The Role of Philosophy in Against Eunomius

In semester one of 2016 I did an intensive on the doctrine of the Trinity. During this unit I was struck by (to quote one of my assignments), “the significance of the impact that both ancient and modern philosophy have had on the development of the doctrine of the Trinity.” In fact, I was so taken by this observation that I decided to make it the subject of my final research project, culminating in a 16,500 word essay worth four units of study.

Despite receiving a very generous mark and being encouraged by my supervisor to get my research published, I never did, as I felt that it wasn’t particularly original. I did however, go back to Vose (now Morling) to present my research at an academic seminar.

What follows is a slight adaptation of my script for the academic seminar, which is a little under 4000 words rather than the full 16,500. As it was originally written for me to read aloud I hadn’t included any references, but I’ve added some citations in for direct quotes.

If you want more detail or want to see my full bibliography, you can download my original essay here.

---

The Role of Philosophy in Against Eunomius

Introduction

For my research project I wanted to demonstrate the use, and explore the role of philosophy in the thought of a significant figure from the historical development of the doctrine of the Trinity. I chose one of the Cappadocian Fathers, Basil of Caesarea, and I limited my exploration to his first theological treatise, Against Eunomius.

Against Eunomius

Against Eunomius was written in response to the neo-Arian heretic Eunomius of Cyzicus’ Apology, which was a defence of his belief that God the Father’s substance is defined by the name ‘Unbegotten’, and the Son’s by ‘Begotten’, meaning that the Father and Son are other in substance or heteroousios. Basil responded by writing a polemical treatise, refuting Eunomius’ arguments point by point. As such, Against Eunomius is not a methodical presentation of Basil’s own trinitarian theology, but a series of polemical arguments, aimed at either refuting or supplanting the particular ideas of Eunomius’ Apology.

Against Eunomius has a trinitarian structure; the first book focuses on God the Father, the second on the Son, and the third (which is significantly shorter) on the Holy Spirit. Due to the considerable volume of the work, I limited my research to sections 1-18 of the first book.

Question and Methodology

In light of these considerations, the question that I explored in my essay was: What is the role of philosophy in the major arguments made by Basil of Caesarea in sections 1.1-1.18 of Against Eunomius? In seeking to answer this question, I was mindful of the fact that it required the analysis rather than evaluation of Basil’s arguments, and I did not focus on his trinitarian theology unless it related to his use of philosophy.

Overview

In this abbreviated version of my essay, I open by providing an overview of the educations of Basil, Eunomius, and Eunomius’ teacher Aetius. Then, after touching on the historical context, I cover the philosophical background behind Eunomius’ epistemology and understanding of language as seen in his Apology. Next, I present two opposing perspectives on the role of philosophy in theology, both of which come from Against Eunomius. The first is seen in Basil’s polemical rhetoric, where he elevates faith and tradition over and against philosophy and innovation. The second is found in his material arguments, where his epistemological framework, understanding of language, appeals to logical consistency, and treatment of scripture all betray his dependence upon reason and philosophy. Lastly, before a summary of my conclusions, I present a brief comparison of the roles of philosophy in Eunomius’ Apology and Basil’s Against Eunomius.

Education

Basil

In 330CE, Basil was born in Cappadocia to a “wealthy, landowning family” with a strong Christian heritage (DelCogliano & Radde-Gallwitz, 2011, 6). For the most part, Basil’s education followed a pathway that was conventional for the wealthy. This pattern of education could be broken up into three stages. The first involved learning to “read, write, and recite short passages from set texts” (Holder, 1992, 396); the second, known as ‘grammatical’ education, involved reading and interpreting the canon of Greek classical literature; the third involved learning the art of rhetoric, although some would instead seek out an education in philosophy.

While Basil’s known teachers were all sophists and so taught rhetoric, the rhetorical curriculum included the history of philosophy as well as the teachings of the four major schools of philosophy. However, aside from the works of Plato and Aristotle, most of this content was mediated through “handbooks and summaries” and so was quite general (Ruether, 1969, 25-26). Nevertheless, we can be certain that an overview of philosophy was included in Basil’s education.

After his formal education Basil pursued a hybrid of philosophical and early Christian asceticism, and was baptised by Dianius of Caesarea.

Eunomius and Aetius

The educations of Eunomius and his teacher Aetius were significantly different to that of Basil. Eunomius was trained to be a secretary, and while he sought a higher education, most of his further learning was gained by association, first by accompanying the children of nobles to school, and later working for Aetius. Aetius himself received only a basic secular education before moving into ecclesiastical circles, where he then received rigorous exegetical training, yet he expressed himself in philosophical syllogisms. Each education was unique, and each defies any premature attempts to jump to conclusions about the attitudes that these figures held towards philosophy.

Historical Context

Although the Council of Nicaea in 325CE aimed to address the problem of ‘Arianism’, and even though the Nicene Creed is now held to be orthodox, the reality is that it was not until the 381 Council of Constantinople that the Nicene perspective triumphed. As such, ‘Arianism’ (in its various forms) was alive and well during Basil’s lifetime.

At the time of Basil and Eunomius’ conflict, the main theological factions were the Homoousions (meaning ‘same substance’), who were adherents to the traditional position of Nicaea; the Homoions (’similar’), who opposed ousia-language and from whom came the subordinationist Sirmium Confession; the Heteroousions (’other substance’), who were a radically subordinationist offshoot of the Homoion party and were depicted as the spiritual successors of Arius and so sometimes called ‘the Neo-Arian party’; and the Homoiousions (’similar substance’), who formed in opposition to the Heteroousion party. Basil was affiliated with the Homoiousions, and Eunomius and Aetius were the driving force behind the Heteroousion party.

Basil and Eunomius were both present at a council in Constantinople in January 360, where Eunomius probably delivered his Apology. Basil replied with Against Eunomius around 363-364CE.

Eunomius’ Apology

Eunomius’ Apology, which has been broken up into 28 sections, begins in earnest in section 7. The following analysis focuses predominantly on sections 7-19, the common theme of which is the presentation and defence of the Heteroousion understanding of the essences of the Father and the Son.

Simplicity and First Principles

Section 7 established, on the grounds of “[natural notions] (φυσικήν ἔννοιαν) and the teaching of the fathers”, that God is one, and God is “the Unbegotten, or rather… unbegotten essence” (Eunomius, ca. 360/1987, 41). Section 8 then defended against alternative understandings of the name ‘Unbegotten’: it is not a conceptualisation, nor a privation; it is not “applied to a part of him only”, “within him as something separate”, or “something different alongside him” (Eunomius, ca. 360/1987, 43). Already Eunomius has made reference to a whole range of philosophical concepts: natural notions (φυσικήν ἔννοιαν), the term ‘Unbegotten’, essence or substance, conceptualisation, privation, and the idea of divine simplicity understood as partlessness. In order to better understand some of these ideas, it is helpful to gain a general understanding of their philosophical origin.

First, the idea of simple substances can be traced back to at least the time of Plato. For Plato, true knowledge was to know the substance or essence of ‘forms’ or ‘ideas’, which were abstract concepts common to many objects, such as being round or white. Whereas physical objects could be composite or divisible, forms were incomposite and indivisible; for example, while a rock could be round, brown, and hard, and was therefore composite, the idea of roundness cannot be divided into parts, and so is simple. For Plato, then, true knowledge was to know the substance of simple forms. The basic tenets of this theory of knowledge survived through to the fourth century.

Simplicity also featured in Aristotelian and Epicurean-Stoic epistemology, both of which sought to answer the ‘learner’s paradox’ from Plato’s Meno, that is “how can one learn if one does not already know something about the sought item? How can it be learning if one does already know?” (Radde-Gallwitz, 2009, 47). The fundamental principles behind their solutions were similar to Descartes’ theory of ‘innate ideas’. As prior knowledge was thought to be necessary for learning, there had to be certain ideas which were self-evident to all. These self-evident ideas were thought to be simple in the same way that Plato’s forms were simple. All other knowledge was built upon these simple first principles. By the fourth century this idea was taken for granted by all sides of the theological debate, although often using different terminology such as ‘common’ or ‘natural’ notions (ἔννοια).

These appeals to first principles, which took place in the realm of epistemology, had precedent in the philosophy of ontology. As far back as the fifth century BCE, the term ἀγέν(ν)ητος (ingenerate/unbegotten) was being used to distinguish things which had their existence in themselves from things which were generated from others. By the second century, Christian apologists such as Justin Martyr were applying this designation to the Christian God, and in the third century Dionysius of Alexandria equated “the definition of the term ‘ingenerate’ with the definition of ‘God’.” (Radde-Gallwitz, 2009, 77). So where self-evident ideas had become the philosophical foundation of knowledge, the ingenerate being had become the ontological foundation of the cosmos, and both kinds of ‘first principles’ were understood to be simple.

These philosophical ideas influenced the thought of Eunomius in his Apology. In fact, Eunomius’ entire system of thought was dependent upon an innate understanding of God as a simple first principle. This is not to say that Eunomius sourced his theology directly from pagan philosophers, but that it unmistakably bears the hallmarks of various philosophical traditions from antiquity.

Language

In sections 18 and 19, Eunomius argued that names do not determine the essence of the object to which they refer, but rather the meaning (λεκτόν) of a word is accommodated to our innate understanding of its object. For example, the meaning of the word ‘Father’, when applied to God, is informed by our innate understanding of God as Unbegotten. For this reason, he argued that when any name is applied to the Father it means ‘Unbegotten’, and when any name is applied to the Son, it is synonymous with ‘Begotten’.

While Eunomius’ understanding of names may seem absurd to a modern reader, it fell well within the spectrum of ancient philosophical theories of language. On the one hand, there was the Epicurean theory that names originated naturally and mindlessly, and corresponded with the substance of the objects to which each name belonged. This theory is typified by the word φύσις (nature). On the other hand, there was the Aristotelian view that language was established by social convention with no correspondence to substance. This theory is typified by the word θέσις (convention). However, the majority of ancient philosophers sat somewhere between these two poles, generally understanding names to, in some way, correspond with substance, but be given by deities or humans with significant abilities. While Eunomius’ understanding of names sat within this middle category, it also included the concept of ‘meaning’ in between ‘name’ and ‘substance’. This allowed for both the existence of multiple words which referred to the same object, and the way that the meaning of names can change depending on the context in which they are used. This concept of meaning has been traced back to Stoic formal naturalism.

Looking back, Eunomius’ understanding of names makes more sense in light of its philosophical background. First, for Eunomius ‘Unbegotten’ was the natural name of God which corresponded to his substance. Further, in his argument that ‘meanings’ of names are accommodated to their objects, we see the influence of Stoic formal naturalism.

It is clear, then, that philosophy played a significant role in Eunomius’ theology, especially in his understanding of epistemology, ontology, and language. We turn now to see how Basil responded to Eunomius’ philosophical arguments.

Against Eunomius

In my original essay, I broke sections 1.1-1.18 of Against Eunomius into four parts and analysed the major arguments in each. However, today, for the sake of brevity, I will only provide a thematic overview of the findings of this analysis. After touching on Basil’s rhetorical polemic about the role of philosophy in theology, I will then cover his epistemological framework, understanding of language, use of reason, and interpretation of scripture.

Basil’s Polemics against Philosophy

First, in my analysis of sections 1.1-1.5a of Against Eunomius, I explored Basil’s appeal to popular epistemological biases, such as the priority of tradition and the suspect nature of innovation. Both Eunomius and Basil presented themselves as writing in order to defend the tradition, lest they be accused of innovation. However, Basil claimed that Eunomius used the tradition to conceal his devilish innovations and deceive people with deceptive rhetorical arguments. In contrast, Basil presented himself as a defender of the “truth of the gospel” and the “simplicity of the faith”, which was to be preferred to speculative philosophy (Basil, ca. 363/2011, 81). Nevertheless Basil’s arguments against Eunomius’ supposed rhetoric ultimately came from the writings of philosophers, and it remains to be seen whether Basil’s practice later in the treatise gave more weight to tradition and faith, or innovation and philosophy.

Epistemological Framework

As we saw earlier, in ancient philosophy natural notions (under various names) were understood to be the epistemological foundation of all knowledge. Basil was no exception. Examples of this include his argument that a common notion is the source of our knowledge of God’s existence, and his ridicule of Eunomius for seeking to demonstrate the validity of a common notion using philosophical syllogisms.

Like Eunomius, Basil also subscribed to three concepts that were closely related to natural notions: epistemological simplicity, ontological simplicity, and substance ontology. First, in ancient epistemology the referent of a natural notion was always simple. Along these lines, Basil argued that “the concept of grain exists in everybody as something simple” (Basil, ca. 363/2011, 98). Second, is the concept of ontological simplicity. Basil’s acceptance of this was demonstrated by his correction of Eunomius’ use of terminology relating to divine simplicity. Third, is the concept of substance ontology. Knowledge of substance was the highest form of knowledge, and the idea that the name ‘Unbegotten’ defined the substance of God was one of the primary points of conflict in the debate between Basil and Eunomius.

Another epistemological avenue which Basil recognised was sense-perception. This is seen in both his assertion that objects are recognised “through sense-perception” (Basil, ca. 363/2011, 98), and in his argument that “someone who uses rational argumentation to prove what is already quite well known through sense perception is considered to be utterly absurd.” (Basil, ca. 363/2011, 92). While the idea of sense-perception may not seem overly philosophical, it was classically treated by Aristotle in his On the Soul, and the influence of this work can be seen in “Basil’s enumeration of the proper objects of each of the five senses” (DelCogliano & Radde-Gallwitz, 2011, 110).

Understanding of Language

Concerning language, whereas Eunomius understood the name ‘Unbegotten’ to be the product of a natural notion (φύσις), Basil argued that it had its origin in human conceptualisation (θέσις). Conceptualisation refers to the use of reason to provide a complex account of a simple object. For Basil, conceptualisations like ‘Unbegotten’ corresponded with activities, relations, and attributes, rather than with substance. It was this concept of conceptualisation that formed the decisive difference between Basil’s epistemology and that of Eunomius.

When Basil defined conceptualisation, he used the grammatical concept of “common usage” (κοινὴ χρήσις) (Basil, ca. 363/2011, 101). While, to a modern reader, the phrase ‘common usage’ may sound like the equivalent of ‘social convention’, it actually refers to “the usage learned in aristocratic education” (Radde-Gallwitz, 2009, 121), and had its origins in “Stoic language theory” (Del-Cogliano & Radde-Gallwitz, 2011, 98). Consequently, when Basil defined words according to ‘common usage’, he was not presenting his own understanding of the popular definition of a word, but an authoritative definition from an external source, similar to what is now found in dictionaries. Another appeal to common usage is also found in Basil’s argument against the idea that all God’s names are synonyms, as “Each of the names is deprived of its proper signification, and conventions are established that contradict both common usage and the teaching of the Spirit.” (Basil, ca. 363/2011, 100).

Another grammatical influence came out in Basil’s treatment of the words ‘Father’ and ‘Son’. According to Basil, everyday usage of the name ‘father’ primarily indicated not the passion experienced in the process of begetting (as Eunomius had argued), but the relationship of a father with his child. Having presented this argument, Basil gave a definition of father and son:

The Father is he who provides to another the beginning of being in a nature similar to his own, whereas the Son is he who has the beginning of this being from another in a begotten way.

Concerning the sources of this understanding of ‘Father’ and ‘Son’, it has been argued that Basil’s treatment of these names bears strong parallels with the ancient grammarians’ theory of ‘relatives’, which may have been influenced by the Stoics and has similarities with Aristotle’s understanding of the same.

Logical Consistency

Basil also made appeals to logical consistency, an example of which is seen in his defence of privation. Eunomius had argued, following Aristotle’s definition of privation which involved the loss of a quality that was naturally present in an entity, that God was not “begotten and then deprived of that quality so as to become unbegotten” (Eunomius, ca. 360/1987, 43), so the name ‘Unbegotten’ could not be understood as a privative. In response, on the basis of the structural similarity between the traditional divine attributes ‘unbegotten’, “‘incorruptible,’ ‘immortal,’ and ‘invisible’” (ἀγέννητος, ἄφθαρτος, ἀθάνατος, and ἀόρατος, respectively; Basil, ca. 363/2011, 103), all of which begin with “an alpha-privative” (DelCogliano & Radde-Gallwitz, 2011, 103), Basil argued that these attributes all ought to be treated in the same way. For Basil, all these terms either are or are not privatives, but if Eunomius wanted to argue that all besides ‘Unbegotten’ are privative, then he would have to demonstrate how the other terms corresponded with the Aristotelian definition, e.g. was God naturally corruptible before he then became incorruptible? This is but one example of Basil’s appeals to logical consistency.

Philosophy and Scripture

It is now time to consider the role of philosophy and reason in relation to scripture. At times Basil’s use of scripture is fairly simple, as advocated in his earlier polemics. For example, Basil appealed to Matthew 28:19 as a basis for calling God Father – “…in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

Other arguments included the introduction of hermeneutical principles alongside scriptural references. For example, in 1.17-1.18, while demonstrating from straight-forward readings of scripture that the Father can be compared with the Son and has fellowship with the Son, Basil also appealed to the epistemological principle that the known reveals the unknown through the affinity of the former with the latter. Similarly, with reference to Philippians 2:6-7, Basil argued on the basis of logical consistency that if “the form of a slave” indicated Christ’s humanity, then “‘the form of God’ certainly reveals the distinctive feature of the divine substance.” (Basil, ca. 363/2011, 118). The introduction of hermeneutical principles such as these highlights the fact that while the content of scripture was rarely disputed, its meaning was a subject of much debate. As such, reason and philosophy were often drawn upon to assist with the interpretation of scripture.

Interestingly, Basil also treated both scripture and philosophy as valid sources of knowledge. For example, when arguing that humans cannot comprehend the substance of God, Basil presented both common notions and scripture as possible paths to this knowledge. Similarly, in his arguments that humans cannot comprehend the substance of the earth, Basil presented both sense-perception and scripture as possible avenues. In other examples Basil presented scripture in conjunction with common usage or divine simplicity. However, when it came to God’s name, Basil prioritised scripture over the philosophical elements of his epistemological framework. This is clearly seen in his arguments for the primacy of the name Father; especially that ‘Father’ is found in scripture, whereas ‘Unbegotten’ is not.

In sum, reason and philosophy influenced Basil’s epistemological framework, informed his understanding of language, shaped the content of his arguments, and often informed his interpretation of scripture. This picture stands in stark contrast to Basil’s opening polemics, which exalted the simplicity of the faith and the purity of the tradition over and against innovative thinking.

Comparison

Upon comparison, it is evident that many of Basil’s philosophical presuppositions were shared by Eunomius. While the subject of the debate was the ontological relationship between the Father and the Son, many of the arguments revolved around the implications of natural notions, divine simplicity, and substance ontology, all of which were taken for granted by both parties. Their questions arose from attempts to reconcile this shared epistemological framework with the content of the faith. For example, if we know about God through a natural notion, what is the content of that notion?  And if God is simple – as the subjects of notions are – how can God be triune? Wouldn’t a triune being be composite? As we can see, while both sides appealed to scripture and tradition, they also had a shared philosophical foundation.

Arguably, the difference between Eunomius and Basil’s theological methodologies could be typified by Eunomius’ appeal to “[natural notions] and the teaching of the fathers” (Eunomius, ca. 360/1987, 41), and Basil’s appeal to “common usage and the teaching of the Spirit” (Basil, ca. 363/2011, 100). Eunomius gave more weight to ‘natural notions’ (representing philosophical epistemology) and ‘the teaching of the fathers’ (representing the Christian Middle Platonic tradition). On the other hand, Basil prioritised ‘common usage’ (representing conventional understandings of language as embodied by the grammarians), and ‘the teachings of the Spirit’ (representing scripture). The outcome of the former approach was a more metaphysical theology that claimed exhaustive knowledge of God through ‘natural’ means (φυσις), whereas the latter approach led to a more ‘convention-based’ theology (θεσις) that ascribed mystery to God on the basis of scripture and reason. In the end, despite their similarities and differences, and regardless of which side won the debate, it is indisputable that philosophical concepts played a critical role in this stage of the historical development of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Summary

In sum, firstly, Basil received a secular education, from which he learnt grammar, rhetoric and basic philosophy. Second, Basil and Eunomius’ debate took place within the context of an ongoing feud between the Homoiousion and Heteroousion parties, who believed that the Father and Son were ‘like’ or ‘other’ in substance, respectively. Third, Eunomius’ Apology was influenced by a range of philosophical concepts, including ancient theories of language as well as philosophical epistemology – from which came the concepts of simplicity, substance, and natural notions.

Fourth, Against Eunomius 1.1-1.18 contains two conflicting pictures of the role of philosophy in theology. Initially we saw Basil’s polemical perspective, where the faith was simple and the tradition was pure, whereas innovation by means of rhetoric and philosophy was not only unnecessary, but devilish. However, Basil’s material refutation of Eunomius’ arguments contained evidence of philosophical influences, especially in his epistemological framework, understanding of language, appeals to logical consistency, and interpretation of scripture.

Lastly, in contrast with Eunomius, Basil seemed to give less weight to philosophical epistemology and tradition, and more weight to grammatical thought and scripture. Nevertheless, both utilised philosophy in their search for theological truth.

Bibliography

Basil of Caesarea. 2011. ‘Against Eunomius’. In Against Eunomius, translated by Mark DelCogliano and Andrew Radde-Gallwitz, 81–196. The Fathers of the Church. Washington: The Catholic University of America Press.

DelCogliano, Mark, and Andrew Radde-Gallwitz. 2011. Against Eunomius. The Fathers of the Church. Washington: The Catholic University of America Press.

Eunomius of Cyzicus. 1987. ‘The Apology of Eunomius’. In Eunomius: The Extant Works, translated by Richard Paul Vaggione, 34–67. Oxford; New York: Clarendon; Oxford University Press.

Holder, Arthur. 1992. ‘Saint Basil the Great on Secular Education and Christian Virtue’. Religious Education 3, no. 87: 395–415.

Radde-Gallwitz, Andrew. 2009. Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Transformation of Divine Simplicity. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Ruether, Rosemary Radford. 1969. Gregory of Nazianzus: Rhetor and Philosopher. Oxford: Clarendon.