INTRODUCTION the Debate Between Basil of Caesarea and Eunomius Of

INTRODUCTION The debate between Basil of Caesarea and Eunomius of Cyzicus marks a turning point in the fourth-century Trinitarian debates. The Het- eroousian doctrine promoted by Eunomius’s teacher Aetius under the aegis of Bishop Eudoxius of Antioch was the impetus for the formation of the Homoiousian alliance in 358 by the bishops Basil of Ancyra and George of Laodicea. The Homoiousians not only formulated a theology which encapsulated the best of earlier fourth-century currents of thought and was indelibly shaped by the need for a swift refutation of Heteroousian doctrine, but they also were successful in orchestrat- ing the ecclesiastical censure of the principals of the burgeoning Het- eroousian movement, at times with actions of dubious legality. But the far more nuanced form of Heteroousianism articulated by Eunomius in the early 360s prompted a different kind of reaction from Basil. Though not as swift and without machinations in the ecclesio-political sphere, it was all the more cutting because of the comprehensiveness of its theological critique. This initial stage of the Eunomian contro- versy is pivotal because for the first time in the history of the Trini- tarian debates the participants acknowledged that more fundamental differences lay at the core of their material differences. Hence in Basil’s refutation of Eunomius we see the emergence of dispute over proper theological methodology and epistemology. In other words, the key issue becomes formulating a theology of theology. The central feature of these second-order debates was rival theo- ries of names. A theory of names explains how names operate, which is to say it gives an account of what names signify when they are applied to objects. Aetius and Eunomius maintained that those names uniquely applied to God disclosed or revealed the divine substance, substance being understood as essence. In other words, the Heteroou- sians believed that such names permitted access to the highest form of knowledge imaginable in the ancient world, knowledge of essences. Basil denied that God’s names allowed such knowledge. In contrast, he formulated a theory of names in which not only divine names but all names fall short of disclosing essence, but nonetheless express accurate and useful knowledge of those who bear the names. While Euno- mius articulated a theory of divine predication, which assumed that 2 introduction ordinary and theological language operated in fundamentally different ways, Basil affirmed that there was no gap between ordinary and theological language, arguing that all language functions in a similar way. Hence in response to Eunomius’s limited theory of divine predication, Basil elaborated a general theory of how all names operate. It is this central point of contention between Basil and Eunomius that this monograph explores. It offers a revisionist interpretation of the Heteroousian theory of names as found in early Heteroousian writings and uses this revised understanding to elucidate the theory of names that Basil developed in response to Eunomius. Only with an accurate reconstruction of the theory to which Basil responded can Basil’s own theory be properly understood. Unlike the Heteroousian theory of names, Basil’s theory of names has not been studied as a whole. Hence this book is the first comprehensive study. Some aspects of Basil’s theory have received attention in compartmentalized studies, particularly his theory of epinoia, translated here as “conceptualization.” It is commonly assumed in scholarship that all names for Basil correspond to conceptualizations. In contrast, I argue here that Basil’s theory of conceptualization is but part of a larger “notionalism,” in which all names signify primarily notions, which in their turn provide information about non-essential properties of the objects that bear the names. Hence instead of the close connection that Eunomius posits between the ontological and nominal orders, Basil inserts a notional order between them, wherein the human mind plays an active and even creative role in theological epistemology. While the Trinitarian debates of the fourth-century were undoubt- edly fuelled, at least in part, by ecclesio-political wrangling, lust for power, and personal animosities, the theological issues under debate were of profound concern to the participants. The very fact that subtle reflections on the nature of the theological endeavor itself could be proffered in the midst of these polemics testifies to this. Hence understanding these important theoretical issues that according to Basil and Eunomius constitute the prolegomena to theology are essential for understanding the phenomenon of fourth-century Christianity itself. But just as close attention to theological issues is crucial for understanding the complex social and political structures of the fourth century conflicts, so too is close attention to the social and political context of these theological debates crucial for understanding them..

Load more