Homoousios and the Analogy of Human Nature in the 350S and Early 360S
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Zachhuber/f4/20-42 10/4/99 11:55 AM Page 21 21 CHAPTER ONE HOMOOUSIOS AND THE ANALOGY OF HUMAN NATURE IN THE 350S AND EARLY 360S 1.1 A controversial starting point and its presuppositions While I shall start this chapter from some more general considera- tions about the trinitarian controversy in the latter half of the fourth century, it will not be, nor can it, my aim to provide an overview here of such a large and much researched period of doctrinal history.1 I shall rather confine myself to the problem of how the Nicene watch- word, the celebrated homoousion, was understood and interpreted as it is for its elucidation that universal human nature became relevant for the Cappadocians. For a long time it was held almost unanimously that the term homoousios indicates originally and truly a monistic (monarchian) un- derstanding of the Trinity.2 In this sense it was supposed to have been used by some theologians, notably Greek speaking Westerners, to render Tertullian’s formula ‘una substantia’. Its insertion into the Nicene Creed was consequently explained by the allegedly strong Western influence on the course of that synod.3 It is the merit of recent research, notably by C. Stead,4 to have shown that this view of the events at Nicaea can hardly be squared with our historical knowl- edge of that council. There is no need to rehearse again the evidence accumulated against that theory. Suffice it to say that there is no 1 Cf. on this time in general: Gwatkin (1900), 146–278; Schwartz (1935); Ritter (1965), 19–131; Meredith (1972); Grillmeier (1975), 249ff.; Dinsen (1976), 101–84; Kopecek (1979); Hanson (1988), 417ff.; Brennecke (1984); (1988); Drecoll (1996). All general accounts of Church or doctrinal history contain, of course, extended sections on this period. 2 Zahn (1867), 8–32; Gwatkin (1900), 46–7; Harnack (1894) vol. IV, 1ff.; Bethune- Baker (1901), 11–30; Kelly (1972), 254 (for the Nicene Creed, ‘at anyrate implic- itly’); Dinsen (1976), 1–2; different: Prestige (1936), 197–209; Kraft (1954/55); Ricken (1969), 333–41. 3 The classical account of this view is to be found in Harnack (1894) vol. IV, 50–9. Ulrich (1994) demonstrates now that and how the Nicene Creed was received in the West from the 350s onwards. 4 Stead (1977), 223–66. Accepted by Hanson (1988), 198–202. Zachhuber/f4/20-42 10/4/99 11:55 AM Page 22 22 evidence linking the term homoousios to the debate between pluralis- tic and monarchian theology at Nicaea nor in its immediate wake.5 A corollary of this reshuffle, which to my knowledge has not yet been universally recognised, is that with the collapse of the tradi- tional explanation of homoousios in the Nicene Creed the character of the controversy about the acceptance of the Nicene Creed and, in particular, the homoousion is in need of reconsideration as well. The traditional view of Zahn and Harnack had, if anything, the advantage of providing a convenient explanation for the fact that only in the Cappadocians’ interpretation did the formula of Nicaea eventually win the day. Zahn had argued that this ‘neo-Nicene’ the- ology was characterised by a generic reinterpretation of the Nicene homoousion, effectively a reversal of its original, unitary meaning.6 Thus, Nicaea would have succeeded only in an understanding directly opposed to the intention of its originators: rather than advocating a monadic, strongly monotheistic doctrine, neo-Nicenism allowed for the development of a pluralistic quasi-Origenistic trinitarian theol- ogy of precisely the kind the historical Council of Nicaea had wished to exclude. The father of later orthodoxy would have been Basil of Ancyra rather than anybody else.7 Accepting this theory, it would indeed be difficult not to see in this development with Harnack ‘the most cruel satire’.8 Now, this theory has (outside Germany, at least) never held sway in the way Zahn’s interpretation of Nicaea itself did. Bethune-Baker argued9 that the theory of a neo-Nicene orthodoxy would not hold at all, but that Meletius and the Cappadocians ought to be understood to have followed firmly the Athanasian lead. Others, like Prestige,10 agreed, but one could certainly not say that either view enjoyed uni- versal acceptance at any time. Be this as it may, at that stage both advocates and critics of the neo-Nicene theory were in agreement in so far as the interpretation 5 Abramowski (1982), esp. 254ff. n. 59. Cf. also Williams (1983) for the con- ceptual background of the early debate between Arius and his opponents. 6 Zahn (1867), 87. 7 Harnack (1894) vol. IV, 100; cf. Gwatkin (1900), 246–7. 8 Harnack, loc. cit. 9 Bethune-Baker (1901). 10 Prestige (1936), 232, 242; similar: Lebon (1953), 681ff.; Ritter (1965), 282–91. Hanson (1988), 696–99, 734–7 seems to argue for a via media criticising both positions..