&~;., n l.s s r ~ a l l simperfsciior-. l-"
which cannot be attributed c o God.
Alchough s p e a k i n g in favor cf
free will, Athanasius of Alexandria also wrote that "where there
" - E . g . , J. M. Rist, revisw of The T h e o r v of Will in Classical Antiquity, by A l b r e c h t Dihle, in Phoenix 37 (1983): 275-7. See also Charles H. Kahn, "Discovering the Will: From
Aristotle to Augustine," 258. Cf. also John D. Madden, "The Authenticity of Early Definitions of Will ( T n d i 5 s i s ) " in Maximus Confessor. Actes du svmgosiurn sur Maxime l e Confesseur. Fribouro, 2-5 septernbre 1980, eds. Felix Heinzer a n d Christoph Schonborn (Fribourg Suisse: editions uni-~ersitaires,1 9 8 2 ) , 79: "despite Aristotle's insistence on the rational nature cf the prohairesis, it remained perenially resistant to identification with the intellect or subordination to it."
.
-
i s free c h o i c e , t h e r e i s a b s o l u t e l y w e a k n e s s a l s o . " - -
O r a t i o n s a a a i n s t c h e ArFans
(Q.
1.35,
In his
1.52, 111.62, 111.66)
A t h a n a s i u s a l s o s u g g e s t s t h a t " w i l l l ~ g "o r " d e i i b e r a t i n g " can ..
" t i l t " e i c h e r way, t h a t i s , t o w a r d e i t h e r t h e good or t h e b a d . " -4 l a t e r G r e e k C h u r c h F a t h e r s u c h a s John o f Damascus,
i n summing
u p t h e faith o f t h e f a c h e r s b e f c r e him, a l s o considers c h a t
apoaipcois i s n o t p r o p e r l y p r e d i c a t e d o f God: But i n t h e case o f God, ic i s c o be remembered, w s s p e a k o f w i s h , b u t i c i s n o t correcc c o s p e a k cf c h o i c e . F o r God dces - . noc d e l i b e r a t e , s i n c e t h a t i s a m a r k o r i g n o r a n c e , a n d n o o n e d e l i b e r a c s s s b c x w h a t h e knows. 3ui if ecunsel is a mark of i g n o r a n c e , s u r e l y choice m u s t also b e s o . God, t h e n , s i n c e He has a b s o l u t e knowledge of e v e r y t h i n g , d o e s noL deliberate.':
- T. o r
a good d i s c u s s i o n s f ths i s s u e o f the C h r i s t i a n view of t h e f r e e d o m o f w i l l b e f o r e c h e C a p p a d o c i a n s , see C h r i s t o p h e r S t e a d , " T h e Freedcm z f t h e W i l l a n d t h e A r i a n F e s t s c h r F f t flcir C o n t r o v e r s y " i n Placcnismus 2nd C h r i s r e n t u m . k i n r i c h D o r r i e ( J a i i r b u c h f 3 r .%-xi.& cnd Christxitcrn 1 0 ; Nunster: A s c h e n d o r f f s c h e V e r l a g b u c h h a n a l u n g , 198 3 3 , 2 4 5 - 2 5 7 . See a l s o E . P . M e i j e r i n g , "Die D i s k u s s i o n u b e r d e n W i l l e n und d a s Wesen Gotter, theologiegeschichtlich beleuchtet," i n ~ ' ~ g l i e s te l ' e r n ~ i r ea u 1 V e siecle, e d . A l b r e c h t O i h l e ( G e n e v a : F o n d a t i o n H a r d t , 1989) , 35-65. o f Damascus, 2 e fide o r t h o d c x a 2 . 2 2 . CT b y S.D.F Salmond i n John of Damascus, E x ~ o s i t i o nof t h e O r t h o d o x F a i t h , NPNF 2 : 9 ( G r a n d R a p i d s , M I : Eerdmans, 1 9 8 9 ; o r i g i n a l l y p u b l i s h e d i n 1 8 9 8 1 , 3 8 . G r e e k t e x t in J o h n o f Damascus, E x ~ o s i t i of i d e i 36 (=PG 9 4 : 9 4 5 C ) , ed. B o n i f a t i u s K o t t e r ( B e r l i n : W a l t e r ae G r u y t e r , 1 9 7 3 ) : Xpi 6€ YLLGYKELV, o n i ~ l 8~0il i ~ O V X ~ O I LpPv J Xiyopv, T P O ~ L ~ E O L V bi K U ~ ~ Wou S Xiyopev ou yap p o u X ~ k o~ &os. a~ 'Ayvoias yup i o n TO P o u k i w ~ a- irrepi yap TOG yivwcr~opirtouO&LS PouA~ierai. Ei S i fi p o d 4 a y ~ ) o i a si. r a v ~ w~ ~a fii o p o u i p e c r ~ ~'0 . SP &oq rrav~aE ~ S & Sanhis 06 P o u k l c ~ a ~ .For o t h e r m e a n i n g s o f rrpoaipeois i n t h e F a t h e r s , see A P a t r i s t i c Greek L e x i c o n , e d . G . W . H . Lampe (Oxford: C l a r e n d o n , 1961), 1133-1134. "John
T h e r e f o r e , when d e a l i n g w i t h d i v i n e p e r s o n s I p r o p o s e t o c o n s i d e r a d i f f e r e n r k i c d o f w i l l , such a s was first e x p r e s s e d b y P l o t i n u s i n Ennead VI.3.9.45-16 i n regard t o the One a n d r e p e a t e d a l m o s t word f o r word i n r e g a r d t o i h e C h r i s t i a n God b y Gregory of Nyssa a s "God c o n t i n u a l l y w i l l s c o b? w h a t h e i s a n d i s a d e q u a t e l y u h a c h? wills c,- b s " Erin. VI.9 -
C c x r a E u r . m i u r n 111,
I, 1 2 5 i
.-
i s of m a j o r imporrance for the i n c r l l e c t u a l history o f
w e s t e r n c i v i l i z a t i o n , because i t i n t r o d u c e s a radically new
n o t i o r ! o f t h e d i v i n ? will a s x i l l of of P l o t i n u s have n o r i c e d , "
he s e l f .
As commentators
c h i s n o t i s n 1s c o t a l l : ;
and amazing b y t h e s t a n d a r d s o f a n c i m c p h i l o s o p h y . c r a c e d back co t h e d o c c r i n e s cf d i v m e p r o v i d e n c e ,
d i v i n e w i l l c r i e r x e d x w a r 3 ~ h curside, s :-ward
unprecedented I t c a n n o r be
i.e., t h e
z h ? prcducticn of
being and t h e r e g u l a t i o n of the course s f ~hings.
'-
The novel
n o t i o n w h i c h G r q o r y o f N y s s a a n d some C h r i s t i a n predecesscrs added t o t h i s u n d e r s c a n d i n g o f t h c d i v i n e w i l l i s t h a t i t can be
b o t h t r a n s c e n d e n t and immansnc.
uregory's i n s i g h t i s ihe l o g i c a l
P
"See a l s o Jerome Galth, La c o n c ~ o t i o nde l a l i b e r t e chez GrSaoire de Nvsse ( P 3 r i S : Y r i n , 1553) , 17-39. ..
"Georges Leroux, " I n t r o d u c t i o n " to P l o t i n u s , T r a i t e s u r l a l i b e r t e e t l a v o l o n t e d e 1' Un l E n n e a d e VI, 8 ( 3 9 ) 1 , i n t r o d u c t i o n , t r a n s l a t i o n a n d commentary b y G e o r g e s Leroux ( P a r i s : V r i n , 1990), 31. J . M . Rist, r e v i e w o f T h e T h e o r v o f W i l l in C l a s s i c a l A n t i u u i t v , Phoenix 37 ( 1 9 8 3 ) : 2 7 7 . -
-
' P l o t i n u s ' i a t e r t r 2 a t i s e s On P r o v i d e n c e ( E n n . 1 1 1 . 2 - 3 [ 4 7 - 4 8 1 ) confirm this observation, since they present the
classical v i e w about the d i v i n e will.
consequence of b i b l i c a l r e f l e c t i o n on t h e Incarnation. A t this point I shall focus on P l x i n u s . E n n . VI.8 ( 3 9 1 , e n ~ i t k d"On F r e e W i l l and the W i l l of the
O n e , " i s a f a i r l y l a t e treacise a n d can therefore be r e g a r d e d as a product of Plotinus' m a ~ u r i t y . Bcth R i s c "
and Armstrong"
t h i n k that 6.8 may have b e e n p r o v o k e d b y ;he
reading of a
treacise on the n a t u r t of God, possibly C h r i s t i a n o r paraChristian, now lost c o us;
b u t this o p i n i o n h a s
generally accepted, a c c o r d i n g c c . h - n s ~ r o n g . '
slang w i t h irs irnmeciaw r s d e z e s s x
not been
Em. VIA
[39],
in b ~ i h5 - x o n o l c c i c a l and
thematic o r d e r , Enn. VI.7 (381, contain the profoundest and most powerful expression of the r h o u g h t o f Plocinus about c n e One or Good.
T h e p o s i t i v e l a n g u a g e cf
..
WL;,
.
- o w and i h . o u g i ~ is u s e d
a b o u t t h e One here, buc at the same time Plotinus nakes it clear c h a t he has n o desire t o a b a n d c n the negative (apophatic) way of
approach to che One. Enn. 71.8 -
s t a r c s q c x s relxcaczl;;,
since
2
betre;
scarting
point does not exist, w i t h an a n a l y s i s s f t h e c o n c e p t of human
freedom in order to ascend to the consideration of the freedom of .
A
"John M. Rist, Human Value: A Studv i n Ancient Philosophical Ethics ( L e i d e n : Brill, 1 9 6 2 ) , 99.
%. H. Armstrong, "Two Views of Freedom, " Studia Patristica 18 (1982): 397-406. --
'A. H. Arrnstrcng, "Introductory N m e , " in Plotinus, Enneads VI.6-9, tr. A. H. Armstrong (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1 9 8 8 ) , 2 2 4 .
the One.
Plotinus' entire reaction seems to have been prompted
by "a rash statement starting from a different way of thinking"
which says c h a t sinca he Gocd " b a p p e n s to b? as ir: is ( ~ u ~ o i r o a O U T W ~ ~ ( ~ ~ and V ) ,
does not have the rnasrrery of v h a r ; it is, and is
- -
what Fc is n o r from itse~r,i c wocld not have freedom, and its
doing or nor doing whac it is nscessimczd io d~ or n o r to do is not in its power" (Enn. VI. 8.7.11-15) .
It is not clear whether
Plotinus considers this as a positive statement o f doctrine other
than his o w n or an a c c a c k 3 n h i s d o c i r i n e . seriously,
~ G W ~ V ~a nId , u
Hz c a k e s i c
i ? s z o establish his
One a g a i n s t t h i s s t a t e m e n t .
OWE
view of the
What is interesting is that b o t h his
positive a n d n e g a t i v e ways 3 f s p e a k i n g a b o u t -he Ons have been a v a i l e d o f a n d a d a c t x i b y l z - t r ?.rls=iar. 313ccsiscs s u c h 3s
Gregory of Nyssa, Pseudo-Dionysius c h e Areopagite, and Maxirnus the Confessor.
For the purpose cf showing how Gregory of Nyssa
used Enn. VI.8, i t is not worth presentirq all the arguments that
Plotinus prcduces a q a i n s z his q z p c r c ~ I s h a l l ,herefor? b e q u i t e selective in m y prssentaiion.
Plotinus considers the "rash s t a t e m e n t " c o n t r a r y and a b s u r d , because it would cornpieteLy do away wirh the n a t x ? of free will
and self-determination and our idea of w h a t is in o u r power, and would imply t h a t n o t h i n g is in a n y o n e ' s power ( E n n . VI.8.7.1620). He endeavors to demonstrate t h a t neither Intellect nor the One "happened to be," but they " h a d to b e , " exactly what they
are.
I n o t h e r words, t h e r e is n o c o n t i n g e n c y b u t only n e c e s s i t y
i n the d i v i n e n a t u r e ;
I s h a l l a r r i v e shortly a t t h e i s s u e o f
w h a t exactly n e c e s s i t y P i o t i n u s i s c o n c e ~ n e dw i t h .
I n Enn.
V I . 8 . 9 P l o t i n u s ' a r g u m e n t takes the f o r m of a r e d u c t i o ad
absurdum: if someone ~ a k ts k ' happened O; D E ' ,o~vPPq)a s applying to c h e C n e , t h e n i: s h c c l i be apclizible r s the In~elleccalso w h ~ hi s a f c e r the Cnz. But I c a n show ihai he ' h a p p e n e d t o b e ' d o e s not a p p l y t o t h e Intellect; t h e r e f o r e , s t i l l less can i t be applied to the One.': He shows t h a t the " h a p p e n e d t o be" does n o t a p p l y t o intellect, b y using a s e c o n d r e d c c ~ i sx i atsurdurn:
If t h z "happened c o be"
d o e s not e v e n a p p l y t o r e a l being how could i c a p p l y t o I n t e l l e c t w h i c h is " b e y o n d b e i n g ( i a i ~ r u t ijv;os) a
going t o happen,
"?
i t happens ~o b e i n g ,
'I
" F o r , if a n y t h i n g is
b u r being i ~ s e l fdoes n o t
happen, ncr i s it a s a s u a i sccurrence c h a ~b e i n g is l i k e t h i s , n o r d o e s i t d e r i v s b e i n g like t h i s from s a m e t h ~ r qclse, b e i n g a s i t i s , b u t t h i s i s r e a l l y iis n a t u r e ,
t o be r e a l being.".'
The
F i r s t P r i n c i p l e t h e r e f o r e has t o be i n t h e way i t i s . The First i s a l s o " a l l power, r e a l l y master o f i t s e l f , b e i n g
-.
'-If A, t h e n
9.
a u t i f not B, t h e n n o t A .
" Em . V I A . 9.24-29; see a l s o Enn. V 1 . 8 . 1 6 . 3 4 and 1 9 . 1 3 . T h i s i s a n a l l u s i o n t o P l a t o , R e ~ u b l i cVI.509B9: t h e Good i s beyond i n t e l l e c t a n d b e i n g ( i ; r k w v a ~ o i~, a oiuias) i . For t h e h i s t o r i c a l a s p e c t s o f t h i s p h r a s e , see J o h n W h i t t a k e r , " ' E T T ~ K E L V ~ voC ~ aouoias, i " V i a i l i a e C h r i s ~ i a n a e2 3 (1469;: 91-104.
what it w i l l s to be. ""' The l a t t e r statzment is p e r h a p s cne of the most i m p o r c a n t i n t h e whcle ireatise b e c a u s z ic e x p r e s s e s t h 2
will a s w i l l of self a n d c o n n e c t s i t with b e i n g .
A s I mentioned,
t h e definition o f divine wili as will of s e l f i s u n p r e c e d e n t e d
b e f o r e P l x i n u s , b e c a u s e d i v i n e will was t h o u g h t of o n l y a s T h e c o n n e c ~ i o no f w i l i with being s h i f c s the
providence.
e m p h a s i s f r o m w i l l a s power co deliberace' c o c h e w i l l a s power
t o b e , y e t a n o t h e r d r a m a t i c shift, chis time from g n o s e o l o g y LO
ontology.
I c i s r n s necessity of b e i n g whac i t w i l l s tc b e t h a t
-
P l o r i n u s h a s i n aind f s r ~ h . 2 r i r s i ? r x s ~ p i z , a x i n c c a n e c e s s i t y t
imposed on i~ b y someone e l s e who i s s u p e r i o r t o i t .
Otherwise,
w e would h a v e t o p o s t u l a t e a n o t h e r First P r i n c i p l e on w h i c h n o one e l s e c a n impose anything.
I n h i s c ~ r n m e n t a r yon " Lnn. V I . 8 . 9 ,
L e r o u x n o t i c e s t h e difficulry i n p u ~ c i n gtogether p r o p o s i i i o n s t h a t c o n t r a d i c t s o e x p l i c i t l y the d o c t r i n e s o f t h e c l a s s i c a l
philosophy
LO
w h i c h Msoplatcnisrn i s h e i r :
" f c r txample,
how t a
i n t e g r a t e a p r c p c s i r i o n a f f i r m i n g ~ h a cc k r z i s ~ . ~ c e s s i to yn i y i n t h e i n f e r m r b e i n g s ( E n n . VI. 3 . 9 . 1 1 - L 2 ) ,
when this very
necessity--when o p p o s e d to these beings' c o n t i n g e n c y - - s e e m s r e s e r v e d t o the s u p e r i o r h y p o s t a s e s a l o n e ? "
--
to be
The explanation
"At t h e b e g i n n i n g o f Enn V I . 8 Plotinus comments o n A r i s t o t l e ' s d i s c u s s i o n of t h e freedom o f t h e w i l l i n t h e Nicomachean E t h i c s . The Stagyrite d i s c u s s s s the freedom o f the w i l l i n terms o f c h o i c e t h e r e . For A r i s c o t l e ' s limited influence o n P l o t i n u s ' Enn. VI.8, see Rist, Human Value, 106-108.
Leroux provides is that here Aristotle's heritage is transformed slightly for the sake of refurxion."
Leroux regards as s ~ r a t e g i srhe in~roducriononly as late as E m . VI.8.44 ff. -
of r h e n?w c o n c e p t o f w F 1 1 for 1x0 r e a s o n s :
a)
this concept is the only o n ? x h i c h seems to resist the ordeal of
the negative cheoloqy hat in z h a p ~ e r s8 and 9 removed the majority of t h e predicates o h che dne; o ) c n e pred~caceof power (6ilva~is) , retrieving t h e classical r e l a ~ i o nbetween h e g e m o n y and
will, makes Che concept of will become the only o n e c a p a b l e o f r e f u t i n g i h e " r a s h s r x e r n e n ~ " 3 r d q i v i n g zcnL3n:
~o chs
m e t a p h y s i c s of t h e 3ne.'
T h e First P r i n c i p l e i s noc only beyond being but i t also
generaces b e i n g . ' "
L z r o u s iisclnguishes a r z h i s y i n t cetween
Q. 2 3 6 ,
6
on G r e g o r y ' s Ad P e t r i l m 2 . 1-
11 is s b v i o u s , b u t a common p h i l o s o p h i c a l s o u r c e o f inspiration f o r b o t h Cappadocians is n o t be excluded.
Thc
mosL l i k e l y
b e t w e e n i n d i v i d u a i a n d s p e c i e s , o r c h e S r c i s discinctisn b e t w e e n i n d i v i d u a l l y q u a l i f i e d and s c m o n l y q u a l i f i e d , o r b o t h .
To
illustrate heir point, both brothsrs use the example of "human
versus this human".
They x i y differ in iheir choice of the
modifying p r o n o u n : B a s i l uses 6 ~ i v o sw h i l e G r e g o r y
T~S.
Although I h a v e alluded to it in Chapter Two when discussing possible Stoic i n f l u e n c e s sn Nyssen, I shali summarize Hubner's
argument about 8 a s i l r s more Stoicizinq view of substance here. In considering the two components of the Stoic category of
.-
-'Cf. Aristotle, C a t e q o r i e s 2 b 2 5 f f : " [ O ] f t h e primary substances one is no more a substance than another: the i n d i v i d u a l man i s no mors a s u b s t a n c e than t h e i n d i v i d u a l o x . "
quality, Hubner proves that while B a s i l ' s d i s t i n c t i o n i s m f l u e n c e d by the Stoics, Gregory's is A r i s t o t e l F a n . The S t c i c s h e l d that ouoia=iiiro~o~ uXq=np&ov u r r o ~ ~ i p c v o '' v , a n d "being" means " b e i n g
macerial"; thus, i n r h e i r
V ~ W ,t
h e s a m e oilaia Lies a t the
f o u n d a t i o n sf both God and r h e cosmos.
the "material substratum"
-
-
7
-
s
I
t~
-
for c n e human o i u i a ! .
3y ouoiu Basil often means
(TOi j h ~ i i) v~o~~ ~ i p € ~ w - 9. -e, . CEm.
I".e 2xhibits a r a t h e r
2 , 4, 11;
materialistic
u n d e r s t a n d i n g of oilaia, i n f l u e n c e d b y S t o i c i s m , w h i c h i s r e j ccted b y h i s b r o t h e r Gregory:'
Yet, u n l i k e the S t o i c s , B a s i l
distinguishes between God's oilaiu a n d c h e c r 2 a c e d ouaiu.
- '
Basil ' s
concept of substance is c h u s influenced by c h e Stoic n o t i o n a f ' TO GL ~~ L ~.)- "eornvonl y q u a l i f i e a " ( K O L L f
Thus i:
follows, according to Hiibner, t h a r - Greqor:; of
N y s s a ' s description o f oiloh is Aristotelian..' The d i f f e r e n c e of
p e r c e p t i o n b e t w e e n z5.e twc b r a c h e r s m f o r c e s ?-&rzrts
ccnviccion
- ' H u b n e r , V e r f a s s e r , 480.
-'Gregory of Nyssa, 111, 5: "by o u s i a 1 do n o t mean the material s u b s t r a t u m " (GNO 2:168, 2 - 3 : oioiav6i Aiyw v i r v o ~ ~ o i A t r o v UTTOKE~~ELJOV).
.-
- Hiibner,
Verfasser, 480.
..
"Reinhard H i i b n e r , "Gregory von Nyssa a l s Verfasser d e r s o g . EJ. 38 des Basilius," 470, 480. B e r n a r d P o t t i e r f u l l y a g r e e s with Hubner in h i s book D i e u et le Christ selon G r e q o i r e de Nvsse: E t u d e s v s t e m a t i a u e d u " C o n t r e Eunorne" avec t r a d u c t i o n i n e d i t e des e x t r a i t s d f E u n o m e (Narnur, B e l g i u m : C u l t u r e et V e r i t e , 1 9 9 4 ) , 85 ff. %ibner,
Verfasser, 4 6 9 f.
that
Q. 38 should be attributed ts Gregory, since it displays an
Aristotelian understanding of the oilaia.
Nevertheless, HUbner
allows that Basil is not syscemaric, but t h a t he also uses both .-
Aris~ctelianand P l o t i n i a n concepts to deal with other issues.-The concept of r h e "individual," is perhaps anonq these "other A n o t h e r German scholar, Grillmeier, a l s c suggests that
issues."
~ h unaerscanding e of t h e distinctions between substance and
persons in both Basil and Gregory of N y s s a may be influenced by
Stoicism.':
Unfortunately, Criilrneier does ncr. E u 1 1 y slaboract.
2 . Further Differences between oinior and
LT~OTUOL~
in rhe last sections of Ad Petrum ( 6 - 8 ) Gregory r e t u r n s t o
differences between oitoia and bnbo~aois. For a more systematic presentation, I shall now e s a n i n e this issue.
iis
tells h i s
b r o ~ h e rPeter chat even che Apostle Paul m r i s i o n e d the
distinction between
he two ierms
when w r i t i n g : "Hs ( t h e S o n ] is
the r e f l e c t i o n o f God's g l x y and che imprint o f his imoo~aoiq ( ~ a p a r q pi)mo.raocwg a i w i ) )"
(
% ~ b1 : 3 )
.
Verfasser, --
- * A l o y s Grilimeier, "Das Scanaalum oecumenicum des Nestorius in k i r c h i i c h - d o g r n a t i s c h e r und theologiegeschichtlicher Sicht," S c h o l a s t i k 36 ( 1 9 6 1 ) : 340 f. 7
-
- - I n t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y t h e E p i s t l e to the Hebrews was attributed to Paul.
C u r r e n t l y , i t i s generally acknowledged that urroo~acnswas s y n o n y m o u s w i t h oirrria ir. he tine a f SL
Paul and e v e n later.
Modern biblical and patristic s c h o l a r s consider t h a t Heb 1 : 3 r e f e r s t o ~ h Son e a s t h e " i m p r i n t o f G o d ' s s u b s t a n c e (or being)"
c o n s e n s u s . -'
G r e g o r y , however, d o e s not accepr, chis synonymy,
b u r aileges c h a t by using u r r 6 o ~ a othe ~ ~ A p o s r l e wanted t o indicate
in fact "the continuicy and in~imacyof the relationship between t h e Son a n d c h e Father."-' Tc supcorc his thesis Gregory p l z y s
o n t h e m e a n i n g s o f t h e word " i m p r i n t t 1 &apct~;lip). l e v e l h e e q u a t e s "imprint" O(apa~:rjp!
form. -
with "figure" or "exterior
N e v z r t n e l e s s , ever! i f ci?e definirion of
is d i f f e r e n t f r o m
he definition o f c h s body
o n e c a n separate f o r m from body,
On a f i r s t
i.h.2
fcrm ( O X I ~ ~ )
(crGpui and by r e a s o n
"natura does n o t admit of t h e
separation, b u t one i s always ~ h o u g n to f i n c o n n e c t i o n with t h e
othsr. " - '
Accordingly,
if o n e sees t h e f o r m of
3
body,
one is
l i k e l y to c h i n k of the bcdy itself ind if one sees the imprint of
" ~ f .The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the F.pocrvohal/ D e u t e r o c a n o n i c a l Books, the N e w Revised S t a n d a r d V e r s i o n . eds. B r u c e M e t z g e r a n d Roland Murphy ( N e w York: O x f o r d University Press, lggl), 317 NT.
the iiroorao~so f the Father, ons is bound t o think o f t h e hiw.raais of the F a t h e r .
On a second level, G r e g o r y uses t h e same argument
in regard t o " i m p r i n t " now equated w i t h "image"
( E ~ K ~ v and )
draws
h e a v i l y o n t h e fact c h a t the S o n is c h e image of t h e F a t h e r . -
Basil of Caesarea himself n o i only i n s i s ~ scn t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between ouoia a n d ilrroo~ao~s i n Heb 1 : 3 , bur h e also
aiieges c h a t c h e N l c e n e F a t h c r s d i s t i n g u i s h e d b e c w e e n t h e t w o terms.
IL i s i n c h i s way chat h2 incerprsts rhe a n a t h e m a
a c c o m p a n y i n g t h e Yisme < r e e d : " I f snycne s a y s c h a t c h e Son i s of a n o t h e r substance o r
ii
U T O G T ~ ( J L Si~ipal;o~cJias (~~ ~ ~ T I O O T U ~ ~ W St)h, e
c a t h o l i c a n d a p o s t o l i c C h u r c h anathematizes him."-- In an
a r t i c l e an h a p &
and h 6 c ~ ~ c t o lir. s t h e C a p p a d o c i a n s , Jean P e p i n
s u g g e s t s that the Cappadocians wer2 actually a n ~ i - N i c e n e in iheir n n d e r s t a n d i n q of t h e meanings o f oioia and b n o o ~ a a ~ s' . Tn m y v i e w , e v e n i f t h e C a p p a d o c i e n s were a n t i - ? / i c e n e t ;hey d i d not w a n t t o a d m i t t h i s , b u t tried t 2 f s r ~ sz h e i n t s r p r e ~ a t i o nof
he Nicene
a n a t h e m a , i n o r d e r t o accommcdate ii t o - h e i r c n d e r s t a n d i n g o f
oiuia a n d brroo~ao~s. Yet , w h a t e v e r G r e g o r y ' s and a a s i l ' s arguments
..
1 2 5 , l . 32-49. See also Decrees o f the Ecumenical C o u n c i l s , ed. Norman P . T a n n e r , v o l . 1 (London: Shed Ward, 1 9 9 0 ) , 5. -'See EJ.
.-
-'Jean P e p i n , ""rirap{ise c imbraois e n C a p p a d o c e " i n Hvparxis e H v ~ o s t a s i snel Neoplatonismo. Atti del i C o l l o a u i o Internazionale d e l Centro di Ricerca sul N e o ~ l a t o n i s r n o (Universita depli Studi di Catania, 1-3 ottobre 19921, c d s . F. Romano and D. P. Taormina (Florence: Leo S. O l s c h k i , 1994). 7 6 .
&
in favor o f a d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e two cerms, w e n befor2
cheir t i m e , h i s t o r i c a l and exegstical r ~ s t i m o n ys t a n d s a g a i n s t their thesis.
F i r s c a f a l l , t h e C a p p a d o c i a ~ s o v e r h o k t h e fact t h a t unocr-iao~q was considared by many as synonymous wiih ovoia a t l e a s t
until the synod h e l d i n 3 6 2 a t A l e x a n d r i a , and h his synonymy caused mdless trouble.
For sxample, w e n . ? . k x a n d e r h i m s e l f ,
bishop of Alzxandris, a t ch? cime o f ~ h ?s y n o d of N i c a e a ( 3 2 5 ) ,
..
have been p o s s i b l e . ' , -
T h e synonymy v a s due ts ike meaning a f
bb~ordva~ (=to lie under) vnich made i~rroo~aa~; a n equival2ni o f
d i s t i n g u i s h these csrms,'-h i s o p i n i o n c a r r i e d l i t t l e influence.
Hammerstaedt a r g u e s that the m e a n i n g o f tjaoo~am.; a s used by O r i g e n i s d i f f e r e n t from t h e n e a n i n j impossd by che
do acknowledge that in numerous O r i g e n i a n texts unda-;.ao~si s the e x a c t equivalent of o6oia.
But t h i s does not exclude t h e
existence of the p a s s a g e s just i n d i c a t e d -
i n which
Oriqen uses the
-
' - C h r i s t o p h e r S t e a d , Sivine S u b s t a n c e ( O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n Press, 1 9 7 7 ) , 2 2 5 .
"see O r i g e n , i n ComJn 1,24,151-2; II,10,75-76 a n d CCels
VIII, 1 2 . --
'-Jiirgen Hammerstaedt, "Der t r i n i t a r i s c h e G e b r a u c h des H y p o s t a s i s b e g r i f f s bei O r i g e n e s , " J a h r b u c h f u r A n t i k e und C h r i s t e n t u r n 34 (1991): 12-20.
two terms w i t h d i f f e r e n t m e a n i n g s . S e c o n d , in h i s A o a i n s t Eunornius 1,2C, ll B a s i l h i m s e l f makes
use o f the synonymy o f the two w o r d s i n order to affirm the c o n s u b s t a n t i a l i c y o f God c he F a c h e r w i c h his S o n .
T h i r d , i n E&.
125, 1 Basil writes that ouaia r e f e r s t o t h e Son's c o - m o n substance wicii the F a t h e r , w k r e a s ilndo~acr~s ?:<presses rhe d o c t r i n e of saivaclon.
I n ocher words, :he
fcrrner r e f e r s c o the
c h e o l o a i a , w h e r m s the l a i x e r c o ~ h ?sikonomia.
Yet r h e context
i n w h i c h the N i c e n f F a c h s r s a n a t h e n a c i z e w h o e v e r discrirnina~es between the S o n ' s a n d Father's oiloia a n d ilrrboraoi~, t h u s m a k i n g the
cwo words s y n o n y m s , is n o t " e c o n o m i c " a s h s i i i n s i n u x e s .
The
Nicaenurn d e a l s here w i t h rhe S o n ' s g a n e r a t i o n f r o m t h e F a t h e r a n d h i s i m r n u c a b i l l r - 4 , a s well a s r i ~ h:he
when h e was n o t " ;
formula " i h e r e was a cine
n o meniicn o f c h ? S s n ' s i n c a r n a t i o n i s made i n
c h i s p a r t i c u l a r passaqe.
-
rourfh,
:here
. . xas a : r x i ~ r : s n
z k x c x l d have allowed f o r
t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n embraced by t h e C a p p a d o c i a n s .
I t goes back t o
Eusebius of Caesarea who, in w r i t i n g t o his d i o c e s e t o justify h i s e n d o r s e m e n t o f the N i c a e n u m , e x p l a i n e d c h a t t h e Son " i s n o t
from some o t h e r b ~ i ) o ~ a or o i ~s u b s t a n c e , but from t h e Father. " " T h i s interpretation i n d e e d a l l o w s for t h e c o n c l u s i o n that t h e S o n
is another person ( o r hypostasis! than t h e Father, -
"so t h a t
there
" G r e e k t e x t i n O p i x , U r k u n d e n z u r C e s c h i c h t e des a r i a n i s c h e r ! S t r e i t e s , 2 2 : pi i ~ i r i p a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o s i ~ ~a oa ouoias. oi ~ a o~ X e \w %K ~~~ 706 aa~p6s ( a p u d S t e a d , D i v i n e S u b s t a n c e , 2 3 9 ) .
a r e two, a n d i n d e e d t h r e e , d i v i n e h y p o s c a s e s . ""
Fifch,
t h e two
C a p p a d o c i a n b r o t h e r s m i g h also have r3sd eke famous lettzr o f
known as ihe Tomus a d A n t i o c h e n o s ( t h e
A t h a n a s i u s of A l e x a n d r i a ,
-
7
s y n o d a l l e t t a r o f the c o u n c i l held in 3 6 2 in A l e x a n d r i a ) , " w h e r e
a d i s t i n c t i o n i s made becweon oiuiu m d imoa-i-um~.
3 . Definitions o f u-rroaram~
Having disringuished b e t w e e n ocoia a n d 6rr6oraois in .Ad P ~ c r u m1-2,
Grsgory p r a c e e d s c o give defini~ionscf i ! m j a ~ u a t g I n s e c c i o n s 3-5. " T h a ~which is specificaily referred c o is i n d i s a t s d b y the term
unoo~aats." " I n G r e g o r y ' s view "human"
(dv8pw;ros)
is a r a t h e r
i n d e f i n i t e cerm which l e a v e s c h ? listzner w i ~ ha n alrnosc v a g u e ,
unqualified idea of w h a t it is r e f s r r i n g to.
As he 2rnploys the
term i n t k a t h e r t r i n i t a r i a n t r e a t i s e s , w h i c h w i l l b e s t u d i e d i n C h a p t e r s Four and F i v e ,
"human" i n d i c a t e s human n a t u r e , t h u s
b e i n g the name o f a species. unqualified.
Of ccurse,
Thac e x p l a i n s v h y it Is r a t h e r
"human" i s q u a l i f i e d i n the s e n s e t h a t
i t i s d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m o t h e r s p e c i e s , e.g. f r o m horse, but as
'"tead,
D i v i n e Substance, 2 4 0 .
t or the t e x t o f t h e Tornus a d A n t i o c h e n o s , see J . S t e v e n s o n , e d . , Creeds, C o u n c i l s a n d C o n t r o v e r s i e s : Documents I l l u s t r a t i n a the History of the church A. D. 337-461, r e v . ed. W. H. C .
F r e n a ( L o n d o n : SPCK,
1989), 8 a - 5 3 .
t h e name of a species it c o n v e y s lictle i n f o r m a t i o n .
Gregory
s u m m a r i z e s t h i s b y s a y i n g that, " a l c n o u g h the nature i s indicated
b y c h e name ' h u m a n , ' the c h i n o c h a c subsiscs (~6bbco:ds) i n c h a t
n a t u r e and i s specifically ( i S i w ~ ) indicated by .he
made z v i d e n t t o us." ilrr6o~aa~q,because
'
name is not
On t n e c o n t r a r y , " P a u l " i s the name of a
ii indicates ":he
n a c u r s subsisiing ir! t h e
t h r n g i n d i c a t z d b y c h i s namo. "'- A u
, however, "is nor: t h s
indefinite n o t i o n o f s u b s t a n c e , which by r e a s o n of the c o m m o n a l i t y of r h e cerm employed dlsclos2s n o s c a b i l i c y . "
"
It
now becomes evident i r h a t for Gregory i~mkraoi.; means " i n d i v i d u a l " and is o p p o s e d to s p e c i e s .
In c h e human and d i v i n e c a s e s ,
bado~ao~s c a n also be r e n d e r e d a s " p e r s o n . "
To clarify the issue e v e n f u r ~ h e r , G r e g o r y adds chat a bn6o~aois i s "the ccncepc which, by means of the specific n o t s s
whicn it indicates, r e s r r i c s a ~ circumscribes d in a p a r t i c u l a r t h i n g whac i s common a n d uncircumscribed."'
If G r e g o r y speaks
o f "circumscription" (aep~ypabfi)ir, he c a s e of a i~-rroomo~.;,h e o n l y
speaks o f " d e s c r i p t i o n "
( i m y p a d i ) in t h e e a s e o f oiuia.
':
In
--
' A d P e t r u m 3.
--
"Ad
Petrum 3 .
--
"Ad Petrum 3 . 8 . "Stability" renders the Greek o-rao~s. Gregory etymologizes here using "stasis," the second part of t h e word " h y p o - s t a s i s . "
doing so, Gregory characterizes a hypostasis as "somerhing that circumscribes" (aepiypa$otha) or the "circumscription of a
Gregory t h e n gives a concrete example borrowed from the Scripture of what he has said thus far o n a rather theoretical
level: the case of J o b . ' ; '
The s t c r y of 2cb irL Scripture scarts
r n general c e r m s describing w h a ~Job has in common with other
humans; more precisely, the biblical a u ~ h o rwrit25 "human"
indicating a particular human by adding
he w o r d "chis" ; ~ i . ; ) .
.. I
*
The Septuagint text which Gregory has in mind reads:
There was once this human ( " A L J ~ ~ W I T ~ ~i Tn L the S ) l a n d of Uz, whose name was job, and ihac hunar! {u~0pwr;o.; ilteil~oq) was ~ruthfu:, biameless, righteous, fearing God, and avoiding v . T h e r e were b c r n to h i m seven sons and three daughters. He had seven t h o u s a n d sheep, chree thousand camels, five hundred yokes of oxen, five hundred donkeys, a n d very many servants" [ J o b l:i-2, ET n i n e ) . . -. The a c c o u n t beccmss nor? srec~ilc--"+his humanM--in crder t~
characterize Job by means sf his peculiar notes (yvwpiopa~a), designating the place (the land of U z ) , t h e m a r k s which reveal
"Ad Pstrum 2. 14. The issue of eircumscribability played a major role in t h e fight over images in the iconoclastic period (see C h r i s t o p h von S c h o n b o r n , "La 'lettre 38 de saint B a s i l e ' et
le probleme christologique de l'iconoclasme," Revue des sciences philoso~hiaues et theoloaiaues 60 [I9761 : 446-450) .
his character (truthful, blameless, righteous, fearing God, and avoiding evil), and all such exirernal adjuncts that differentiate him and set him apart frcm rhe c o m c n n c t i m sf human (with Len children, seven r h o u s a n d sheep, ~ t c i . T h i s description gives rhe reader a rather clear account of j u s c who Job was.
Grsgory
thinks that, if the biblical author were to give an account of che substance (that is, the human n x u r e ) of Job, he would n o t have referred to the charact2ristics j u s c mentioned because ~ h e subscance is t h 2 same for bcch Job and his friends E l i p h a s t h e
Themmite, 3 a l d a d c h a S a u h i ~ e ,a n d S c p h a r the Yinsean:
Hsre
Gregory makes a distinction between c h e species "human" and some of i t s individuals (Job, E l i ~ h a s , galdad, Sophar) .
description .sf :he
perscn
Also the
b i r t j o ~ a o ~ gx' m e d Job sKggests that this
person is individualizsd b y p u t ~ i n gtogether some of his characteristic marks.
Gregory confirms c h i s supposition later i n
the treatise when s a y i n g : "a Cadoma~si s also the concourse of the peculiar characteristics.":"
Th? l a t c e r definition of
brroomois is highly reminiscent of the Neoplatonic definition of an individual as a collection of properties:
s
.
After giving t h e
"Ad Petrum 3. 26-30; cf. Job 2 : 1 1 . ?id Petrum 6. 4-6: r j v m v 6 p o p j v TGV i6iwpa:wv. Cf. Gregory of Nazianzus, 3 3 , 16 : pia $uois i v ~ p i a i vi6ioqoiv. Cf . Drecoll, Entwicklunq, 3 1 7 .
a.
'-See Plotinus, Enn. ' J I . 3.8.20, VI. 3.15.27 and Porphyry, See my discussion of t h i s issue in C h a p t e r Two.
I s a q . 7 , 21.
example of Job, Gragory s t a t e s that one can a p p l y the same r e a s o n i n g c o divine teachings in order c o understand the three
divine persons.'-
Gregory seems t o be aware t h a t P l c c i n u s and
P o r p h y r y had a p p l i e d o n l y t o s e n s i b l e substances r h e d e f i n i ~ i o n o f a n i n d i v i d u a l a s a c o l l e c t i o n o f prcperries.
T h e r s f o r e , when
h e passes from a sensible r o an in~elligiblesuksrance such as
Gcd, h e warns t h a t " i c i s s f n o a v a i l r o p r e s s u p o n a s p i r i ~ u a l t h i n g a definirely prescribed conception, b 3 c a u s e we art s u r e that it
[ i - e . , r-he d i v i n l ] is beyond all conc2p~ion. "" G r e g o r y
seems t o b e aware t h a t h 2 s x t m d s c o a n intelligible s u b s ~ a n c e
t h e N e o p l a t o n i c definition of a n individual,
3
ccnzlusion
N e o p l a t o n i s t s would have p r o b a b l y found unacceptable.
does n o t p r e t s n d
LO
3ut he
p r o v i d e a n e x p l a n a f i o n sf hcv sne s i m u i d
understand c h e d i v ~ n en a t u r e and ~ h 2t h r e e p e r s o n s i n p e r f e c t agreement
w i t h a philoscphiial view.
Fie zlslms
LO
provide h i s
r e a d e r s with " a n i l l x t r a z i s c 9ereiy icd adumbracisn cf t h e
t r u t h , m t c h e v e r y r r u t h cf t k r n a x e r . "
view of divine persons next.
I shall present his
4. Divine Persons
T h e a c t u a l d i s c u s s i e n of diy;ine
3.34.
F s r s o n s i n Ad Perrum s ~ a r t sa t
It i s t h i s l o n g a n d b e a u t i f u l passage ( 3 . 3 4 - 4 . 9 3 )
s h a l l e x a m i n e next.
that I
Gregory w r i c e s t h a c t h e d i v i n e n a i u r e common
to c h e t h r e e p e r s o n s i s u n c r e a t e d ,
i n s o n p r e h e n s i b l e , infinite,
xnclrcumscribed b y s p a c e , life-giving. -
>Jo d i v i n e person can b e
said c o b e more u n c r e a c e d o r Less u n c r e a t e d t h a n c h e o t h e r t w s , because " u n c r e a t e d " d e s c r i b e s
the subsmnce, ~ i n dt h e r e a r e no
d e g r 3 2 s within ihe same s u b s x n e e .
TP.e x i s z
hat t h e r e a r 2 no
degrees of substance b e t r a y s an . ? r i s c c r r e l i a n influence.
Gregory a p p l i e s , by way of a n a l o g y ,
LO
-
Here
the d i v i n e p e r s o n s che
a r g u m e n t he develcped i n regard t o human p e r s o n s a t A d P e t r u m 2 . 6-7
("Peter i s no more humar. than Andrew, J o h n , or James"). He
rspeacs t h e a r g u m e n c in h i s A-aains? Eunornius I , 1 7 2 f f . ; I , 180 f f . , e m p h a s r i n g i h a ~there a r e n o i e g r e e s o f substance in God:
if m e b e l i e v e s ~ h a cthe t h r e e p e r s c n s to a c c e p t that none of t h e m i s the ocher rwo.
mGre
ir?
d i - n n e , then a s has
d i v i n e , o r less d i v i n e , t h a n
Yet, let m e r a u r n to Ad Petrum.
G r e g o r y t h e n p r o p o s e s :o i n v e s t i g a t e o n l y t h o s e p r o p e r t i e s
(istaCov~aor yvdptopa~ahroo-iaorws) b y w h i c h t h e n o t i o n (ivvota) o f
?.
' - A d Petrum 3.38-46 and 4. 4 5 - 4 6 . ..
'-See Chapter
Twc for a discussion of t h i s A r i s t o t e l i a n
i n f l u e n c e o n Gregory of N y s s a .
e a c h p e r s o n o f the Trinity is conspicuously and sharply marked
The i n v e s t i g a t i o n begins i n che realm
off from what is commcn. of divine economy, :hat
is, God's r e l a c i c n
LO
b e more specific, God's relation to humans.
~ h w e o r l d , or, t o
He quoces 1 Car
1i:ll: "All c h e s s [gifts] a r e activared by o n e and rhe same Spirit, who a l l o t s chooses."
LO
each s n s individually ; u s t a s the Spirit
Gregory parapnrases
chis
verse: "Every good thing c h a t
corncs t o u s f r o m che p o w e r d i v i n e we s a y i s the
g r a c e which w o r k s a l l chings i n a l l . Ccr
It
working of the
G r e g o r y ' s selection o f 1
.
12:11 i s h i g h l y a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e argument he is a b o w
LO
make, because t h e w h o l e o f c h a p t e r 12 in 1 Corinthians deals w i t h the spiritual g i f c s humans receive f r o m the Holy Spiric a n d the way i n which e a c h human h a s
common good of t h e C h r &
cf :hese gifts f o r
L O make u s e
x n x h 1 s :he
3cdy s f C h r i s t .
he
T h i s -;cry
chapter p r e s e n t s not only t h e relations tstablished among humans in t h e Church (the image of members sf c h e same body i s used), but a l s o the r e l a i x o n s becwsen humans and God (the spiritual g i f t s a l l come from God).
T h e s p i r i t u a l gifts P a u l refers t o in
this c h a p t e r a r e t h e following: utterance o f wisdom, utterance of knowledge, faith, healing, w c r k i n g sf miracles, d i s c e r n r n e n c o f s p i r i t s , v a r i o u s kinds o f t o n g u e s , interpretation of t o n g u e s .
Ail o f t h e s e come from the Spirit alone.
Or do t h e y ?
notices an apparent contradiction in S c r i p t u r e : -"Ad
P e t r u m 4. 2-4.
Gregory
If we ask w h e t h e r from ( i ~che ) t i o l y Spirit alone this supply of goods t a k e s its origin a n d comes t o those who a r e worthy, we are again guided by che S c r i p t u r e s t o rhe b e l i e f t h a t t h e Only-begotten God is t h e source and c a u s e of t h e s u p p l y of qoods which are worked in us t h r o u a h ( & a ) t h e Spirit. F o r ws have been ~ a u g nby~ the Holy Scripture chat all things came into bting throuuh ( S t a ) him (cf. J n L 3 ) a n d in h i m hold together (cf. Col i:17) ." Of course, this is no concradicticn, but t h e Scripture's way of t e a c h i n g u s in stages, liftinq up our minds f r s m what is s i m p l e : o comprehend to that w h i c h
is more ccmplex.
This is one of
G r e g o r y ' s mechods of interpreting difficult or apparently contradictory s c r i p m r a l p a s s a g e s .
.:.
-
-
c r s o r r x i h l s divine
pedagogy is i h e fact c h a t , 2 s s c z n a s we ar? lifted up
LO
the
conception t h a t a l l things come i n t o being through c h e Logos, we are a g a i n k d on b y t h e d i v - x e l y - i r i s p i r e d ~ u i d a r ~ cand e t a u q h t chat throush i S ~ d )this p c w e r [i.e., r h e Oclyb e g o t c m ] E L L z h i n g s a r e c r c u q n t I n E c being from n o t - b e i n g ; n o t , k c w e v e r , even f r o m ,€{I :kis power vithout 3 beginning; nay, there is a power x h i s n ? x ~ ~ wt isc h o u ~qeneraticn or beginning, and this is t h e cause o f he causc o f a l l c h i n g s that e x i s t . " ' 7
7
The ultinate c a u s e sf ever1;thicj z b a r exiscs is God i h e F a t h e r .
All that exists, including che Holy Spirit, comes into being from the Father t h r o u g h the Son.
T h e cause o f t h e Spirit's b e i n g
~ b a is ~ ) the Father, assures u s Gregory.
(TO
Indeed, t h e
characteristic n o t e s of the S p i r i t ' s p e r s o n a r e t o b e known after
"Emphasis m i n e , Ad P e t r u m 4 . 6-11. -. -
--Emphasis mice, Ad P e r r u m 4. 11-19. Gregory plays on the two prepositions, "from" ( d ~ )and "through" (bid).
t h s Son and w i t h t h e Son, a n d rro proceed ( i ~ ~ o p ~ ~ from e t v )t h e F a t h e r , t h a t i s , t o have his subsistence !il&.cr~ava~! from t h e
Father?
From t h e Spirit ~ h ee n t i r e s u p p i y cf goods g u s h e s
f o r t h t o c r e a t i o n a l t h o u g h t h e other ~ w od i v i n e p e r s c n s a r e t h e
s u p p l y o f goods as well. G r s g o r y chen s h i f t s h i s f o c s s t o t h e S o n and t h e F a r h e r ,
He
a l r e a d y s a i d something s b o u r the Son e a r l i c , namely t h a ~all t h i n g s come i n c o b e i n g t h r o u g h h i m and i n h i m a r e h e l d t o g e t h e r . He
now s p e a k s a b o u t t h e Son's own w a y of b e i n g .
Thus,
i n accord
with t h e Bible a n d t h e Nicaenum, i i e S c n shines forth a s only uniquely generated"
f r c m t h e u r i g e n e r a t m liqhr.
he
T h i s is
the Son's own characteriscis n a r k t h x d i s t i n g u i s h e s h i m from both r h e F a t h e r and i h Y ~ o l y Spiric: :he
of t h e three.
Scn i s ~ h oe n l y b e g o t t e n
Unlike ~ h Son 2 2 n d the S p i r i ~ ,c h e F a t h e r i s t h e
" u n g e n e r a t e d light"'" and " h a s the s u b s i s t e n c e from n o o t h e r cause.
u: '
Each of :he
t h r e e m a r k s ( u n g e n e r a ~ e d , D e g o t w n and
p r o c e e d i n g forth! best characterizes x e divine p e r s o n and o n l y
one. Karl Holl notes t h a t , unlike B a s i l , G r e g o r y o f Nyssa does n o t use t h e t e r m s " f a t h e r h o e d "
! r a ~ p b - ; q ~ and ) "sonship"
( v i o q ~ )io
express the peculiarities
persons. "
( ~ ~ L O ~ T Eof S ) the
first two divine
Instead, Gregory prefers ayel)vqoiu. y€vvrpis and
€KTTO~EVOL~ -.
for r h e Father, c h e Son, and the Holy Spirit respectively.'Gregory also uses a biblical
t e r n s u c h as p o ~ o y h v f i f~o r t h e Sor!
in
order LO emphasize against the Macedonians that che Son is the
The l a t c e r ridiculed the orthodox by saying that
only-begotten.
t h e Son and c h e S p i r i c wer? b m t h e r s z r z k a r rhe Spirit was ihe
grandson of the Father. peculiarities
Consequently, in respect to .-he
( ~ & L ~ ) ~ T E of s ; 'cn2 divine
perssns,
Grsgory abandons
philosophical speculation and adheres :o biblical revelaiion.
If one adds
LC
each divine p e r s o r . ~ i ~ a ~ o xoct h~ei r~ )
propercies, besides the ones chat uniquely aharacterize each of ihem, one describes each divine p e r s a r i a s propercies.
3
nniaze collection - f
F c r example, - - c h e C a c h e r czr. be d e s c r i b e d as,
and
is, a u n i q u e collection of the f o l l a w i n g : proceeding from no
ocher cause, that is being x-qenerated, 2r.d k i n g Father.
The
Son is a collection of t h e fdlowing: " c h r c u g h himself and wich
himself makes known the Spirit who proceeds from the Facher," shines forth as the unique Only-begotten from the Father; all
" - K a r l Ficll, L ~ ~ h i 1 o c h i u .vso n Ikonium in seinem Verhaltnis zu den orohen Kapsadoziern (Tubingen: J. C. 8. Mohr, N O 4 ) , 211.
-. "Tf. also Gregory of Nyssa, Ad Graecos (ex cornmunibus notionibus} 25, 5 - 6 . --
"-These examples a r s caken from Ad also Drecd1, Entwickluno, 3 1 3 .
?errurn
4. 1 9 - 3 7 .
See
t h i n g s ( i n c l u d i n g t h e H o l y S p i r i t ) come i n t o e x i s t e n c e from c n e F a ~ h e rt h r o u g h che S o n .
The Spirit in t u r n car! be d e s c r i b e d a s a
u n i q u e c o l l e c t i o n s f c h e f s l l o w i n g properries: h a s h i s b e i n g from
the F a t h e r , that i s , p r o c e e d s frcrrn ~ h Fe a t h e r , a n d h e i s known after t h e Son and w i t h the S o n .
G r e g o r y seems ro i m p l y h e r e t h a t
he u n i q u e c o l l e c t i o n o f p r o p e r r i e s i s b o t h c h a t b y which t h e
p e r s o n is m o w n o r ~ d e n t ~ f l ea n d d c h a t by w h i c h r h e p e r s o n i s c o n s t i t u t e d a s disiinc~. M o r e o v e r , t o t h e common n a c u r ? i s s i m i l a r
i n d i v i d u a l and c h e u n i v e r s a l
LO
che r e l a t l o n of these persons t h e relation b e t w e e n t h e
r h d r j a r z i c x l a r a n d che x m m o n i .
.. . . . . T h u s , b i b l i c a l data, z s ws-A 3 s p n i - z s c c c : ~ ; l
z z c s e p r s cf
i n d i v i d u a l s a n a l y z e d i n Chapter Two, are p r e s e n c i n G r e g o r y ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e d i v i n e p e r s o n s .
The q u ~ s i i o r iz r i s i n p new is, " W x c a u s e s 1 5 . t F a r h e r , 3cn a n d kloly S p i r i t properties'?"
LO
b e divine p e r s o n s a n d n o t mere ' a o l l t c t i o n s of
The answer t o t h i s q u e s t i o n is d i f f i c u l t ,
e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e o n e c z n n c c s p e a k s f t h e soul i n c h e c a s e o f r h e d i v i n e p e r s c n s , a s I did in C h a p c e r Two vhcn i e a l i n g with t h i s
i s s u e i n t h e human c a s e .
Yec, I t h i n k Gregory was a w a r e o f t h i s
complex issue and t r i e d t o a d d r e s s i t .
Having said t h a t t h e d i v i ~ en a t u r e i s common a n d that t h e t h r e e divine p e r s o n s have individual c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , G r e g o r y
g i v e s t h e i m p r e s s i o n of r e t u r n i n g t o c o n s i d e r t h e d i v i n e n a t u r e
i n more d e t a i i , b u t h e a b r u p t l y c h a n g e s the s u b j e c t and s p e a k s o f
the p e r s o n s .
T h e text reads:
[Rlegardinq a t t r i b u t e s denoted b y t h e terms i n f i n i t e , i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e , u n c r e a t e d , u n c i r c u m s c r i b e d b y spacs, a n d a 1 1 o t h e r s o f t h e s a m e o r d e r , r h e r ? i s n o v a r i a t i ~ ni n t h e l i f e - g i v i n q n a t u r e - - 1 s p e a k ~f the F a t h e r , he Son a n d r h e Holy S p i r i t - - b u t a c e r c a i a c o n t i n u o u s a n d ~ninc?rrupted ccmmunion i s o b s e r v e d i n them ;:wa c n v q j ~ a ui6 ~ a o a a o ~~ouuwial~ o~) €1)
a u ~ o i)
.
'
T h a t G r e g o r y i n t e n d s c o s p e a k o f a "communion" o f p e r s o n s here and n o t o f a "commu~..ity" sf subsrazce is f i r s r ; indicaied b y t h e referents t 3 cne rhree p e r s o n s and n o t rro the common n a t u r e .
S e c o n d , after h e h a s s a i d t h a r r h e r e i s no d i f f e r e n c e i n r e g a r d t o t h e common attributes describing ~ t e n a t u r e , i~ does n o t
f o l l o w c h a t h 2 c o a l d add in t k sams s z n c e n s ? r h a r ;here
i s "2
c e r t a i n communion1' ( e m p h a s i s added), because i t w m l d msan t h a t
a c c u a l l y irhere i s a d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e common n a t u r e .
Third, i f
G r e g o r y i n t e n d e d r o r e f e r ta t h e c m r L a n raiurs, m e n t h e r e s h c u l c i have been
3
n m e r x z l a c c c r i c s cL ,.q ~ e y . " n a t ~ r ? " a nour.
s i n g u l a r ) a n d its o b j e c t .
IR ~
h s
I n t h i s c a s e , che cext shculd h a v e
r e a d : " t h c r e i s no v a r i a t i o n i n c h e l i f e - g i v i n g n a t u r e , b u t a
c e r t a i n c o n t i n u o u s and u n i n t e r r u p w d communion i s o b s e r v e d i n i t . " 3ut o u r -
them."
t e x t a c t u a l l y reads:
"
.,.
communion is observ2d in
C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e second part of the s e n t e n c e s h o u l d
r e f e r t o the p e r s o n s and t h 2 i r communion r a t h e r t h a n t o t h e nature.
Another argument in favor of Gregory's discussing the --
-Ad P e t r u r n 4. 4 5 - 5 0 .
c o r m u n i o n o f divine p 2 r s o r L s i s tc b f found in the use o f the t e r n ~otvwvia i t s e l f .
I n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r w o r k , Gregory uses two c e r m s
t o express the idea o f something c h a t i s common:
~otvwvia. Yet, w h e r e a s the forrier
term
s u b s t a n c e o r n a c u r s ( s e e 2.7,13; 3 . 9 ;
K O L V O ~ Sand
is used in reference to
4.39,86;
5.48,62), the
l a t t e r is used in r e f e r e n c e to t h e divine p e r s o n s (see 2.15; 4.33,49,84
.
"cornmunit y ,
'I
T h e r e f o r e , 1 p r o p o s e c o r e n d e r ~ o t v 6 q sb y a n d ~ o w w i ab y "zommi;nio.n.. "
The y s s s a g e j u s t qucced
a b o v e e n v i s a g e s the "communion o f ersons. " G r e g o r y then describes c h e strong r e l x i o n s and what would
be called later t h e o e r i c i o r e s i s s u i s r i n g among persons.
he divine
He s a y s t h a t , b y c o n t e m p l a t i n g t h e n a j e s t y o f a n y one
o f t h e t r i n i t a r i a n p e r s o n s , one a r r i v e s i n v a r i a b l y a t the other
two e r s o n s , since " t h e r e i s no i ~ t t r v a l ( r ) i 1 d € ~&taAc\ELppa~~) i between F a ~ h c ra n d Son and 2zly S p i r l ;
a void.""'
Although d i s t i n c t ,
separated from each other.
in x .r x n. c h f c h o q h ~will w a l k in t h e d i v i n e persons a r e n o t
M o r e o v e r , i h e y i m p l y o n e another: i f
one b e l i e v e s in any cne sf them, s n e has to accept and confess the other two also.
He
uses the image of a c h a i n : one who grasps
c n e end o f a c h a i n p u l l s a l o n g with i t t h e other e n d a l s o t o
oneself. Gregory wants to make his arguments s o u ~ das b i b l i c a l as possible; therefore, he even qGoies Scm 8: 9 a n d P s 119: 131:
S i n c e -,he Spirit i s of C h r i s t a n d f r o m God [ c h f ath her]" ( R c m 8 : 4) . . . he who d r a w s t h e S p i r i r , a s t h e p r o p h e t says," t h r o u g h t h e S p i r i t draws b o t h t h s Son and the F a t h e r a l o n g with i t . And i f you t r u l y l a y hold of t h e Son, you w i l l h o l d h i m o n two s i d e s , on the o n e w h e r e h e draws his F a t h e r t~ h i m s e l f , a n d e n the o t h e r w h e r e he d r a w s his cwn S p i r i c . . . . In l i k e manner he who a c c e p t s t h e F a t h e r v i r t u a l l y accepcs 3 1 x q w i t h h i m ihe Son and t h e S p i r i t a l s o . (Ad ? ? t n r n 4.63-501
Yet, p e r h a p s t h e most Fmpcrtant expression o f G r q o r y ' s t e a c h i n g
about the d i v i n e r e l a t i o n s and communion i n Ad P e c r u m i s to be found i n t h o fcllowing: [ T l h e r e i s a p p r e h e n d e d among r h e s e t h r e e a c e r t a i n i n e f f a b l e and i n c o n c e i v a b l e communion ( ~ o i r ~ w v i aand ) a t t h e same time d i s t i n c t i o n ( & L ~ K ~ L O L I ;with ), neizher he dif f t r e n c e b e c w ~ e n their p e r s o n s !i~aooxioewv) disinteqracinq c h e concinuicy 0 5 t h e i r n a c u r e , n o r chis z o m m u n i ~ yof u b s ~ a r . c e ~ K ~ T;ili)ocaia~j U . . KOLL~~)TT(TOS) c o n f o u n d i n g ~ 5 2i n d i n d u a l 5aracter o f t h e i r distinguishing notes .... [Wje d e v i s e a strange a n d p a r a d o x i c a l sort o f m i r e d s e p a r a t i o n and s e p a r a t e d union. (Ad Petrum 4.83-91)
is exactly by chis " c o m u n i s n " among the d i v i n e p e r s o n s t h a t Gregory manages t o show t h a t t h e F a t h e r , Son a n d 3cly S p i r i t a r e n o t mere i n d i v i d u a l " c o l l e c t i o n s of p r o p e r t i e s , " b u t d i v i n e
persons.
In o c h e r w o r d s , in a d d i t i o r . c;
a l r e a d y mentioned,
t h e c t h e r properties
it i s cne communion among t h e s e p e r s o n s t h a t
reek: T O ~ )Xpimoi! ~ O T 70 L n~p~ilya. ~ a EKi xi'&oil. c l e a r l y non-filioquist n u a n c e .
Note t h e
avcSpa. a OTL as "PS 11 8 :I3 3 LXX 1 : TO mopa pou j v o ~ e a~ a~i i X ~ u o ~ v ~ o ~ ~ \ d ~ ~ o ~ ~ r r c119:131). r r o ~ o ~ ~ vD(ePf es r r a r i s a y s t h a t Gregory p e r h a p s i n t e n t i o n a l l y m i s i n t e r p r e t s " I drew b r e a t h " f r o m P s . 1 1 9
(p. 211).
makes t h e m p e r s o n s .
T h e d y n a m i c s cf communion i s e x p r e s s e d n o t
o n l y i n r e l a t i o n s o f o r i g i n among the d i v i n e p e r s o n s , but a l s c i n t h e i r l o v e f o r e a c h other, perfect k n o w l e d g e o f e a c h other,
p e r f e c t a c c o r d of w i l l ,
a n d all o r h e r p e r i c h o r e t i c a c t i v i t i e s .
Since i n A d P2trum t h e r e i s no comprehensive r r e a r r n e n t of divine relationality,
I s h a l i pursue c h i s copic i n Chapter Five.
d - i ~ l ed y n a m i c s o f i n c e r - p e r s o n a i
The
cornmumon w i l l become e v i d e n t a t
~ h c p t oint.
Conclusions
H a v i n g p r e s e n t e d a n d a n a l y z c d C r e g o r y o f X y s s a ' s Ad Pecrum fratrern d e d i f f e r e n t i a u s i a e e t h v ~ o s c a s e o s , I c o n c l u d e t h a t t h i s c r e a t i s e p o i n t s c o some factors t h a t a r e essential f o r c h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g af th? c o n c t p t s f d i v i n e p e r s o n s :
I\the r e l a t i c n
sf t h e d i v i n e p e r s o n s to t h e d i v i n e o u s i a i s s i m i l a r tc :he
r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e i n d i v i d u a l and t h e u n i v e r s a l ;
2 ) a divine
person is understood a s a u n i q u e c o l l e c t i o n of p r o p e r t i e s , 3 ) the d i v i n e p e r s o n s a r e r e l a t i o n a l e n ~ i t i e s ,4 ) t h e m a i n d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e divine p e r s o n s a r e t h a t t h e F a t h e r i s unjenerated, the
Son is t h e Only-begottsn from the Father, and t h e Holy S p i r i t p r o c e e d s f o r t h f r o m t h e F a t h e r , a n d 5 ) t h e d i v i n e p e r s o n s are i n
a p e r m a n e n t and perfect communion w i t h o n e a n o t h e r and t h i s l a s t f a c c o r makes them be l i v i n g p e r s o n s , ncc m e r e l y u n i q u e
collections of p r o p e r t i e s . I should a l s o add that, in c o n r r a s t to a widespread,
misinformed o p i n i o n of cne ~ w e ~ t i e tche n t u r y , the
Cappadocians d i d not state a p r i o r i t y o f the p e r s o n s o v e r t h e
substance, b u t kept the two m q e c h e r in w ~ r s h i p i n gSod a s F a r h e r , Son and H o l y Spirit, a s in aasil's
&.
235,5.
THE LESSER TRINITARIAN TREATISES 11: TO EUSTATHIUS. ON THE HOLY TRINITY, TO ABLABIUS. ON NOT THREE GODS AND TO THE GREEKS. BASED ON THE COMMON NOTIONS
In this c h a p t 3 r I c o n t i n u e t h e search for a concept of divine persons in Gregory's l e s s 2 r crinicarian ireacises.
I consider
the t h r e e rreatises mentioned in ths c h a p t e r cicle b e c a u s e of
Fcr txampl?, one such
some simiiar arguments p r 3 s e n c in them.
argument is Gregory's c o n t m t i c n c h a t t h e d i v i m n a t u r e i s one .
.
b e c a u s e each d i v i n e 3ct:vxy
divine p e r s o n s .
i s o n e , o m n g c o m o n to all ~ h r e e 9
.
is ~ ? . esllegsd
Anocher p r 3 v a l m t i r q x r n e . :
etymological derivation of "God" ( 0 ~ 0 sand ) "Godheadr' (&(j~qs) from the verb " t c behold"
( 8 c u o p u ~ : ir? he s e n s e of p r v i d e n t i a l
~ v s r s i g h ; ; aecor5i-qly,
llSc,j"2zd t ' C c. ~ h ~
d i v i n s activity o f o v e r s i j n t ,
r i o t i h divine ~
' I J G U ~ ~ ~ X ~ T ? ihrt S S
nature.
Modern
s c h o l a r s have f o u n d such a r g u m e n t s unconvincing, b u t Gregory was c o n f i d e n t i h a t , b y t h e i r use, he c c u l d p r o v e rationally chat the
divine nature is o n e .
I commence t h e a n a l y s i s of each t r e a t i s e by considerations of the treatise's Sitz-im-Leben, mentioning t h e date and what p o s s i b l y prompted Gregory to write them.
Then I look f o r v a r i o u s
elements relevant f o r the concept of divine persons.
In the case
of t h e last treatise, I a l s o a t t e m p t t o t r a c e some of Gregory's
p h i l o s o p h i c a l explanations.
1. To Eustathius. On t h e Holv T r i n i c v
T h e t r e a t i s e To E u s t a r h i u s . On t h e H c l v T r i n i r v ( A d E u s c a r .
h e r e a f t e r ) - a t c r i b u r e d t o Basil sf t-aasarea b y some m a n u s c r i p t s , has been j u s c i y r e s t o r e d t o G r e g o r y
GNO 3 . 1 ,
F. M u l l e r .
of Nyssa b y i ~ esd i c o r i n the
G e r h a r d May d a c e d t h i s t r e a t i s e t o s h o r t l y
b e f o r e t h e C o u n c i l o f C o n s m n c i n o p l e of 381.
-
DaniGlou i r ; i c i a l l y
d a t e d Ad Eustat. LO 389, b e c a u s e h e surmizcd c h a t a p a s s a g e on
Balaain ( 9 , 18-13) was inspired b y G r e g o r y ' s L i f e of ."loses, a l a c e
work u s u a l l y dated to 3 8 9 - 3 3 3 s r L a c 5 r . '
B u t s e v e r a l y e a r s later
h e c h a n g e d h i s m i n d a n d p r o p o s e d t h e y w r 3 7 5 for c h e c o m p o s i t i o n
o f t h i s s m a l l treatise.'
I n the i a c t e r case DaniPLou c h o u g h t
"
3
-References z z t h 2 G r e e k wst WE, ce :G Ad E u s ~ a t h i u r nde s a n c t a T r i n i t a t 2 i n Greoorii N v s s e n i Opera, 7 ~ u L3 , p a r t 1, 2 d . F r i e d r i c h MUller (Leiden: Brill, 19581, 1-16. I consulted Gregory of Nyssa, On the Hclv T r i n i t v , and of t h e Godhead of t h e H o l v S ~ i r i t . T o E u s c a c h i u s , t r . H . A . Wilsor: ir! MPNF, 2d s e r i e s , v o l . 5 ( N e w Y o r k : T h e Christian i- i .c e r a c u r e Ccrnpany, 18931, 3 2 6 3 3 0 ; however, s i n c e the l a t c s r p x d a t e s the critical edition prepared by Muller, 1 h a v e n o t relied entirely o n it. 9
-G. May, "Die Chronologie," 57 f. T h e same p o s i t i o n i s held by R. P. C. Hanson, The Search f o r the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversv 318-381 (Edinburgh: T & T C l a r k , 1988),
717.
'J. D a n i e l o u , r e v i e w o f Greaorii Nvsseni Opera doamatica minora I, ed. F . Miiiler, Gnomor. 31 (1959): 615. 'J. Danielou, "Chronologie,
"
162.
that the a d v e r s a r i e s Gregory m e n t i o n e d i n Ad E u s t a t . were p a r t i s a n s o f E u s t a t h i u s o f Sebasce who arcacked B a s i l , Gregory and
Meletius i n 3 ? 5 and a g a m s t whom B a s i l wrote Gz S o i r i ~ \ ~
Sancto.
May c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e a d v e r s a r i e s were i n d e e d
s u p p o r t e r s o f E u s t a t h i u s ef S e b a s t e , b u c chat
Gregory d u r i n g h i s stay I n % b a s t 2
ir. 3 6 0 .
hey a t r a c k e d
S u s : a ~ h i x s was
himseif d e a d b y 3 6 0 , and Gregory's b r o c h e r Peter was c h e bishop
of Sebaste at that time.'
Based on internal e v i d e n c e -- Gregory
strives LO d e f e n d the d i v i n i ~ yof rh? k b l y Spirit -- m e can e a s i l y i n f e r c h a t c h i s treacise was mcsc l i k e l y written before
the Council of Constantino@e
of 381,
aL w h i c h chs s t a t u s
of the
Holy S p i r i t was c l a r i f i e d . Addressed c o a p h y s i c i a n E u s ~ a t k i a s , r h i s treatise deals
with two c h a r g e s b r o u g h t against G r e g o r y of N y s s a : 1) he
distinguishes the hypostases (70 6 t a ~ p ~ TU.; i v h a ~ a o e ~ sw )h m t a l k i n g a b o u t God, y e t 2 ) he d o e s n o t employ a n y 3 f t h e names that a r e w o r t h y cf God i n t h e p l u r a l number, b u t s p s a k s "of t h e goodness as one, and of the power, a n d of the godhead, and a11 such names
in t h e singular. "' Gregory dismisses quite r e a d i l y t h e f i r s t accusation, since t h o s e who formulate it "hold the d o c t r i n e of t h e diversity of substances ( i x p o q r a ~ & v o u o ~ l j vin ) the divine
'Hanson, Search, 716 f. "Ad E u s t a t .
6 , 11; cf. a l s o 5,
134
18.
"For i t i s n o t c o be s u p p o s e d t h a c those u h o s a y ~
nature. "-
h
t h e r e are three s u b s ~ a n c e sdo not a l s o s a y chat t h e r e a r e three
hypostases
( T ~ E ~ bS a
o o ~ d m ~" -~ ) .I t r a n s l i c e r a t e d the
word briomao~.;,
b e c a u s e in this case G r e g o r y ' s a c c u s e r s seem t o u s e i t a s a synonym of oiuia. One can. c o n c l u d e t h a c G r e g o r y ' s a c c u s e r s a r e on t h e m e hand N e o - A r i a n s ,
who d e n y c h a t rhe S o n i s o f -he same
d i v i n e suDstance (opoova~os)w i t h t h e F a t h e r , and on .-heother
hand Macedonians, w h o deny t h a t che H o l y Spiric is of he s a m e s u b s t a n c e w i t h che F a t h e r . .-
Gregory d e f e n d s h i i n s e - r a g a i n s :
r h e s s s m d accusaticn, b y
s h o w i n g that i t i s n o t biblical t o u s e i n t h e p l u r a l names
Tht riame "God" indicates
r e f e r r i n g t o G o d ' s u n i q u e substance. t h e subscancs;
plural.
t h e r e f o r e i t c a n n o t be p r o p e r l y u s d in the
T h o s e who do use s u c h n a m e s i n t h e p l u r a l a r e
polytheists.
Moreover, t o r e f u i e the s e c o n d a c c u s a t i o n , N y s s e n
u s e s a n argument ~ h a cis present in
-
1
ill
t k t e
crearises I a n a l y z e
i n t h i s z h a p t 2 r : divin? 5 a n r e i s on? because 2 a c h d i v i n e
a c t i v i t y a d e x t r a i s c o m m o n t o a l l irhe p e r s o n s .
I shail deal
w i t h t h e l o g i c o f t h i s srgurnenc l a t e r when a n a l y z i n g Ad Ablabium. At this point,
I c o n f i n e myself t o n n d e r s t a n d i n g a d i v i n e p e r s o n
b y e x a m i n i n g t h e meanings of t h e Greek words used t o d e n o t e i t .
Ad Eustat. 6 , 11-13. 3.d E u s t a t
.
6,
1 4 - 1 5 : oil yap
~ a rpeis i n a v m s imoo~aoe~s Mye~v.
E ~ K O Sion T O L ~T P E ~ SM Y O V T ~oCuias S
a
~
In Ad E u s i r a t . Gregory uses t h e term h r o a ~ a as ~i x~ rimes. The t e r m o c c u r s four times i n t h e p l u r a l t h o o r a o e ~ ~ )with , referent? t o the t h r e e divine p e r s c n s :Ad Euscat. 5, 1 3 ; 6 , 8; 5 , 12; 6 ,
15); it can be t r a n s l a t e d a s " p e r s o n " i n two o f rhe c a s e s , s h o u l d be transliierated a s " h y p o s t a s i s "
DUE
it
[and u n d e r s t o o d as a
s y n o n y m o f o i u i a ) i n ihe cwo o c h e r cases f o r the r e a s o n s I have lndlcated a b o v e .
T h e n i l a o o ~ a c roccurs ~~ twice i n r e f e r e n c e to God
he F a t h e r a l o n e ( 1 3 , 1 3 and 1 5 ) .
The c o n t e x t for t h e l a t t e r t w c
o c c u r r e n c e s i s irnporcanc f o r m y analysis: F o r s i n c e i t i s said "the a n q e l s see ;he face ( r l i i r p 6 o w r r o ~ q o f my Father in h e a v e n " ! M t 18:lO), and i t i s n o t ~ossible t o see the p e r s o n ( ~ o a p d o w ~ r o vof ) che Father otherwise c h a n by f i x i n g the s i g h t upon ir: c h r s u q h h i s imprint ( ~ a p a ~ ~ f p ; ; a n d c h c i n p r i m o f :be p e r s o r , sf z h ? Faci..er i,i16€ ~ a p a ~ f i p q ~ ~ o i ~ ; r a r p c j ~ i ~ ~ ~ oLoS ; ut hoe~ ~ _ 7~~). 1 y - 5-jLe - c ~ + n , Heb 1 : 3 : , and LJ h i m n o a n e can draw x a r whcse 3ind h a s cct been i l l u m i n e d b y ihe Holy Spirit. N h a t ?is? is shown from chis but that the Holy S p i r i t i s n o t separated f r o m a n y activity ( e v i p y ~ ~ u ) which is w r o u g h t by the F a r h e r ? ' T h u s t h e i d e n t i t y o f activity in F a t h e r , Son a n d Holy S p i r i t s h o w s p l a i n l y c h e u n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e chzrascer cf t h e i r natur?. G r e g o r y u e s i~mjcrao~.;here inierchangeably w i i h rrptiowmw to refer
'io the same r e a l i t y : the " p e r s o n " of God t h e F a t h e r .
T o d o sc,
h e p l a y s o n t h e meanings of apdowrrov as b o t h " f a c e " and " p e r s o n , " combining them t o
support
h i s argument.
Ai che same r ime,
' ~ i v eout o f n i n e m a n u s c r i p t s u s e d to establish the critical t e x t read "wrought b y t h e F a t h e r a n d the Son" (Ad Eustat. 13, 18-13). The editor, F. M i i l l e r , r e g a r d s this a s a n interpolation d u e t o dogmatic r e a s o n s . He may be wrong at this point.
" ~ dEustat. 13, 11-21.
Cf. N P N F 2 . 5 : 3 2 9 .
speculates on t h e famous text Heb 1:3, interpreting baomaois i n ..
t h i s t e x t in the sense of " p e r s m ." - - A similar stratsgy used to
advance h i s a r g u m e n c i a n be found i n A d Petrum 9 , a s 1 show in
Chapter Three-
In his works w r i t t e n a f t e r 365, B a s i l o f Caesarea
no longer allowed for t h e use o f lipoowrrov ar.d i r r 6 a ~ a o ia~s synonymous, b e c a u s e i n his view ripoawrrov was compromised b y Sabeiiius wnen m e l a r t s r used i~ w i ~ hr h e meaning o f "mask."
As
s e e n here, Gregory of N y s s a dces n o r s n a r e in h i s brother's oarti p r i s , b u t continues t c u s e the cuo terms interchangeably.
2 . To Ablabium, On N o t T h r e e Gods
As for the dates of To A b l a b i ~ m ,On Nor T h r s e
Gods
(Ad Ablzbium
h e r e a f t e r ) '- a n d To the G r e e k s , Based on the Common Nocions (Ad
Graecos hereafter) Yay a g r c e s with G a n i e l o u in placing chem - . -
coward the end of Z n q s r y 2 5 Yyssds XI?.
.. --See
May r e j e c i s the
also Basil, 2, 3, 5 ( 6 6 1 a ) and my "Prosdoon a n d Hypostasis in Basil of Caesarea's Aaainst E u n o r n i ~ s and the Epistles," Viqiliae Christians? 51, no. 4 (1997): 384-85 for an explanation of the reasons for the deliberate Cappadocian misinterpretation of the meaning of iltromao~sin Heb 1 : 3 . . - - R e l e r e n c e s t o t h e Greek text will be to Ad Ablabium Ouod non sint tres d e i in Greaorii Nysseni Ooera, vol. 3 , part 1, ed. F r i e d r i c h Muller ( L e i d e n : Brill, 1 9 5 8 ) , 35-58. I consulted the G r e g o r y of Nyssa, On " N o t Three Gods To Eustathius, tr. H. A. Wilson in NPNF, 2d series, vol. 5 (New Ycrk: The Christian Literature Company, 1893), 331-336; yerr, since the iatter predates the critical edition prepared by Muller, I did not rely entirely on it. +
.I1
proposal for the year 381 voiced by some scholars. He argues that t h e s e trsatises m a k e nc rnencicn of c h e iaportan~dispu~escaking
place t h a ~very year.
These i r e a z i s e s remind Y a y of G r e g o r y cf .,
Nazianzus' &. 202, written i n 387:'
D a n i e l o u dates A d A b l a b i u m
and Ad Graecos to about 388. In his opinion, " c h e y correspond
LO
a period when Gregory is inwrested less in dogmatic controversies and more in spirituality and when he surely approaches them [these dogmatic c o n t r o v e r s i e s ) by requesc frcm his friends and in a rapid mznner. " : : b e right
in dating Ad A b l a b i u n
XI
and
Daniklou may
a r o u n d 3 8 7 - 3 8 , espcially
since in A d Ablabiurn 3 7 , 8 t h e r e is
age.
3 c c k ?la!;
2
reference LO Gregory's old
Their o p i n i o n has recently b e e n confirmed by Stead.:'
In this treacise Ablabius, a frisnd who does noc know how to unders~andc h e formuia " o m substance, ~ h r e ehypostases," confronts Gregory with two equaliy sxtreme alternatives: either
say "ihree gcds" x speak sf cne Cod, t s z l o d i n g t h e Son and ihe Spirit f r c m i h e divinity.
Th? former a l c e r n a c l v ? is Tritheisn,
whereas the latter is mtrerne Arianism a n d Macedonianisrn. Ablabius asks: If we can speak of Peter, James, a n d J o h n as c h r e e
.
.
-'G.
May, " C h r o n o l o g i e , " 58 f.
.
Danielou, review of GMO 3/1 i n Gnomon 3 1 ( 1 9 5 9 ) : 5 1 5
" G . Christopher Stead, "Why Not Three Gods? The L o g i c of Gregory of Nyssa's Trinitarian Doctrine," in Studien zu Greoor von Nvssa und der christiichen Spatantike, eds. Hubertus R. Drobner and Christoph Klock (Leiden: 51511, 1990), 150.
humans a l t h o u g h t h e y are o n e i n n a t u r e , why n o t s p s a k o f t h r e e gods also?
I n o c h e r words, i f i t is logical to refer t o humans, b y t h e p l u r a l number o f th2 came d e r i v e d
who a r e more izhan c n ? ,
from their n a t u r e , why t h e n i s t h i s a b s u r d i n che d i v i n e c a s e ? To begin w i t h , G r e g o r y replies i z h a ~ L O speak sf "many humans" ~ T I O MU LO@~~ W T O L ; is a xszomar:,p
abcss sf l m g u a g e , sir,ce x e
a o nor c a l i somebody b y rhe name o f his n a c u r e , but b y t h a t w h i c h s i g n i f i e s t h e particular s u b j e c t (urrou~ipcvov).
I n d o i n g s o , we
t r y t o a v o i d t h e c o n f u s i o n c h a t may r e s ~ l cf r o m trn? ~ K O L V ~ ~a fS ) t h . 2
came,
"as
ic wcclii hsppen :r. -
cornunity
e v e r y one
of chcse
who h e a r i t were io c h i n k c h a t h e h i m s e l f was cne p e r s o n addresssd.
"Human n a c u r e "
( d v 0 p L m ~ q d i m g )i s common t o all
human i n d i v i d u a l s a n d che word "human"
nature.
C o n s q u e n t ly, : c
! a d p w r r o ~ ! signifies iiiis
s a y "aar!y h..umansM is r o u g h l l ;
tantamount
t o s p e a k i n g of "many human n a t u r e s " w h i z h i s errcneous: T h e r e f o r e , G r e g o r y p r o p c s e s c h a t w e correct our w r o n e o u s habit o f c a l l i n g "many" what is actually one.
This c o r r e c t i o n would
h e l p u s t o a v o i d m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g the d i v i n e nature w h i c h i s o n e
a n d s h o u l d be r e f e r r e d t o a s s u c h .
He means c h a t f r o m a l o g i c a i
p o i n t o f v i e w w e c a n n o t z e f e r to a n i n d i v i d u a l b y
he name o f i t s
species or t o a s p e c i e s b y t h e name o f i t s g e n u s .
We nave to
q u a l i f y them somehow.
-'Ad A b l a b i u m 4 0 ,
When referring t o a human i n d i v i d u a l ,
10-14.
.-
- A d A b l a b i u r n 40, 5 ff. 139
A r i s t o t l e h i m s e l f s a y s "this human" or "a c e r t a i r ! human"
is
avOpwrro~, C a t . 2 a 1 5 ) , not simply " h u m a n , " a n d Gregory s a y s " s u c h a n d s u c h human"
( ~ o t o a av8pwrro~, k A d S r a a c o s 23-30 3
.
Nevertheless, Gregory h a s t o r e c o g n i z e that cornmon l a n g u a g e
emplsys the p h r a s e "many h u m a n s " a n d s o does cne S c r i p m r e . H e n c e h e i s constrainsd LO s a y c h a t we can a m u a l l y z o l e r z r e t h i s
n o h a r m r e s u l t s f r o m the m i s t a k e n u s e o f t h e name.
":'
Yet, the
same v a r i a t i o n in t h e u s e cf the term is n o L acceptable in the
case of the divine n a t u r s , -
-.
r l r s c sf ai,, -
1
, the n a o i c 3 f calling 3
"many" t h a t which i s o n e i s d a n g s r o u s i n r e f e r r i n g t o che d i v i n e , because i t contravenes S c r i p t u r e : "Hear, God i s o n e L c r d "
( D e u i 6:4).
Crqcry
0 I s r a e l , t h e Lord your
insisis t h a t Cod is one,
although, Y h e name sf godhead 2 x t e n d s ' h r c u g h
~ i Ye o l y
T r i n i t y . "--
Second, he proposes L O a n a l y z e mcre c l o s 2 l y :he
the word " g o d h e a d " in o r d e r his point.
A
LO
obtai. addirional help i n p r o v i n g
long argument b e g i n n i n g a c 42,
a f f i r m c h a t n o t e v e n the word " g o d h e a d "
.-
-'Ad A b l a b i u m 4 1 ,
.-
-'Ad A b l a b i u r n 42,
m e a n i n g cf
13 attempts t o
(or d i v i n e n a t u r e , tkoqs)
1 8 ff.
1-3.
--
-'This Septuagint text differs quice dramatically from the Hebrew t e x t w h i c h r e a d s : "Hear, 0 I s r a e l , the L o r d i s our Lord, t h e Lord alone. " -.
--AdAblabium 42, 5-6.
is able to fully describe what the d i v i n e n a t u r e i s , b e c a u s e ~ E ~ T T ] Sis the
name o f a n a c t i v i c y ( o r m e r g y , € ~ j i p y t m .')
draws upor! t h e alleged derivation o f
& O ~ Sfrom
Gregory
ihs v e r b Oeuopa~
which means "tc behold" in he s m s e of p r o v i d e n t i a l o v e r s i g h r .
O E O ~ ' ;t h u s r e f e r s t o t h e i ~ ~ i ~ ofi ro vye r s i g h t , a s d o e s Beds itself."
Yec a n y activity o r i e n t e d f r o m God t o
he c r e a t i o n i s
common c o a l i t h r e e d i v i n e p e r s o n s : "every a c c i v i t y which excends from God t o t h e c r e a t i o n , and i s named a c c o r d i n g r o o u r v a r i a b l e
conceptions cf it, h a s its s r i g i n f r o m t h e F a t h e r , a n d p r o c e e d s chrough the Son, and is p s r f e c t e d in he H o l y Spirit.
81
-;
One
example of a c t i v i c y common ~o t h e thrze c i i v i n c p e r s o n s i s "seeing."
God t h e F a t h e r i s s a i d y o s e e :
God" (Ps 8 3 : 10 ir. c h ? LXK;
7
34
I
:Y
\
; :?is
"Behold o u r s h i e l d , 0
Scr. ZISC sees z k hidden
~ h o u g h t so f c h o s e whc c o n d x m him ( M t 9:4j; the Spirit also is
s a i d t o see when Peter s a y s t o Ananias, "Why had S a t a n filled
your heart,
LO
lie ts :he
Holy
Spiriz?" ( A c t s 5 : 3 ) , showing t h a t
t h e Spirit saw A n m i a s ' h i d d e n ihoughcs a n d r e v e a l e d
hem t o
Peter. - U n l i k e d i v i n e n a t u r e , human n a t u r e does not have the same
..
- - L i k e t h e other twc C a p p a d c c i a n s , G r e g o r y refers t o activities a s "that whicn s u r r o u n d s [the s u b s i a n c e ] " ( ~ map i a u q v , Ad Abiabium 43, 14).
-
"See
A d E u s t a t . 14, 6 for a similar remark.
" ~ dAblabium 4 7 , 24-48, 2 ; NPNF 2 . 5 : 3 3 4 . -
*
-'Ad Ablabium 4 4 , 1 7 - 4 6 ,
2.
oneness.
The r e a s o n , a c c o r d i n g t o Nyssen,
human activity i s common L O a l l humans.
i s t h a t no s i n g l e
Even i f s e v e r a l humans
a r e e n g a g e d i n t h e same a s t i v i r r y , t h e y v o r k s e p a r a t e l y each b y himself a t t h e t a s k h e has u n d e r t a k e n .
"For i n s t a n c e , supposing
t h e c a s e o f s e v e r a i o r a t o r s , t h e i r p u r s u i t , b e i n g o n e , h a s the same name in the numerous c a s e s : b u t e a c h ef t h o s s who f o l l o w i c
works b y himself, c h ~ sm e pizading on h i s own a c c o u n t , a n d t h a t on h i s own a c c o u n t .
Ther?fore,
"-"
p r o p e r l y c a l l e d "many.
g n l i k e God, humans a r e
"
The f a c t t h a t every d i v ~ n ea c t i - i ~ y maniftst2d ad extra is common co
he t h r e e d i v i n e p e r s o n s i s a sufficient r e a s o n
in
G r e g o r y ' s v i e w to d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t i h e d i v i n e n a t l l r ? i s o n e i n a way cne.
hat i s a i f f e r e n t from che way in x h i c h
Therefore,
in
he human n a c u r e i s
he d i v i n e c a s e m e should n o r xse che p h r a s e
" t h r e e g o d s f 1 t o r e f ? r t o t h e divine p e r s o n s .
One i s a l l o w e d ,
h c w e v e r , es r e f e r is humans a s " n a n y Ficrnans. "
I believe 1 h a v e p r e s e n ~ e aquiz? e s t z n s i v e i y C r e g c r y l s a r g u m e n t r e g a r d i n g the u n i t y of n a t u r e a n d the " p r o p e r " use o f names d e r i v e d from n a t u r e .
I s h a l l r e t u r n t o some o f t h e s e
a r g u m e n t s l a t e r i n this c h a p t e r w h e n d e a l i n g w i t h A d G r a e c o s , a s Gregory a d d s a d d i t i o n a l e x p l a n a t i o n s there.
A t t h i s point,
however, I s h o u l d s a y , a l o n g w i t h S t e a d , t h a t G r e g o r y ' s e s s a y " O n
Not T h r e e Gods" "resembles a n a c c o m p l i s h e d c o n j u r i n g c r i c k more .
