MAKAPIOΣ ΣIOYANOS SILVANUSOF TARSUS AND HIS VIEW OF THE SPIRIT

BY

MICHAEL A. G. HAYKIN

The classical doctrine of the Holy Spirit, summarized in the pneumatological clause of the formula which was issued by the Council of Constantinople in 381, was partly the result of the emergence of the in the latter half of the fourth century. Many of these Pneumatomachi, adamant in their rejection of the Spirit's deity and his equality with the Father and the Son, had been members of the Homoiousian party, for instance, Eustathius of Sebaste or Theophilus of Castabala.' However, not all of the Homoiousians became Pneumatomachi after the decline of the Homoiousian party in the six- ties ; some affiliated themselves with the Homoousian cause and acknowledged that the Spirit was indeed worthy of the same adoration that was given to the Father and the Son.2 The aim of this paper is to ex- amine the pneumatology of one of these Homoiousians, Silvanus of Tarsus, who, since he died before the intense discussion about the Spirit, did not have to make the choice that faced most of his colleagues: is the Spirit an equal member of the Godhead or not? W.-D. Hauschild, however, is of the opinion that if Silvanus had indeed lived long enough he probably would have been numbered among the Pneumatomachi of western Asia Minor.' The major reason for his opinion is that Silvanus was an old friend of both Eustathius of Sebaste and Theophilus of Castabala, leading figures in the struggle against the Homoousian con- cept of the Spirit. But, as this paper hopes to show, Hauschild's view about Silvanus's pneumatological stance is not a foregone conclusion. Although Silvanus has left no written statement of his pneumatological views,4 there are a number of sources which can be ex- amined in order to ascertain where Silvanus probably stood with regard to the Spirit. Firstly, there is the witness of the historical writings of ,5 Socrates,6 and ,' about Silvanus's position in the dogmatic struggles of the fourth century. Secondly, Epiphanius's s 262 report about the trinitarian theology of the Homoiousian George of Laodicea can be utilized;8 for Silvanus's views on the Trinity were pro- 9 bably very similar to those of George, since he was closely allied to him.9 Finally, Basil of Caesarea's opinion of Silvanus can be considered.'°

1. The Witness of Hilary, Socrates and Sozomen

The earliest extant record about Silvanus is contained in a fragment from Hilary of Poitiers's history of the , in which it is mentioned that Silvanus was one of the bishops at the Council of Sir- mium in 351 who approved of the condemnation of the teaching of Photinus, bishop of and a pupil of ." Ac- cording to Photinus, Christ was merely a man, who was endowed with z special power by the Father and eventually was adopted as his Son.' Photinus was given an opportunity to defend his theological views before the council in a debate with Basil of Ancyra. However, he was worsted, and his teaching was formally condemned and he himself deposed." Attached to the credal statement which this council issued are twenty-seven anathemas, the majority of which are directed against Photinus and his master, Marcellus. Five of these anathemas explicitly refer to what the council participants evidently regarded as erroneous conceptions about the Spirit. Those who maintain that the three members of the Godhead are one person or that the Spirit is identical with either the Father or the Son, or that the Spirit is part of the Father or the Son are condemned, as well as those who believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three gods.14 However, since little is known about the pneumatology of Photinus, it is not entirely clear which of these pneumatological anathemas are specifically aimed at Photinus.11 What can be concluded from these anathemas is that the bishops, including Silvanus, who condemned Photinus were of the opi- nion that each of the members of the Godhead has his own distinct sub- sistence. Yet, the bishops were careful to point out, this differentiation between the members of the Godhead was not an affirmation of tritheism. Now, this trinitarian position is very similar to that of Origen; for Origen, an ardent opponent of modalistic monarchianism, also stressed that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are each individual, substantial entities.'6 Moreover, like the bishops who attended the Council of Sirmium, he did not believe that his pluralistic conception of the Godhead was tritheistic."