johannes zachhuber, 'basil and the three hypostases tradition', zac, vol.5, 2001

Basil and the Three-Hypostases Tradition

Reconsidering the origins of Cappadocian theology

by Johannes Zachhuber

During the past century scholarship dealing with the origins of Cappa-docian trinitarian thought has normally embraced the view that thoseorigins were to be sought within what one may call the three-hypostasestradition (THT)1. A brief account of that theory might run as follows:Early in his career, Basil was a homoiousian. He took part in the synodof Constantinople, 359/60, as part of the homoiousian camp. When,shortly after that council, he moved towards Nicenism, he still had diffi-culties accepting the key-phrase of its creed, homoousios, and claimed toprefer likeness-terminology, just like his former fellow-homoiousians haddone. Consequently, the brand of Nicenism that was to become known asCappadocian theology, or neo-Nicenism, is effectively a fusion of thetraditional doctrine of Nicaea, characterised by the term homoousios,with the teaching of the homoiousians, whose ancestry is betrayed by theuse of ‘three hypostases’. ‘One ousia in three hypostases’ thus became thewatchword of the new Nicene orthodoxy of the last quarter of the fourthcentury.

I shall term this the ‘classical view’. Admittedly, some have protestedagainst it, notably Ritter2, who argued that on account of their rejectionof subordinationism the Cappadocians should not be seen as descendants

1 E.g. W.-D. Hauschild, Art. Basilius, TRE 5, Berlin/New York 1980, (301-313) 303. Cf.also: Th. Zahn, Marcellus von Ancyra, Gotha 1867, 87-89; A.v. Harnack, Lehrbuch derDogmengeschichte, Tübingen 41909, vol. 2, 263f.; J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doc-trines, London 51977, 263f.; Th.A. Kopecek, A History of Neo-Arianism, 2 vols., PatMS8, Cambridge, Mass. 1979, 2, 361-364; R.P.C. Hanson, The Search for the ChristianDoctrine of God, Edinburgh 1988, 680.693-699.

This article is the revised version of a ‘Master Theme’ paper that was read at the XIIIPatristics Conference. I am grateful to the participants of that session for their stimulatingcriticism. I also wish to thank Dr Michael Finch for his most helpful suggestions onquestions of language and style.

2 A.M. Ritter, Das Konzil von Konstantinopel und sein Symbol. Studien zur Geschichteund Theologie des 2. Ökumenischen Konzils, FKDG 15, Göttingen 1965, 270-293. Cf.Holl’s cautious remark: „Man übersieht etwas Wesentliches, wenn man bei der Reproduk-tion der kappadozischen Theologie sofort von den Parteigegensätzen des 4. Jahrhundertsausgeht und ihre Eigentümlichkeit nur etwa von der Entwicklung der homoiusianischenPartei aus zu begreifen sucht.“ (Amphilochius von Ikonium in seinem Verhältnis zu dengroßen Kappadoziern, Tübingen/Leipzig 1904, 116f.).

ZAC, vol. 5, pp. 65-85© Walter de Gruyter 2001

66 Johannes Zachhuber

of the homoiousians. Meredith3 adopted a similar conclusion. Neverthe-less, the above theory has dominated scholarship to a considerable extentand is still doing so: the most recent comprehensive treatment of Basil’stheological development4, which is, in my judgment, in many ways agroundbreaking study, dubs this development ‘his way from a homoi-ousian to a neo-Nicene’.

It is, therefore, the intention of the present article to subject this theoryto critical scrutiny. Does it hold? And if so, to what extent? If not, whatare the origins of Cappadocian theology? These are the main questions tobe discussed. At the outset, however, an attempt must be made to definewhat might be a sound use of the phrase THT. That this can be no morethan a conventional definition would hardly seem to need extra emphasis.

What is the THT?

The THT as I understand it comprises such theologians in the third andfourth centuries as find it essential in their trinitarian thought

(a) to emphasise the separate existence or ‘subsistence’ of the threePersons of the Godhead and

(b) to employ to this end the term ØpÒstasij. Also relevant is(c) a particular kind of subordinationism.

Let me briefly explain this definition and justify the three criteriachosen. The first two, (a) and (b), would appear to form a closely inter-connected pair. The introduction of the term ‘hypostasis’ into Christiantrinitarian thinking was conditioned by the concern to express the sepa-rate existence of the three Persons of the Godhead. This, at least, seemsto be the soundest inference from the term’s non-Christian use which iscorroborated, I think, by the evidence of Origen5.

In a similar way the use of this terminology is justified by the homoi-ousian author of the so-called ‘Epistle of George of Laodicea’6:

3 A. Meredith, Studies in the Contra Eunomium of Gregory of Nyssa, D.Phil. dissertation(unpublished), Oxford 1972, 240-252. Cf. his judgment: „The obvious differences be-tween the beliefs stated or implied in this programme (sc. the 358 homoiousian manifesto)and the system of the Cappadocians are so great as to dispose of any suspicion that therewas any great influence exercised by the Homoeusian party upon the neoNicenes“ (247).

4 V.H. Drecoll, Die Entwicklung der Trinitätslehre des Basilius von Cäsarea: Sein Weg vomHomöusianer zum Neunizäner, FKDG 66, Göttingen 1996.

5 E.g. Or., Cels. VIII 12 (GCS Origenes II, 229,31-230,2 Koetschau); cf. M. Frede, DerBegriff des Individuums bei den Kirchenvätern, JbAC 40, 1997, (38-54) 42-47. Theauthors of the Second Creed of Antioch evidently draw on Origen in that regard (Ath.,syn. 23,6 [Werke 2/1, 249,33 Opitz] = A. Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole und Glaubens-regeln der Alten Kirche, Breslau 31897, § 154).

6 In Epiph., haer. 73,12-22 (GCS Epiphanius III, 284,12-295,32 Holl/Dummer). W.A. Löhrargues that the author of the manifesto is Basil of Ancyra (Die Entstehung der homöischenund homöusianischen Kirchenparteien. Studien zur Synodalgeschichte des 4. Jahrhunderts,

67Reconsidering the origins of Cappadocian theology

And nobody should take exception to the term ‘hypostasis’. For the Easternersspeak of hypostases in order to indicate the truly existing individuality of thePersons7.

Again some participants8 of Athanasius’ synod at Alexandria, 362, de-clared that they employed this terminology

because we believe in the Holy Trinity, not a Trinity in name only, but one thattruly is and subsists. We know that the Father truly is and subsists, and that theSon truly is and subsists within the divine substance and that the Holy Ghostsubsists and is9.

The use of the formula ‘three hypostases’ was, therefore, always directed,in the first place, against any tendency that would run counter to thattenet. This is revealed, first of all, by the permanent obsession of theEusebians and the homoiousians with the theology of Marcellus of Ancyra.Marcellus, who rejected the notion of a personal Logos, was, quite rightly,seen as representing one such tendency.

While the notion of separately existing hypostases was paramount inthe THT, it appears that the use of that terminology regularly coincidedwith subordinationism of a particular kind: typical, for example, is theinsistence (based on John 1,1) that, while the title ‘god’ may be applied tothe Son, the use of the definite article in that connection had to beconfined to the Father10. To the same effect the use of eikon-terminologyin describing the Son’s divinity, on the authority of Col 1,15, was regu-larly emphasised11.

Why would that be so? From doctrinal accounts it sometimes appearsas though the adoption of subordinationism was largely due to the ardentdesire by some theologians to be heretical. It seems to me however that,on the contrary, the option for a limited but decisive subordination of theSon within the THT was caused by an attempt to avoid heresy, or moreprecisely as a means of steering clear of the danger of polytheism.

Witterschlick/Bonn 1986, 142 with n. 363). Similarly: J.N. Steenson, Basil of Ancyra andthe Course of Nicene Orthodoxy, D.Phil. dissertation (unpublished), Oxford 1983, 212-214. R.P.C. Hanson (Search [see note 1], 365f.) would leave the question undecided.

7 Kaˆ m¾ tarassštw tÕ tîn Øpost£sewn Ônom£ tinaj. di¦ toàto g¦r Øpost£seij oƒ ¢natolikoˆlšgousin, †na t¦j „diÒthtaj tîn prosèpwn Øfestèsaj kaˆ ØparcoÚsaj gnwr…swsin: Epiph.,haer. 73,16,1 (288,20-2 H./D.).

8 They are often identified as envoys of Meletius, but there is little evidence supporting thatassumption. Cf. R.P.C. Hanson, Search (see note 1), 642.

9 Di¦ tÕ e„j ¡g…an Tri£da pisteÚein, oÙk ÑnÒmati Tri£da mÒnon, ¢ll' ¢lhqîj oâsan kaˆØfestîsan, Patšra te ¢lhqîj Ônta kaˆ Øfestîta, kaˆ UƒÕn ¢lhqîj ™noÚsion Ônta kaˆØfestîta, kaˆ Pneàma ¤gion Øfestëj kaˆ Øp£rcon o‡damen: tom. 5 (PG 26, 801 B).

10 Cf. Or., Jo. II 2 (GCS Origenes IV, 54,12-55,8 Preuschen) and Eus., Ep. Euphrat. 3 =‘Urkunde 3’ (Athanasius, Werke 3/1, 5,10 Opitz).

11 Or., Cels. VIII 12 (230,4 K.); Second Creed of Antioch (Ath., syn. 23,3 [249,17f. O.] =Hahn, Symbole, § 154).


The problem was bound to arise once some form of trinitarian orbinitarian theology was being developed: was not the belief that besidesthe Father the Son, too, is God tantamount to confessing two gods andthus a violation of monotheism? Celsus for one raised that criticism12.How could it be answered? Leaving aside here the possibility of merelystating the mystery of the divine, there seemed to be several ways out. Onewas downplaying the numerical plural by arguing, for example, that thetwo or three were – really and truly – only one God who, for one reasonor another, would sometimes act as, be, or appear to be, a plurality.Another option amounted to the denial of the Son’s true deity; accordingto that theory, the common use of divine predicates for Father and Sonwas really a case of equivocation.

If, however, it was to be held that

(1) the distinction of Father and Son was a real one (Øpost£sei not™pino…v only)

(2) the biblical and theological notion of the Son’s divinity was notmerely metaphorical but meant that he was God, yet

(3) traditional monotheism had to be abided by

– and such was the case within the THT – then Christian theologiansmight be forgiven for adopting a kind of theory that explained the Son’sdivinity as one derived from that of the Father as its evaporation, efful-gence, or image. Such a theory could be found in quite an elaborate formin the writings of some Platonic authors like Numenius or Plotinus. Itcould easily fulfil the requirements stated above, and it is therefore notdifficult to see why the three-hypostases people found this kind of theoryparticularly attractive.

In the light of passages like John 14,28 it would not even seem discon-certing that some inferiority on the part of the Son was implied. In alllikelihood it never occurred to most of those theologians that they were‘subordinationists’ – if that phrase is to denote a person who is particu-larly interested in the degradation of the Son. It is only from the point ofview of later orthodoxy, from a position that was defined with specialregard to Arianism, that ‘subordinationism’ as a label of heresy could beseen as fitting the THT. From within the THT it would appear that,contrariwise, the special architecture of their trinitarian thought enableda reconciliation of the doctrine of hypostases with the rejection of tritheismin the sense of a doctrine of three first principles.

It is with this thought in mind that the Eusebians13, as well as theauthor of the homoiousian manifesto (‘George of Laodicea’)14, protest

12 In Or., Cels. VIII 12 (229,10-15 K.).13 Macrostich Creed (Ath., syn. 26 IV [252,22-33 O.] = Hahn, Symbole § 159, IV). Cf. Eus.,

e.th. II 7,1 (GCS Eusebius IV, 104,3-8 Klostermann/Hansen).14 Epiph., haer. 73,16,2 (288,28-31 H./D.).


against the insinuation that their doctrine of three hypostases amountedto tritheism. The three-hypostases people of the Tomus ad Antiochenosexpress themselves to the same effect15.

We can thus see how the subordinationism of the THT was bound upwith the problem of distinct hypostases: the latter doctrine excludedMarcellus’ monarchian solution to the trinitarian problem, which wouldhave avoided subordination. The alternative of co-ordinated hypostaseswas seen (in unison with monarchians and Arians16) as inescapably tri-theistic. In contrast, the position of the THT would seem to be thesoundest middle way between the extremes of Sabellianism, Arianism andtritheism.

It is in such an interconnected way, I should suggest, that those threeviews are characteristic of the THT. A word may be added on the term‘tradition’. Its legitimacy derives from the observation that in the third andfourth centuries those views in combination occur within a more or lessclearly identifiable theological milieu. There is no need here to reiteratewhat is essentially a familiar story. Hammerstaedt has only recently givena succinct but very rich account of it17. The starting point for that traditionwould seem to be Origen18; and the foremost champion of Origenism inthe early fourth century, Eusebius of Caesarea, is equally an exponent ofthe THT19. The Council of Nicaea itself has often been thought to havebeen fundamentally a clash between adherents to and opponents of thattradition. However, this like perhaps any interpretation of that synod isfraught with numerous and severe difficulties. In any case, it would seemindubitable that from c. 330 to 360 the THT is represented by ‘thosearound Eusebius’ (oƒ perˆ EÙsšbion20)21 and from 358, by the so-calledhomoiousians22, while in the extant writings of those who adhere to theCreed of Nicaea no affirmative reference to ‘three hypostases’ is to befound. Since the following analysis is largely confined to the last namedphase of the THT, the term ‘homoiousian’ will be employed for itsadherents without further justification.

***

15 Ath., tom. 5 (PG 26, 801 B).16 Cf. Marcellus’ epistle to Pope Julius = fr. 129 (GCS Eusebius IV, 215,25-30 K./H.). For

the Arian argument cf. Ath., Ar. I 14,1, 1-3 (Werke 1/1, 123 Tetz) and R. Williams, TheLogic of Arianism, JThS 34, 1983, (56-81) 66-70.

17 J. Hammerstaedt, Art. Hypostasis, RAC 16, Stuttgart 1994, (986-1035) 1004-1020.18 See note 5 above. Cf. also: Or., Jo. II 10,75 (65,15-17 P.).19 Cf. Eus., e.th. II 7,1 (104,3-8 K./H.).20 For the phrase see e.g.: Ath., syn. 21,1 (247,17 O.).21 Cf. their so-called Second Creed of Antioch (Ath., syn. 23 = Hahn, Symbole, § 154) and

J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, London 1950, 268-271.22 Cf. their manifesto in Epiph., haer. 73,16 (288,20-289,17 H./D.).


Is it true, then, that originally and genuinely the Cappadocians werepart of this tradition? The ‘classical view’ answers this question in theaffirmative. Can this answer be maintained?

Before looking at the evidence, it may be useful to enquire somewhatmore precisely what the ‘classical view’ entails? It seems to me that, if itis claimed that the origins of Cappadocian theology23 are to be soughtwithin the THT, this must mean above all that the understanding of thistheology is substantially furthered by seeing it as developing out of thattradition. It need not (and should not) mean that in every detail theCappadocian position can be traced back to that tradition let alone beidentical with it.

At the same time, it would appear that similarity in one or moreincidental cases would not be sufficient for maintaining the ‘classicalview’. It ought to be shown that in its fundamental assumptions theposition of Basil and his theological allies can be understood as havingemerged from the THT. This clearly is the most crucial implication of the‘classical view’.

In addition, the ‘classical view’ may be seen as entailing a further claim.If there is such a thing as a three-hypostases tradition, one might arguethat Basil’s origination from that tradition should have as its social com-plement his membership in the ecclesiastical group that was constituted bythat tradition, in other words that Basil was affiliated with the homoi-ousian church party. That Basil was early on in his career a homoiousianhas indeed been claimed with some regularity by upholders of the ‘clas-sical view’.

From this it would follow that the proposed test of the ‘classical view’involves crucially the addressing of two questions:

(1) Was Basil ever a homoiousian?(2) Can Cappadocian theology in its fundamentals be understood as

having derived from the THT?

I shall, therefore, proceed with a consideration of these two questions.

Was Basil ever a homoiousian?

The main piece of evidence in favour of Basil’s affiliation with that groupis a passage in Philostorgius’ Church History24. There it is claimed that at

23 Speaking here of Cappadocian theology, Cappadocian position etc. might require acaveat. Practically, what follows deals with early writings from Basil of Caesarea’s pen;the two Gregories are largely ignored. My justification is this: first, in spite of somescholars’ misgivings, the phrase ‘Cappadocian theology’ seems to me legitimate if appliedto the common approach to trinitarian theology that is encountered in Basil and the twoGregories. Second, in this common approach Basil obviously pioneered. Therefore, itseems cogent to focus upon his early development in an enquiry about the origins ofCappadocian theology.

24 Philost., h.e. IV 12 (GCS Philostorgius, 64,3-7 Bidez/Winkelmann); cf. for this synod the


the Constantinopolitan synod of December, 359, ‘another Basil’ (Bas…leioj›teroj), a deacon, participated alongside Basil of Ancyra and Eustathius ofSebaste.

Philostorgius’ reference, however, is rather vague; Drecoll has recentlycriticised, quite rightly, the far-reaching conclusions that have been drawnfrom this brief statement25. Even if Philostorgius had Basil of Caesarea inmind, it should be allowed that both he and his anomoian source wouldhave had as little interest in differentiating between their opponents as,conversely, Athanasius had (Basil of Ancyra is said to have supported thehomoousion!26): the mere fact that both Basils opposed the anomoiancause could have accounted for their being regarded as allies.

If thus the evidence in favour of an early homoiousian alliance of Basilwould seem meagre, these considerations gain even more force from theevidence that can be adduced positively against an affiliation of Basil withthe homoiousian party. This evidence consists, to put it briefly, in his earlyand apparently wholehearted commitment to the neo-Nicene party headedby Meletius. Now, Basil’s connections with those neo-Nicenes are soobvious that they are indeed difficult to ignore. That, nevertheless, theyhave not prevented scholars from assuming a homoiousian Basil is par-tially due to the fact that those Meletians have often been thought to bebreak-away homoiousians themselves. However, as Brennecke has shown,they all have a homoian background27; there are no traces linking thempersonally to the homoiousian group. On the contrary, it seems clear thatthere was considerable hostility between these two camps from the verybeginning. This is not surprising: many of those Meletian bishops heldsees on which they had replaced deposed homoiousians in 360. Thismeant that, beyond doctrinal differences, there were substantial institu-tional rivalries current between them which could not easily be settled. Itwould therefore appear that Basil’s decision to join the neo-Nicene partyof Meletius weighs strongly against a formal homoiousian past.

This is not to deny, of course, Basil’s personal links to leading homoi-ousians, notably to Eustathius of Sebaste. However, their connectionseems to have been conditioned by their common devotion to monasticismin the first place28. I would suggest understanding the history and break-up of their friendship under the assumption that its substance was always

account by H.C. Brennecke, Studien zur Geschichte der Homöer, BHTh 73, Tübingen1988, 48-53.

25 V.H. Drecoll, Entwicklung (see note 4), 3f. Pace Drecoll I do not think that Basil’spresence at that council should be doubted (cf. Gr.Nyss., Eun. I 78 [GNO I, 49,9-20Jaeger]).

26 Philost., h.e. IV 12 (64,21 B./W.).27 H.C. Brennecke, Erwägungen zu den Anfängen des Neunizänismus, in: D. Papandreou/

W.A. Bienert/K. Schäferdiek (Eds.), Oecumenica et Patristica, FS W. Schneemelcher,Stuttgart/Berlin/Köln 1989, (241-257) 245-248.

28 Cf. Bas., ep. 223,5 (Lettres 3, 14 Courtonne).


the common ascetic ideal while doctrinal concurrence was presumed –until, finally, it was discovered to be missing.

Considering, then, how little evidence there is in favour of, and howmuch would seem to count against, a homoiousian Basil, we ought todiscard the idea of Basil’s early affiliation with the homoiousian party andanswer our first question in the negative.

Did Cappadocian theology emerge from the THT?

If this is permitted, the ‘classical view’ has to prove what it is worth in therealm of ideas. This brings in the second question: can Cappadociantheology in its fundamentals be understood as having derived from theTHT? It is this problem that has to be investigated now.

The claim that the ‘classical view’ offers a sensible account of thegenesis of Cappadocian trinitarian theology draws, as far as I can see, onmainly two observations.

The first of these is the obvious presence of the formula ‘three hypos-tases’ in Basil’s (and the two Gregories’) writings, in fact, their insistencethat the faith of Nicaea would only be correctly understood if interpretedwith the help of that language.

An example for this is provided by Basil’s Epistle 214, to CountTerentius, dealing with the situation at Antioch. Basil there insists that thesmall Eustathian community under Bishop Paulinus, in spite of its confes-sion of the Nicene homoousion, cannot be regarded as unquestionablyorthodox. He argues that by rejecting the term ‘hypostasis’ for theTrinitarian Person in favour of the formula ‘one hypostasis in threePersons (prÒswpa)’ those Nicenes would fail to safeguard the homoousionagainst a possible Sabellianist interpretation thus exposing in a dangerousway an ambiguity of the Nicene Creed. Basil writes, addressing the recipi-ent:

Consider, admirable friend, that the forgers of the truth, who have introducedthe Arian schism into the sound faith of the fathers, could not adduce anotherreason for not adopting the pious dogma of the fathers than the notion of thehomoousion. This they interpreted perversely and in order to slander the faithsaying that the Son was called by us homoousios in hypostasis29.

The use of ‘three hypostases’, he goes on to argue, is therefore indispen-sable if that ‘perverse interpretation’ of the homoousion is to be excluded.

29 'Enqum»qhti g£r, ð qaum£sie, Óti oƒ paracar£ktai tÁj ¢lhqe…aj, oƒ tÕ 'AreianÕn sc…sma tÍØgie‹ tîn Patšrwn ™peis£gontej p…stei, oÙdem…an ¥llhn a„t…an prob£llontai toà m¾paradšcesqai tÕ eÙseb{j tîn Patšrwn dÒgma À t¾n toà Ðmoous…ou di£noian, ¿n aÙtoˆponhrîj kaˆ ™pˆ diabolÍ tÁj p…stewj ™xhgoàntai lšgontej tÕn UƒÕn kat¦ t¾n ØpÒstasinÐmooÚsion lšgesqai par' ¹mîn: ep. 214,3 (2, 204,1-7 C.).


If Basil here seems to admit, albeit implicitly, that the Nicene Creeditself is ambiguous on this issue and therefore in need of proper interpre-tation, he elsewhere goes as far as to claim that the fathers of Nicaeathemselves had intended a differentiation between the meaning of ousiaand hypostasis and thus effectively endorsed the combination of theirdoctrine of homoousios with the three-hypostases formula30. Since suchan intention of the fathers of that council is highly dubious from ahistorical point of view, the impression created clearly is that Basil at-tempts a correction of the Nicene tradition in order to merge it with theTHT.

The other observation made on some early writings by Basil is that,apparently, Nicenism was no given for him. Rather, the acceptance of thehomoousion caused him difficulties.

This assumption rests largely on the correspondence between Basil andApollinarius of Laodicea, in particular on the first letter written by Basilto the future heresiarch. In this letter Basil enquires about the appropriatetheological use of the term homoousios:

Furthermore be so kind as to inform us in more detail about the homoousionitself … which meaning it has and how one may soundly employ it of things inwhich neither a common overlying genus is seen, nor a pre-existent materialsubstratum, nor a division of the first into the second31.

A little later, after a sketch of his own position, he remarks that

it seems to me that the phrase ‘invariably like [sc. in ousia]’ corresponds morenearly to such a notion than the homoousion32.

There has been suspicion in the past concerning the authenticity of thiscorrespondence. While this suspicion seems to re-emerge from time totime33 the present enquiry presupposes its genuineness, following thearguments adduced by Prestige, de Riedmatten, Hübner and others34.

30 Ep. 125, 1 (2, 31,30-35 C.).31 ” Epeita mšntoi kaˆ perˆ aÙtoà toà Ðmoous…ou … dialabe‹n ¹m‹n platÚteron boul»qhti t…na

t¾n di£noian œcei kaˆ pîj ¨n Øgiîj lšgoito ™f' ïn oÜte gšnoj koinÕn Øperke…menon qewre‹taioÜte ØlikÕn Øpoke…menon proãp£rcon, oÙk ¢pomerismÕj toà protšrou e„j tÕ deÚteron: ep.361,3-8 (JThS 7, 202 de Riedmatten).

32 Ep. 361,24-25 (202 d.R.).33 Cf. now: R. Pouchet, Basile le Grand et son univers d’amis d’après son correspondance,

Rome 1992, 112-114.34 G.L. Prestige, Basil the Great and Apollinaris of Laodicea, ed. by H. Chadwick, London

1956; H. de Riedmatten, Basile de Césarée et Apollinaire de Laodicée, JThS 7, 1956, 199-210; JThS 8, 1957, 53-70; R.M. Hübner, Basilius von Caesarea und das Homoousios, in:L.R. Wickham/C.P. Bammel (Eds.), Christian Faith and Greek Philosophy. Essays inTribute to George Christopher Stead, Leiden 1993, 70-91. Cf. on this correspondencealso: H.J. Vogt, Zum Briefwechsel zwischen Basilius und Apollinaris. Übersetzung derBriefe mit Kommentar, ThQ 175, 1995, 46-60.


Epistle 361, which would have been written in or around 36235, will thusbe regarded as evidence for Basil’s early hesitation towards the homo-ousion.

This evidence is corroborated by looking at other early writings fromBasil’s pen. In his Epistle 9 (written around 36436) Basil argues that, whilehe preferred using the Nicene watchword for the sake of clarity, he found‘invariably like in substance’ equally acceptable as having the same force37.Even in his Adversus Eunomium (composed around 36438) Basil’s use ofthe phrase homoousios is rare and seemingly hesitant39.

It would appear, then, that the ‘classical view’ relies crucially on aclever combination of those two points. The fact that Basil and histheological allies present a form of Nicenism which is different from thatof, say, Athanasius in so far as it includes the use of ‘three hypostases’together with the impression that early on Basil found it difficult to acceptthe homoousion made and makes it tempting to conclude that the latterprecisely is the reason for the former, in other words that Basil’s earlyadherence to the THT prevented his whole-hearted acceptance of theNicene Creed.

This conclusion, however, may prove rash. We should enquire moreprecisely: why did Basil hesitate accepting the homoousion? Does he cite‘three hypostases’ in that connection? How do the reasons he offers relateto those adduced by the homoiousians for not accepting the Nicene term?Further, can it be shown by what precise circumstances Basil’s eventualacceptance of the homoousion was conditioned? Does the use of hypos-tasis-terminology play any role in that process?

In other words, there ought to be evidence not only for Basil’s reluc-tance towards the homoousion in his early writings but also, positively,for his adherence to the THT at that time. It ought to be shown, further,that his combination of the Nicene tradition with the three-hypostasesformula is due to his own biographical development.

One might object that this amounts to hyperscepticism; since it is clearthat the early Basil was neither Nicene nor Arian, it would appear that –in one way or another – he must have been part of the ‘middle party’which largely cherished the THT. Such an inference, however, would seemto be excluded by the patchy character of our knowledge of the doctrinalhistory of the fourth century. The existence of various approaches and

35 For the dating cf. W.-D. Hauschild, Basilius von Cäsarea, Briefe. Eingeleitet, übersetztund erläutert, 3 vols., Stuttgart 1973-1993: vol. 3, 252 n. 682.

36 The dating follows again W.-D. Hauschild, Basilius Briefe, vol. 1 (see note 35), 169, n. 76.37 Ep. 9,3 (1, 39,1-4 C.).38 Cf. P.W. Fedwick, A Chronology of the Life and Works of Basil of Caesarea, in: id., Basil

of Caesarea. Christian, Humanist, Ascetic. A Sixteenhundreth Anniversary Symposium,Toronto 1981, vol. 1, (3-19) 10.

39 Cf. R.M. Hübner, Homousios (see note 34), 81-87; V.H. Drecoll, Entwicklung (seenote 4), 99f.


traditions should be presupposed contrary to the simplifications by somemain participants of the controversies of the age as well as by somemodern scholars whose wish to be stringent may have seduced them to asimilar effect.

It seems best, therefore, in answering the question posed above to ex-plore the relationship between Basil’s early convictions and the fundamen-tals of the THT. As for the latter, the following argument will be based onthe three criteria developed in the first part of this essay. If it is to be shown,then, that Basil’s theology has its origins within the THT, there should beevidence that in his early writings he attached importance to

a) the separate existence of the trinitarian Persons;b) the use of the term ‘hypostasis’ in this connection andc) the typically homoiousian subordinationism.

I should contend that these core elements of the THT must be proved toform the nucleus for the development of Basil’s own theology if the‘classical view’ is to be upheld. Is this so? This question will be addressedseparately for each of these core elements.

A. As for the first of those characteristics, the insistence on the separateexistence of the Persons, there can be little doubt that Basil – even early onin his career – embraced this principle. This appears both from his first letterto Apollinarius and from his Epistle 9 (to Maximus, the Philosopher). In theformer the following statement is relevant. It is set within a passage profess-ing to state Basil’s fundamental view on the trinitarian issue:

For there is no difference of rank between light and light, yet they are not thesame since each has its ousia in an individual circumscription, but are rightly,I think, called like in ousia in an exact and invariable way40.

This text is interesting in more than one way, and we shall have occasionto return to it later. Right now consider the phrase ‘they are not the samesince each has its ousia in an individual circumscription’. Basil’s argumentappears to be that his understanding of the divinity avoids the danger ofconfusing the two Persons’ identity. Incidentally, it is interesting that evenfrom this early text the typically Cappadocian predilection for logicalterminology is apparent. The emphasis on the ‘individual circumscription’is a foreshadowing of the later doctrine of ‘idiomata’41.

Be this as it may, it is crucial to conclude that, to all appearance, Basil,in his letter to Apollinarius, is concerned that a trinitarian doctrine shouldmake allowance for the unconfused identity of the divine Persons. Thus

40 Fîj g¦r fwtˆ mhdem…an ™n tù m©llon kaˆ Âtton t¾n diafor¦n œcon taÙtÕn m{n oÙk e"nai,diÒti ™n „d…v perigrafÍ tÁj oÙs…aj ™stˆn ˜k£teron, Ómoion d{ kat' oÙs…an ¢kribîj kaˆ¢parall£ktwj Ñrqîj ¨n o"mai lšgesqai: ep. 361,25-28 (202 d.R.).

41 Cf. ep. 214,4 (3, 205, 9-11 C.): “ Ekastoj g¦r ¹mîn kaˆ tù koinù tÁj oÙs…aj lÒgJ toà e"naimetšcei kaˆ to‹j perˆ aÙtÕn „dièmasin Ð de‹n£ ™sti kaˆ Ð de‹na.


far, his well-known obsession with a possibly Sabellian interpretation ofthe Nicene Creed, which is current in all his works, seems to have its rootsin his earliest theological convictions.

Overall the same impression is created by the roughly contemporaryEpistle 9. The subject there is the person of Dionysius of Alexandria. It isperhaps not entirely without interest that Basil at that time made noapology for distancing himself completely from that Alexandrian bishopwhom he declared to have been the ‘first to have furnished men with thegerms (Ð prîtoj ¢nqrèpoij t¦ spšrmata parascèn) of the anomoianheresy. Basil conceded that Dionysius did not do so out of ‘perversity ofmind’ (ponhr…a gnèmhj) but in ‘an excessive desire to combat Sabellius’(tÕ sfÒdra boÚlesqai ¢ntite…nein tù Sabell…J). To this end, however, itwas necessary only

to show that Father and Son are not the same ‘in hypokeimenon’42

while Dionysius went so far as to claim a difference in hypostasis, ousia,and glory as well as a diminution of power. In other words, he is guiltyof falling into one extreme while attempting to avoid another.

From this again it would appear that Basil was quite alert to the dangerof Sabellianism as the opposite of Arianism. This confirms the impressiongained from the epistle to Apollinarius; I take it thus as established thatthe first characteristic of the THT, the interest in the separate existence ofthe Persons was germane to the trinitarian thinking of Basil from its verybeginning.

While the passages quoted from those two letters may have settled thiscase, it would appear that, at the same time, they raise a variety of furtherquestions about Basil’s early trinitarian theology. What precisely does hemean by ‘different in hypokeimenon’? How does this relate to the formu-lation of the Epistle 361 (‘having one’s ousia in an individual circumscrip-tion’)? Is there one ousia or are there three that are ‘like each other’? Arehypokeimenon and ousia the same thing? Or is the former term usedinstead of hypostasis?

B. The one question, however, that would seem to be of the most imme-diate interest is this: why does Basil omit, in his attempt to make sure thePersons are properly distinguished, any use of hypostasis-terminology?Admittedly, in the Epistle 9 there is to be found one reference to aseparation of hypostases43. However, Drecoll has argued that Basil is onlyrendering Dionysius’ argument there and that therefore no inferences withregard to Basil’s own terminological preferences are permissible44. I aminclined to follow that logic.

42 Ep. 9,2 (1, 38,16f. C.): de‹xai Óti oÙ taÙtÕn tù ØpokeimšnJ Pat¾r kaˆ UƒÒj. The previousquotations were from ep. 9,2 (1, 38,7-9 C.).

43 Ep. 9,2 (1, 38,19f.25 C.).44 V.H. Drecoll, Entwicklung (see note 4), 40.


For a decision on the validity of the ‘classical view’ Basil’s early use ofhypostasis-terminology would appear to be paramount. If Basil originatedfrom the THT, then the confession to three hypostases should be expectedto be the element of continuity in his literary career. Now, this questionhas recently been investigated in an exemplary fashion by Drecoll. Hisresult is – to put it briefly – that Basil in the 360s makes virtually no useof hypostasis-terminology45. ‘Hypostasis’ is employed to characteriseDionysius’ position in the Epistle 9. There are some unspecific occurrencesof the term in Adversus Eunomium I-II46. In the third tome of that work,which Drecoll believes to be later than the first two books, there is onerather isolated reference to ‘three hypostases’ that could be seen as endors-ing the traditional trinitarian use of this term47. According to Drecoll thisoverall picture changes only when, in the early 370s, Basil intensifies hisefforts to integrate into the Nicene camp what was left of the homoiousiangroup around Eustathius of Sebaste48.

Drecoll’s results have been challenged by Markschies49 and Hübner50;both find traces of a development towards the later Cappadocian doctrineof three hypostases in Basil’s earlier writings. However this may be, itwould appear that in any event the present problem is left untouched:whether or not a particular text from the Adversus Eunomium points toBasil’s later use of hypostasis is one thing, quite another is the ‘classicalview’ which would seem to require positive evidence for Basil’s use of thetraditional three-hypostases formula in the earliest stage of his literarycareer. Any account that falls short of such evidence will, I suggest,eventually undermine the ‘classical view’. None of Drecoll’s critics has, tomy knowledge, come up with this kind of evidence yet. Therefore, theconclusion that must be drawn at this point of our investigation is this:while the early Basil concurs with the THT in his insistence on the separateexistence of the trinitarian Persons, he does not employ to this end theterm ‘hypostasis’.

Why is this so? Prima facie several answers seem possible. One is thatBasil felt bound by the official banning of hypostasis-terminology by the

45 V.H. Drecoll, Entwicklung (see note 4), 101f.46 These are given by V.H. Drecoll, Entwicklung (see note 4), 101 note 159. Cf. his

conclusion: „Der Begriff ØpÒstasij begegnet in AE I-II nur marginal, und wenn erbegegnet, dann als Nomen zum Verb“ (loc. cit.).

47 Bas., Eun. III 3 (PG 29, 661A).48 V.H. Drecoll, Entwicklung (see note 4), 337f.49 C. Markschies, Gibt es eine einheitliche „kappadozische Trinitätstheologie“? Vorläufige

Erwägungen zu Einheit und Differenzen neunizänischer Theologie, in: W.Härle/R.Preul(Eds.), Trinität, MJTh 10, Marburg 1998, (51-94) 56-58 = id., Alta Trinità Beata, GesammelteStudien zur altchristlichen Trinitätstheologie, Tübingen 2000, (196-237) 200-203.

50 R.M. Hübner, Zur Genese der trinitarischen Formel bei Basilius von Caesarea, in: M.Weitlauf/P. Neuner (Eds.), Für euch Bischof – mit euch Christ. FS F. Kardinal Wetter, St.Ottilien 1998, (123-156) 152-154.


Constantinopolitan synod of 36051. This would not seem a very satisfac-tory explanation, though. The same council had banned the use of ousia-terminology too52, and there is no indication that Basil ever felt inclinedto follow that prescript. Another possible explanation would be that, atsome point, Basil had been a homoiousian who employed ‘three hypos-tases’, but that he was then converted to Nicenism. After this ‘conversion’he would have been extremely reluctant towards anything connected withhis former belief including hypostasis-terminology. This assumption is notimpossible but, after what has been found, perfectly speculative since this‘homoiousian stage’ of Basil’s development would have to be posited priorto any known writing of his.

Drecoll suggested that there was no need, in the 360s, for Basil tocombat Sabellianism and, consequently, no need to employ hypostasis-terminology either53. Again, this argument would appear to be of a ratherspeculative character. Why should the need for this kind of terminologicalclarification have been more acute in the 350s and 370s than in the 360s?

After all, it would appear most likely that the lack of hypostasis-terminology in Basil’s writings from the 360s indicates that originally Basilwas not part of the THT. That is, Basil’s genuine approach to thetrinitarian issue was of such a kind that, while he recognised the need tomake a distinction between the Persons, he did not find it natural toemploy the term ‘hypostasis’ in this connection.

This result, however, still allows for at least two different explanations:the lack of hypostasis-terminology in Basil’s early writings could either bea rather incidental fact or it might be indicative of a trinitarian theologywhich in its very essence is different from that of the homoiousians asrepresentatives of that tradition. In other words, it may still turn out that,in spite of the omission of that terminology, the THT is conceptually veryclose to the theology of the early Basil. In this case the relevance of ourfindings would apparently be limited to a historical detail; after all, whileBasil was no direct part of the THT from early on, the type of trinitariantheology he favoured was close enough to that tradition making it naturalfor him to adopt hypostasis-terminology sooner or later.

C. For further clarification, therefore, it may be useful to compare thethird doctrine that was found characteristic of the THT, the peculiarnotion of subordination within the Trinity that was seen as indispensableto avoid tritheism. With regard to this issue Basil’s position seems to meto have been quite unequivocal from the very beginning. Let us returnonce more to his Epistle 361, the letter to Apollinarius. The crucialpassage is this:

51 Cf. the Creed of that Council in Hahn, Symbole, § 167 = Ath., syn. 30,9 (259,16f. O.).52 Ath., syn. 30,8 (259,12-16 O.).53 V.H. Drecoll, Entwicklung (see note 4), 102.


For we hold that whatever the substance of the Father is by hypothesis assumedto be, this must needs be altogether assumed of the Son’s substance as well; sothat, if one calls the Father’s substance ‘intelligible, eternal, unbegotten light’, hewill call the substance of the Son also ‘intelligible, eternal, begotten light’54.

Scholars have often jumped too quickly to the immediately followingsentence in which Basil expresses his endorsement of ‘invariably like insubstance’ to conclude that his view is in substance homoiousian. How-ever, the latter assertion should be interpreted in the light of what Basilpositively relates as his own view. This view, apparently, emphasises in thefirst place the ‘common account’: in whatever way the being of the Fathercan be described the same description would fit the Son also.

What is the relevance of this theory? To understand it one has to seethat, according to Basil, it is not enough that both, Father and Son, aregiven the same predicates, like ‘light’. This, of course, is the traditionalbasis of Christian trinitarian teaching with biblical foundations. Basil goesfurther; he urges that those predicates, when applied to the two Persons,must bear exactly the same sense.

The problem seems to be this: while, for instance, it is assumed correctto describe the being (ousia) of the Father as ‘light’ it is nevertheless thecase that many other things admit of the same predication. Still it is clearthat this fact in itself does not limit the divine uniqueness. For the kind of‘light’ created things are said to be is in principle different from the lightGod is; it is, for example, ‘created’ light, while God is ‘uncreated’ light.The same would be true with other predicates. Thus, the bible may callmen ‘gods’ (Ps 82,6); this does not mean, however, that they are God inthe way the Father is.

All these cases would appear to be not very spectacular instances ofequivocation. For this the commonly accepted test in late antiquity wasfirst formulated by Aristotle in his Categories: What does it mean for agiven subject X (in Aristotle’s example ‘a man and a picture’) to be apredicate Y (Aristotle: ‘animals’)55? If the answer (the account of being/lÒgoj tÁj oÙs…aj) is the same for several subjects, those items are, inAristotles language, synonymous; in case it is not, the two are homony-mous.

It is crucial to observe that while ‘from Aristotle’s distinction between‘homonymous’ and ‘synonymous’ one could evidently derive a distinctionbetween equivocal and unequivocal names, … the Categories is not pri-marily about names, but about things that names signify’56. In other

54 `Hme‹j m{n g¦r Øpeil»famen: Óper ¨n e"nai kaq' ØpÒqesin ¹ toà PatrÕj oÙs…a lhfqÍ, toàtoe"nai p£ntwj ¢nagka‹on kaˆ t¾n toà Uƒoà lamb£nesqai. “ Wste e„ fîj nohtÒn, ¢…dion, ¢gšnnhtont¾n toà PatrÕj oÙs…an tij lšgoi, fîj nohtÒn, ¢…dion, gennhtÕn kaˆ t¾n toà MonogenoàjoÙs…an ™re‹: ep. 361,20-24 (202 d.R.).

55 Arist., cat. 1a4-5: t… ™stin aÙtîn ˜katšrJ tÕ zóJ e"nai …56 J.L. Ackrill, Aristotle’s Categories and De Interpretatione. Translated with Notes, Oxford

1963, 71.


words, upon the Aristotelian background the fact of ‘equivocal’ or ‘un-equivocal’ use of predicates would directly lead to assumptions about thethings signified. On the basis of Categories 3b33f. it was often understoodthat, in the case of substances at least, a common account implied identityof ontological rank. Conversely, the fact that predicates were used in adifferent sense of God and of created things would reveal, by implication,the ontological difference between God and his creation.

An intricate problem emerged once this logical approach was appliedto the deity. Since Father and Son are both given the same names onemight wonder what result the application of the ‘account of being’ wouldhave in this case? For most of the tradition, whether Nicene or not, theanswer to that question seems to have been that the two were neither‘synonymous’ nor ‘homonymous’. Rather, the attempt was made to showthat in the case of Father and Son a derivative relationship existed inwhich the same predicates apply with this special qualification. This isclearly the position of the homoiousians57, but it is also, I think, that ofAthanasius and Apollinarius58. In the same unique way in which the Sonis derived from the Father, the latter’s properties are communicated to himalso. This makes the Son in principle different from all created beings, butit still calls for a specific asymmetry in his relation with the Father59.

Leaving aside the traditional Nicenes, it seems indubitable that thehomoiousians rejected unequivocal predication for Father and Son mainlyin order to maintain their specific notion of subordination. Allowingunequivocal predication would have meant admitting the equality ofFather and Son60.

Upon this background the peculiar character of Basil’s approach be-comes strikingly obvious. For with him the emphasis is precisely on theunequivocal use of essential predicates for both – Father and Son. Thisseems quite distinctly the point he wishes to make in the Epistle 361 (Óper¨n e"nai kaq' ØpÒqesin ¹ toà PatrÕj oÙs…a lhfqÍ, toàto e"nai p£ntwj¢nagka‹on kaˆ t¾n toà Uƒoà lamb£nesqai). What is more, the implicationthat there is no difference of rank between Father and Son is explicitlyacknowledged by him (fîj g¦r fwtˆ mhdem…an ™n tù m©llon kaˆ Âtton t¾ndiafor¦n œcon).

This tenet, which is essentially at variance with the THT, seems to havebeen at the heart of Basil’s trinitarian theology from the very beginning.A comparison with some other texts may serve to confirm this conclusion.In his Epistle 9 Basil cites the Nicene Creed – but in interpreting it he

57 Cf. the synodical epistle of the 358 synod in Epiph., haer. 73,8,5-8 (278,27-279,15 H./D.).

58 Cf. (Bas.), ep. 362, 1-46 (204 d.R.).59 G.Chr. Stead, Divine Substance, Cambridge 1977, 260f.60 Or so, at least, I have argued. Cf. my: Human Nature in Gregory of Nyssa, Leiden 1999,

27f.


strikingly avoids its conventional derivative reading. Instead he claimsthat the phrases ‘light from light’ etc. have been chosen to press home theunequivocal predication in the case of Father and Son:

It was precisely this thought in mind that the fathers of Nicaea consistentlyadded the homoousion when they addressed the Only-Begotten as ‘light fromlight’, ‘true God from true God’, and so forth. Now no one can possibly conceiveof any variation either of light in relation to light, or of truth to truth, or of theousia of the Only-Begotten to that of the Father61.

A similar passage, reminiscent in particular of Epistle 361, is to be foundin Adversus Eunomium:

But if one were to conceive of the community of ousia so that one and the sameformula of being is seen in both so that, if by hypothesis the Father is quasubstance thought to be light, the only-begotten’s substance too would beconfessed to be light, and whatever account one could give of the Father’s being,the very same one would have to give of the Son: if the community of substancebe conceived thus, we accept it and say that this is our teaching too62.

All these texts have this in common that they profess to state what,fundamentally, Basil’s view of the matter is. And in each case the mainemphasis is on the common ‘account’ (lÒgoj) implying, as I have argued,equality of the Persons.

From this the conclusion would seem valid that with regard to the issueof subordination there is no community between Basil and the homoi-ousians to be detected. Contrary to the consensus of the THT Basil findsit possible to avoid subordinationism; what is more, the insistence on asymmetrical relationship between Father and Son appears at the centre ofhis trinitarian thought to such an extent that it seems virtually impossibleto conceive of this doctrine as of some kind of homoiousianism purged ofsubordinationism.

This result would seem to allow only one answer to the proposed testof the ‘classical view’. The answer is this: the ‘classical view’ fails the test.While Basil in line with the THT finds it essential to make a clear-cutdistinction between the trinitarian Persons this is their only point ofcontact. Neither does Basil originally employ hypostasis-terminology nor

61 “ Oper kaˆ toÝj ™n Nika…v no»santaj, Fîj ™k FwtÕj kaˆ QeÕn ¢lhqinÕn ™k Qeoà ¢lhqinoà kaˆt¦ toiaàta tÕn MonogenÁ proseipÒntaj, ™pagage‹n ¢koloÚqwj tÕ ÐmooÚsion. OÜte oânfwtÕj prÕj fîj, oÜte ¢lhqe…aj prÕj ¢l»qei£n pote, oÜte tÁj toà Monogenoàj oÙs…aj prÕjt¾n toà PatrÒj, ™pinoÁsa… tina parallag¾n dunatÒn: ep. 9,3 (1, 39,4-10 C.); ET: St.Basil,The Letters. Translated by R.J. Deferrari, LCC, London/Cambridge 31961/62, vol. 1,97f.

62 E„ d{ oÛtw tij ™klamb£noi tÕ tÁj oÙs…aj koinÕn, æj tÕn toà e"nai lÒgon ›na kaˆ tÕn aÙtÕn™p' ¢mfo‹n qewre‹sqai, éste kaˆ e„ kaq' ØpÒqesin fîj Ð Pat¾r tù ØpokeimšnJ noo‹to, fîjkaˆ t¾n toà Monogenoàj oÙs…an Ðmologe‹sqai, kaˆ Ónper ¥n tij ¢podù ™pˆ toà PatrÕj tÕntoà e"nai lÒgon, tÕn aÙtÕn toàton kaˆ tù Uƒù ™farmÒzein: e„ oÛtw tÕ koinÕn tÁj oÙs…ajlamb£noito, decÒmeqa: kaˆ ¹mšteron e"nai tÕ dÒgma f»somen: Eun. I 19 (PG 29, 556A-B).


is his emphasis on equality in the Trinity to be explained by reference tothe THT which was, on the contrary, always careful to include a sub-ordinationist element in their account of the Trinity.

***

While this result may have brought to a close the search for an originallyhomoiousian Basil severing the link that seemed to connect him to theTHT, the question for the theological origins of the Cappadocians stillawaits its answer. Where are they to be sought?

As far as sources are concerned I must confess that I am in no positionto give an ultimate answer to that question. It is in a preliminary way onlythat I adduce the following two observations that might help, in duecourse, to shed further light on this issue.

The first is a negative one. In previous scholarship those opposed to ahomoiousian Basil have usually stressed the links that connect the Cappa-docians with Athanasius. While I am far from denying any particularpoint of contact between the thought of Basil and that of the Alexandrianpatriarch63, it nevertheless seems to me that, in the light of the resultspresented in this article, the crucial question for the origins of Cappadociantheology cannot be answered with reference to Athanasius. The trinitarianthought of the Alexandrian is in its entirety governed by concerns that arenot opposed to, but different from those of Basil.

A more promising search may be conducted, it seems to me, if attentionis paid to connections between the Cappadocians and the theology ofEustathius of Antioch. Those links have, for obvious reasons, been largelyignored. They come out, however, quite clearly from one fragment thathas been published fully for the first time by Lorenz in 198064. In thisfragment from a treatise Against Photinus a defence against the charge oftritheism is conducted not on the basis of the derivative model but in away that prefigures the arguments to be adduced later by Gregory ofNyssa65: since the name ‘God’ is applied to the physis, not the Person, andsince there is one divine nature, the charge is unjustified66. The conven-

63 Cf. most recently V.H. Drecoll, Entwicklung (see note 4), 118-129.64 R. Lorenz, Die Eustathius von Antiochien zugeschriebene Schrift gegen Photin, ZNW 71,

1980, (109-128) 122-124. The fragment from an as yet unpublished part of Peter ofCallinicus’ books Against Damian had previously been edited in parts by P. Martin (inJ.-B. Pitra’s Analecta Sacra IV, Paris 1883, 212 [442]). Its proper understanding had beenmarred by a mistaken translation by R. Cowper (Syriac Miscellanies, London 1861, 60;cf. L. Wickham, Translation Techniques Greek/Syriac and Syriac/English in: V Sympo-sium Syriacum 1988, Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, 29-31 août 1988, ed. by R.Lavenant, OCA 236, Rome 1990, [345-353] 348).

65 Gregory of Nyssa makes ample use of that fragment in his Ad Graecos, cf. my: Gregorvon Nyssa und das Schisma von Antiochien, ThPh 72, 1997, 481-496.

66 Cf. R. Lorenz, Eustathius von Antiochien (see note 64), 112f.


tional argument from the ‘archaic’ property of the Father is omitted67; itwould therefore appear that the underlying trinitarian theology is aimedat defining distinct divine Persons on the same ontological plane, that iswithout subordination.

There are problems of authenticity attached to this fragment all ofwhich Lorenz was unable to dispel. These concern largely chronologicalproblems; it is not clear that Eustathius was still alive at the time when thistext would have been written68. Lorenz has been successful, however, inshowing two things: first that the theology of the fragment is pre-Cappadocian69; second, that its teaching is in accordance with that ofEustathius70. Therefore, whether or not Eustathius himself is the author ofthe writing Against Photinus, the similarities pointed out should encour-age more detailed investigations into that particular background of theCappadocian position.

The historical sources of Cappadocian theology as well as their mostimmediate precursors are and may remain to some extent in the dark.Speaking of origins in a different sense, however, one might perhaps saythat the present investigation has yielded more definite results with regardto the origins of Cappadocian trinitarian thought. By way of conclusion,therefore, I shall summarise those results in a sketch of the originalCappadocian doctrine as I see it.

The rejection of subordinationism would appear to be at its core. Basilclearly regarded the degradation of the Son as the prîton yeàdoj ofArianism71. He did so to such an extent that, in principle, he rejected thetraditionally Nicene derivative interpretation of the intratrinitarian rela-tionship also72. The Trinitarian Persons thus became, as far as their beinggod is concerned, entirely co-ordinate.

At the same time, Basil was well aware of the necessity to distinguishproperly between the Persons. Within the THT this distinction had alwaysbeen guaranteed by allowing some degree of subordination within theTrinity. This position had become untenable for Basil. Therefore, it wasthe primary problem for him and his theological allies to find a way of

67 For that argument cf. Apoll., fid.sec.pt. 18f.: éste e‡ tij œroito Pîj eŒj qeÒj, e‡per ™k qeoàqeÕj e‡h Ð uƒÒj; ™roàmen Óti Tù tÁj ¢rcÁj lÒgJ, kaq’ Ön m…a ¢rc¾ Ð pat»r. … kaˆ p£lin ™¦ne‡pwsin oƒ ¢sebe‹j Pîj oÙk ¨n e"en tre‹j qeoˆ tr…a prÒswpa, e„ m…an œcoien t¾n qeÒthta;™roàmen 'Epeid¾ Ð qeÕj ¢rc¾ kaˆ pat»r ™stin toà uƒoà, kaˆ oátoj e„kèn ™sti kaˆ gšnnhma toàpatrÕj kaˆ oÙk ¢delfÕj aÙtoà, ... (H. Lietzmann, Apollinaris und seine Schule, Tübingen1904, 173,17-26).

68 It is normally assumed that Eustathius died around 335 while Photinus seems to haveplayed no role prior to the 350s (cf. R. Lorenz, Eustathius von Antiochien [see note 64],110 for a discussion of that problem). The authenticity is rejected by M. Spanneut, Art.Eustathe d’Antioche, DHGE 16, Paris 1967, (13-23) 20.

69 R. Lorenz, Eustathius von Antiochien (see note 64), 119.121.70 R. Lorenz, Eustathius von Antiochien (see note 64), 115f.71 Cf. Th. Zahn, Marcellus (see note 1), 87.72 Pace R.P.C. Hanson, Search (see note 6), 695.


accounting for the distinction of the Persons without the traditionalsubordinationism. The search for a solution to that problem should beseen as the main internal driving force of Basil’s theological development.Its main outcome, then, would be the doctrine of idiomata which, what-ever may be said about its consistency, is indubitably an attempt at solvingthis main problem.

These central tenets may even explain Basil’s early hesitation towardsthe homoousion. The homoiousian rejection of the Nicene watchwordhad been conditioned, or so at least I have argued73, chiefly by its conno-tation of equality. For those theologians, therefore, to say ‘like in ousia’was a means of avoiding that notion while maintaining – against theanomoians – a relationship based on substance, not activity (energeia)74.

With Basil, I believe, things were different. He seems to have felt thatthe term homoousios might commit him to such a model of the Trinity asmade a proper distinction of the Persons impossible. In fact, this may bethe truth of the frequently cited ‘Stoic’ understanding of ousia allegedly tobe encountered in Basil75.

In contrast, the phrase ‘invariably like in ousia’ would seem to allowfor a perfectly symmetric model of the Trinity while steering clear ofSabellianism. Ousia in this phrase would have meant for Basil primarilywhat it had meant for Aristotle in the phrase lÒgoj tÁj oÙs…aj, i.e.‘being’76. ‘Invariably like in whatever they are thought to be’ may, there-fore, be an appropriate paraphrase of Basil’s likeness formula. When Basilbecame convinced that for the sake of clarity it was better to employ thehomoousion, it was this same interpretation he gave to the notoriouslyunderdefined Nicene watchword: as men are the same in so far as they allshare the same lÒgoj tÁj oÙs…aj, so also are the divine Persons or hypos-tases – as he would say later – by virtue of their common account of being.This was picked up by both Nazianzen and Nyssen and became the coreof Cappadocian trinitarian theology.

I should thus conclude that the origins of Cappadocian theology arenot to be found within the THT. Rather, they are to be seen in an attemptat bringing into a coherent form the notion of equal yet distinct trinitarianPersons.

73 Cf. n. 60 above.74 Cf. J.N. Steenson, Basil of Ancyra (see note 6), 166-195.75 Cf. D. Balás, The Unity of Human Nature in Basil’s and Gregory of Nyssa’s Polemics

against Eunomius, StPatr XIV (= TU 117), Berlin 1976, 275-281; R.M. Hübner, Gregorvon Nyssa als Verfasser der sog. ep. 38 des Basilius, in: J. Fontaine, Ch. Kannengiesser(Eds.), Epektasis. Mélanges patristiques offerts au Cardinal Jean Daniélou, Paris 1972,(463-490) 469-484.

76 For the meaning of ousia in this phrase cf. the ancient commentators: Ammon., in Cat.(CAG IV/4, 20,23-21,2 Busse).


ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

Der Artikel untersucht die Berechtigung der gewöhnlichen Herleitung der kappado-zischen Trinitätslehre aus der Drei-Hypostasen-Tradition. Ausgehend von einer Kon-ventionaldefinition dieses Begriffs der Forschung wird gefragt, ob sich dieser mitGewinn zur genetischen Erklärung der kappadozischen Position gebrauchen läßt. Dieswird verneint. Weder läßt sich historisch eine frühe Zugehörigkeit des Basilius zurhomöusianischen Partei wahrscheinlich machen, noch kann die Entwicklung seinerTrinitätstheologie mit der Formel „vom Homöusianismus zum Neunizänismus“ ange-messen charakterisiert werden.

johannes zachhuber, 'basil and the three hypostases tradition', zac, vol.5, 2001

Documents