PrefaceandAcknowledgments
AccordingtoGregoryofNyssa,theChristianlifeconsistsoftwoparts,ethics anddoctrine,bothofthemtaughtbyJesusChristinthewordsofMatthew 28:19.¹InteachinghisdisciplestobaptizethenationsinthenameofFather, Son,andSpirit,Christwasteachingdoctrine;whenheaddedthattheymust instructthebaptizedtokeephiscommandments,hesummarizedChristianity’sethicalpart.ThisbookisdevotedtoGregory’snumerouswritingsonthe doctrinalpartofthebaptismalformula inmodernparlance,thesearehis worksonTrinitariantheologyandChristology.Mygoalinwritingthisbook hasbeento fillagapintheliteraturebystudyingtheseworks’ complex interrelationshipsratherthanfocusingononlyoneworkorofferingasummaryofhistheologyasawhole.TherehasbeennoEnglishmonographthat commentsonthefullcorpusexaminedhere.AsIworkedthroughthetexts, IcametoappreciatethatwhatmakesGregory’stheologyinterestingstems fromhisversatilityandsubtletyasawriter andthatportrayinghimasa writerwasinseparablefromportrayinghistheology.Myaiminthefollowing chaptersisthereforenotprimarilytocatalogue what hesaid(thedoxographicalapproach),nortoassesstheorthodoxyofhisstatementsorthedegreeto whichtheyreflect “Hellenization” (thehistory-of-doctrinesapproach),norto sketchthebackgroundtohisthought(thesource-criticalorgenealogical approach).Rather,mygoalhasbeentoofferliteraryandhistoricalcommentaryonGregory’sdoctrinalwritings,takingseriouslytheiroccasionalnature. Myworkingmethodhasbeen,asfaraspossible,tointerpret “Gregoryby Gregory,” whilealsoexaminingtheimprintonhiswritingsofhispublicrole withinthepro-Melitianandpro-Nicenecoalitionofbishopsthatsucceededin ingratiatingitselftotheEmperorTheodosiusandtheWesternbishopsinthe years378–83.
Astudyofthisscopewouldhavebeenimpossiblewithouttheworkofmany scholars,towhomIexpressmygratitude.ThesuperbtranslationsofStuart Hall,RobinOrton,andAnnaSilvashavegreatlyaidedtheworkofcommentary.ReaderswillseetheimprintofJohannesZachhuber’smanycontributions toGregorianscholarshipinnearlyeverychapter,aboveallinthoseonthe Christologicalwritings.Ihadthepleasureofdiscussingsomeofthesematters withJohannesinOxfordinJune2016.Inmyemphasisonthedynamicunity oftheTrinity,readerswillseetheinfluenceofMichelBarnes’sgenealogyof theconceptofpowerinGregory.Iseethisbookascarryinghisthemeforward
¹ Epist. 24.2(GNOVIII.2,75.13–14;SC363,278):
intoperhapsunexpectedareaswithinthecorpus.Myturntotheliteraryand culturalprofileofGregoryasawriterwasinspiredbybrilliantworkby MorwennaLudlow(whomorethananyonesinceChristophKlockhasraised theissueofrhetoricalandliterarystyleinGregory)andMatthieuCassin(the leadingauthorityon AgainstEunomius).MyunderstandingofGregoryasa homilisthasbeeninformedbyJohanLeemans,whohasshownthelinks betweenGregory’spreachingandhisdogmatictheologyandpolemic.The workofVolkerHenningDrecollhasnotonlyenhancedmyappreciationof Gregory’sdebtstoBasil,butalsohelpedmewithnumerousdisputedquestions inthescholarship,asthenoteswillattest.Theburdenofwritingthisbookhas beenconsiderablylightenedbythelaborsoftheseandothermembersofthe InternationalColloquiaonGregoryofNyssa.Inparticular,Ihavelearned muchfrompresentationsandconversationsatthe2010colloquiumonthe Operaminoradogmatica hostedbyVolkerDrecollinTübingenandthe2012 colloquiumon ContraEunomiumIII hostedbyJohanLeemansinLeuven,and fromthepublishedproceedings.Moreover,themonumental BrillDictionary ofGregoryofNyssa editedbyLucasFranciscoMateo-SecoandGiulioMaspero (andtranslatedbySethCherney)condensesamountainrangeofscholarship onthevariousworksintoeasilydigestiblearticles.Thereaderisdirectedto thatdictionaryformanymattersofdetail,includingsummariesandbibliographiesforallofGregory’sworks.
OnceagainImustthankMarkDelCogliano,whograciouslycommentedon adraftofthisstudyinits finalstages,andwhosefriendshipandcollaboration areofinestimablevaluetome.Mark’sbrilliantdeconstruction inhisbook onBasil ofGregory ’sclaimthatEunomiushasusedPlato’ s Cratylus ledme torethinkthisscholarlydogma.ThereaderwillseethatIhaveconcluded thatGregoryratherthanEunomiuswassubstantivelyin fluencedbythe Cratylus .AnearlydraftofsomematerialwaspresentedattheUniversity ofChicagoDivinitySchoolattheinvitationoftheLumenChristiInstitute andThomasLevergood,whomIthankfortheconversationonthisoccasion in2013.PortionsofthisprojectwerepresentedtotheGraduatePatristics SeminarinOxfordin2016.IthankCarolHarrisonfortheinvitationand hospitality,aswellasMarkEdwardsandothermembersofthecommunity fortheirengagingconversation.Fortheirsupport,criticism,andconversationaboutGregoryduringthewritingofthisbook,Iexpressmygratitudealso toDiegodeBrasi,NeilMcLynn,AnnaMarmadoro,MargaretM.Mitchell, EllenMuehlberger,WarrenSmith,andBradStorin.IbeganthisbookatLoyola and finisheditafterjoiningNotreDame’sProgramofLiberalStudies.At bothinstitutions,mythinkinghasbeensharpenedininnumerablewaysby manybelovedcolleagues;Iespeciallythankmychairpersons,whohaveoffered constantsupport,mentorship,andfriendship:SusanRoss,GretchenReydamsSchils,andThomasStapleford.Ofmanystudentswhohaveimprovedthe project,IespeciallythankKirstenAnderson,aPh.D.studentinTheologyat
NotreDame,withwhomIreadGregory’ s ApologiainHexaemeron inthe summerof2016.TomPerridgeandKarenRaithatOUPhavebeenadelight toworkwith,andImustthanktheOECSserieseditors,AndrewLouthand GillianClark,aswellasananonymousreaderforthePress,fortheirsupport. Iamgratefulforasemester’sleavefromtheUniversityofNotreDame’ s CollegeofArtsandLetters,whichallowedmeto finishmymanuscript.My studentsintheProgramofLiberalStudieshelpedmeseeafreshthecultural resonancesandtheseamsinGregory’stexts.MyfamilyknowsIowethem morethanIcouldadequatelysayhere.ToSam,whowrotesomanystories beforeIcould finishmine;toEmma,who finishedsomanypuzzlesbefore Igotminetogether;andabovealltoKristen myheartfeltthanks.
ThisbookisdedicatedtoLewisAyres.I firstlearnedmycentraltheme Gregory’sdescriptionoftheTrinity’ssinglelife-givingpower fromLewis’ studyofGregory’ s ToAblabius.Lewisencouragedmyprojectfromitsearliest stagesandcarefullyreadthroughthedraftinits finalstages,greatlyimproving myargument,whichstillnodoubtfallsshortofthestandardshisworkhasset forour field.Thewholeprojectbearshisimprintinvariousways.Theproject wasgivenitsinitialimpetusatasymposiumarrangedbyLewisin2012at DurhamUniversity,whereIreceivedvaluablefeedbackfromhim,Michel Barnes,andMarkDelCogliano.Ifurtherbenefitedfromourconversations duringLewis’sfellowshipattheNotreDameInstituteforAdvancedStudyin 2014–15,whichalsohappenedtobemy firstyearatNotreDame.Providence doesnotalwaysgrantsuchhappycoincidences,andtheir fleetingnature makesthemallthemoreprecious.LewisdirectedmydissertationatEmory and miraculously! continuestospeaktomeandtoofferhisencouragementandinsight.Thisdedicationismeanttorender,inhoweversmalla measure,mygratitudetohim.
Granger,Indiana
OntheFeastoftheEpiphany, 2017
I.TRINITARIANCONFESSION
II.SAVINGECONOMY
Abbreviations
ForabbreviationsofworksbyGregoryofNyssaandotherancientauthors,seethe BibliographyofPrimarySources.
AugStAugustinianStudies
BDGN TheBrillDictionaryofGregoryofNyssa (seeMateo-SecoandMaspero inBibliography)
BGLBibliothekdergriechischenLiteratur:AbteilungPatristik
CCSGCorpusChristianorumSeriesGraeca
CEECWTheCambridgeEditionofEarlyChristianWritings
CUPCambridgeUniversityPress
FKDGForschungenzurKirchen-undDogmengeschichte
FoCFathersoftheChurch
GCSDieGriechischenChristlichenSchriftsteller(n.f.=neueFolge)
GNOGregoriiNysseniOpera
JECSJournalofEarlyChristianStudies
JThSJournalofTheologicalStudies
LSLong&Sedley(seeBibliography)
NTOANovumTestamentumetOrbisAntiquus
OCPOrientaliaChristianaPeriodica
OCTOxfordClassicalTexts
OECSOxfordEarlyChristianStudies
OECTOxfordEarlyChristianTexts
OUPOxfordUniversityPress
PGPatrologiaGraeca
PMSPatristicMonographSeries
PPSPopularPatristicsSeries
RHPRRevued’histoireetdephilosophiereligieuses
RSPhThRevuedessciencesphilosophiquesetthéologiques
RSRRevuedessciencesreligieuses
SCSourcesChrétiennes
STAC StudienundTextezuAntikeundChristentum
StPatStudiaPatristica
StUNTStudienzurUmweltdesNeuenTestaments
Abbreviations
SVFStoicorumVeterumFragmenta
SVSStVladimir’sSeminary
TCHTransformationoftheClassicalHeritage
ThPhTheologieundPhilosophie
ThQTheologischeQuartalschrift
TLGThesaurusLinguaeGraecae
VCVigiliaeChristianae
VCSSupplementsto VigiliaeChristianae
ZACZeitschriftfürAntikesChristentum
2 GregoryofNyssa’sDoctrinalWorks
INDIEMLUMINUM ANDTHEDOCTRINALCORPUS
OnesuchdigressionappearsinasermonhedeliveredonthefeastofEpiphany (January6),perhapsintheyear383,anditwillprovideaconvenientstarting pointforourinquiry.
Andwedothesethings[thatis,baptizewithatripleimmersioninthethreefold name],notreceivingthemysterytacitly,butwiththethreeholyhypostases invokedoverus,inwhomwebelieved,andbecauseofwhomwehope,from whomitcomesthatwenowareandwillbeagain.Perhapsyouwhoaudaciously fightagainsttheSpirit’sglorytakeoffenseandenvytheParacletethereverenceit isshownbypiouspersons.Leaveoffyourcontentionwithmeandstandup againsttheLord’swords,ifyoucan,whichwerelegislatedtohumanbeings asthebaptismalinvocation.WhatdoestheLord’scommandsay? Baptizingthem inthenameoftheFatherandoftheSonandoftheHolySpirit (Matt.28:19).Why inthenameoftheFather?Becauseheis firstprincipleofallthings.Whyin theSon?Becauseheiscrafterofcreation.WhyintheHolySpirit?Becauseitis theperfectorofallthings.Sothen,webowtotheFathersothatwemightbe sanctified,andwebowtotheSonforthesamereason,andwebowtotheHoly Spirit,sothatwemightbecomewhatitisandiscalled.Thereisnodifferenceof sanctificationsuchthattheFatherwhosanctifiesisgreater,buttheSonlesser,and theHolySpiritinferiortothetwo.Why,then,doyouwhoreceiveoneandthe samegracefromall[three]chopupthethreehypostasesintodifferentnatures andcreatethreemutuallydissimilargods?1
Gregory’sexpositionofthebaptismalfaithandpracticeisinterruptedwith whatmightseemagratuitousandpolemicalsideswipeatthePneumatomachians,agroupagainstwhomhespentenormousenergy fighting,ashadhis brotherBasilofCaesareabeforehim.These “Spirit-fighters” refusedtohonor theSpiritalongwiththeFatherandtheSonintheirdoxologies.2 Gregory’ s
1 Diemlum.(GNOIX,228.22–229.18).Onthesermon’sdate,seeJeanDaniélou, “La ChronologiedessermonsdeGrégoiredeNysse,” RSR 29(1955),346–72,at362.Theargument isasfollows:at Diemlum. (GNOIX,221.17–19),Gregoryreferstopaganrevelriesonthe precedingLord’sDay.Giventhatthe “DayofLights” wasonJanuary6,thismustbeareference totheJanuary1festivities.TheonlyyeararoundthistimeonwhichJanuary1fellonaSunday was383.Thisargumenthasmetwithgeneralacceptanceandwillbefollowedhereasthebest availableexplanation.SeeJeanBernardi, LaPrédicationdespèrescappadociens:leprédicateuret sonauditoire (Paris:PressesUniversitairesdeFrance,1968),164;Maraval, “Chronologyof Works,” in BDGN,162;JillBurnettComings, AspectsoftheLiturgicalYearinCappadocia (325–430),PatristicStudies7(NewYork:PeterLang,2005),68. 2 Onthepassage,seeJohannLeemans, “CommunicatingTruthinGregoryofNyssa’ s Sermons:PreachingOrthodoxy,ConstructingHeresy,” inM.Lamberigts,L.Boeve,and T.Merrigan,eds., Orthdoxy,ProcessandProduct,BibliothecaEphemeridumTheologicarum LovaniensiumCCXXVII(Leuven:Peeters,2009),61–83,at78;JochenRexer, DieFesttheologie GregorsvonNyssa:EinBeispielderreichskirchlichenHeortologie,Patrologia:Beiträgezum StudiumderKirchenväterVIII(FrankfurtamMain:PeterLang,2002),101–2,whonotesthat Gregoryemploysthe quaestio-methodinthissectionofthehomily.Thispassageanswersthe questionofwhythethreenamesareinvokedinbaptism,thethirdofthree quaestiones inthis
diatribeagainstthisgroupwasnotentirelyoutofplaceinasermoncelebrating Epiphany,thoughevenGregoryseemstoapologizeforthedigressionlater.Its relevancewasrootedintheliturgicalpracticeofthisfeastday.InGregory’ s church,theluminousdayofChrist’sbaptismwasrememberedwiththe enrollmentofnewcandidatesforbaptism,andthiscustomaccountsforthe “digressionontheTrinity.”3 ForGregory,thebaptismofJesusintheRiver Jordanissignificantnotasasingularhistoricalfact,butasatypeofChristian practice.Itcallsforimitation.YetChristianbaptismdiffersfromJesus’ own baptismintheJordan.Christianbaptismisawordyaffair:theonebeing baptizedprofessesfaithinthethreenamesandthenthesamenamesare invoked,asChristcommanded,overthebaptizedastheyareimmersedthree times.Thenamesarenotgiveninarandomorder:thesequenceofthethree hypostases(Father,Son,andSpirit)teachesussomethingofwhotheyareand whattheydo.Gregoryexpoundstheiridentitiesintermsoftheiractivity, givingtwoexamplesoftheirsharedoperation: firstofalltheyarerespectively, firstprinciple,crafter,andperfectorofallthings(thatis,creationissomehow aworkofthethree)andsecondlytheyjointlysanctifythosewhoarebaptized. Thatheplacesthesetwoactstogetherisnotaccidental,since,aswewillsee, thelatterbutnottheformerwasagreedbyallpartiestobearoleoftheSpirit, andGregorywaseverywhereintenttoshowthatbaptismalgraceisnot inferiortoanyotheractivityoftheTrinity,includingcreationitself.
IbeginwithapassageinwhichGregorycitesthebaptismalformulawithin aliturgicalcontextbecause,asIargueinthisbook,GregoryviewsChristhere asteachingor,ashesays,legislatingacreed,andbecauseGregory’selaborate TrinitariantheologyisbestunderstoodascommentaryonChrist’slegislation andonthepracticeofbaptism.Theerudition,thedizzyingarrayofimagery, theornaterhetoric,andthelengthoneencountersinGregory’sTrinitarian writingsmustnotdistractonefromthefoundationalroleplayedthereinby
section(the firsttwobeingwhywaterisusedandwhytherearethreeimmersions).Rexer’ s exegesisunderscoresthatGregory’sTrinitarianexpositionhereispartofhisexplanationofthe riteofbaptism.
3 EverettFerguson, “PreachingatEpiphany:GregoryofNyssaandJohnChrysostomon BaptismandtheChurch,” ChurchHistory 66(1997),1–17at17.Thereisanotherextant EpiphanysermonfromGregory,likelypreachedJanuary7,381,inwhichhewarnscatechumens nottodelaytheirbaptism: Bapt.(GNOX.2,355–70).Forthedate,seeDaniélou, “LaChronologie dessermons,” 353–5.Giventhatthecatechumensholdthefaith,theexplicationofitstheological senseisnotaprincipalissueinthehomily,thoughwedoseeinpassingoneexampleofGregory’ s commonthemethatthebaptizedbecomeoffspringoftheSpirit(γεννήματαπνεύματος):GNOX.2, 361.4.CompareGNOX.2,362.7–8,wherefaith,piety,righteousness,andothervirtuesarecalled childrenoftheSpirit(τέκνατοῦ πνεύματος).Faithiselementaltotheothervirtues,andhe presumeshisaudiencehasthisstartingpoint,butnotthefullcomplementofvirtues.Seealsothe peroratio (GNOX.2,370.24–25): ἡ πίστιςτ
“Thefaithseeksitsownsibling,goodliving.” Gregory’sexhortationissimilartoBasil’shomily ExhortationtoHolyBaptism andGregoryofNazianzus’ Oration 40.SeeComings, Aspectsofthe LiturgicalYear,70–7.
theMattheanbaptismalformula.Bycitingthisformula,Gregorywasalso appealingtocommongroundhesharedwithhisopponents.Baptisminthe threefoldnamewasubiquitous,ornearlyso,inthefourthcentury,even thoughthepracticewasunderstooddifferentlybydifferentbishops.4 AccordingtoGregory,themistakethattheunorthodoxmakeistointerpretthe distinctionsofthehypostasesasdivisionsintounlikenatures.Itisnotthat anyoneconfessed “threemutuallydissimilargods”;thatisGregory’sunfair caricature.Buttheymust,hereasons,believeinadiversityofnatures,orelse theycouldnotrefusetoexpressgratitudetoallthreepersonsequally,apoint Gregoryemphasizeswithamemorable,ifnotentirelyfelicitous,example:
Butsinceillustrationsalwaysmakeanargumentmorevividtothoselistening, Iintendtotrainthethoughtoftheblasphemerswithanimage,makingthings thatareloftyandunseenbysenseperceptionclearfromearthly,humblethings. Nowsupposeyouhappenedtosufferthemisfortuneofbeingtakencaptiveby enemies slavingandtoilingandmoaningfortheancientfreedomyouoncehad. Andsuddenlycertainpeoplefamiliartoyou fellowcitizensofyours cameto thecountryofyourmastersandtyrantsandfreedyoufromthecompulsionlaid uponyou,offeringransomequally,dividingtheexpenseofthepaymentinto equalpartsamongthemselves(
).Havingobtainedthatgrace,wouldn’tyoulookatthethree similarlyasbenefactors(ὁ
Gregory’svividlanguagerenderswhatcouldbeanabstractmatterinvividand concretelanguageforhiscongregation,aimingatthecultivationofasense ofgratitudetothethreeequally.Thisposturerestsuponabeliefintheunityof thethree,whichhereisamatteroftheirjointparticipationinacommonactof redemption.Indeed,participationinthesenseof “splittingintoparts” is hintedatasthethreebenefactors notetheplural dividetheexpenseinto threeequalportions.ThislanguageraisesthequestionofwhetherGregory thoughtofeachactionoftheTrinityasdistinguishableintothreeparts correspondingtothehypostases aquestionwecannotansweronthebasis ofthispassage.Whilelanguagesuchas “hypostases” and “nature” appears inthehomily’sshortTrinitariansection,thefocusisontheactionofthe Trinity.Thewayinwhichthehypostasesaresaidtorelateisintheiractivityin savingthebaptized;similarly,thisjointactivityjustifieshisclaimabouttheir sharednature.Throughouthiscorpus,GregoryoftenprivilegesthisconceptionofTrinitarianunity(thatthethreeareoneinactivity),6 thoughheiswell
4 Theexception,itappears,wasthecirclearoundEunomius,whoevidentlybaptizedsimply intoChristorintoChrist’sdeath:seeChapter2,p.90,n.73inthesection “Eunomius’ Blasphemy:TheRankingofActivities”.GregoryshowsnoawarenessoftheEunomianpractice.
5 Diemlum. (GNOIX,229.19–230.2).
6 ThispreferencewasalreadyassertedbyG.Isayé,S.J., “L’Unitédel’opérationdivinedansles écritstrinitairesdesaintGrégoiredeNysse,” Recherchesdesciencereligieuse 27(1937),422–39 andSeverinoGonzález,S.J., “Laidentidaddeoperaciónenlasobrasexterioresylaunidaddela
Introduction 5
awarethathehasnotquitespelleditoutadequatelyhere,asheimmediately proceedstosay: “Somuchforillustrations.Forourpresentpurposeisnotto correcttheunderstandingofthefaith(οὐ γὰρνῦ
ἀπευθύνεινλόγον).”7
Instead,Gregoryreturnstothesubjectprovidedbythefeastday(τὴν προκειμένην ὑπόθεσιν)andadoptsacelebratorytone.Theimplicationsare thatifhispurposeorintention(σκοπός)weretoofferapreciseaccountof thefaith,hewouldbotherovertheimplicationsofhisimageatgreaterlength.8 Hemightqualifyoramplifytheimage,buttheimpetustodosowouldbe providedbythenatureofthetext:itsoccasion,goals,andaudience.Infact,in ToAblabius,wehavepreciselysuchaworkinwhichGregoryspecifieswhyit isimpropertousesuchexpressionsasthreebenefactors9 orthreejudgesor threesaviors,eventhoughallthreepersonsareactiveintheseworks.Itis notunlikelythatGregory’sEpiphanysermonisgesturingtothislengthier account.Tounderstandthishomily,therefore,isnotonlytograspitstheologicalpoint,butalsotoplaceitwithinabodyofwritings.Thesamegoesfor ToAblabius,asophisticatedresponsetothedifficultproblemofhowthe Trinitarianconfessiondoesnotimplytritheism.There,Gregorysaysthat, forasimpleraudience,asimpleranswerwouldsuffice.Again,thiskindof gesturecautionsthereadertolookforsignalsastoeachwork’ sscope, intention,and(wherethisisdiscernible)targetaudience.Thecomplexconnectionswithinthiscorpusmeanthatwemustbecautiousaboutanyproject ofrecoveringGregory’stheology,especiallyifsuchanattemptismadeonthe basisofonetextorasmallsamplingoftexts.Notonlywilltherecoverybe madeinawhollydifferentidiomandgenrefromtheoriginal,butitalsomight
naturalezadivinaenlateologíatrinitariadeS.GregoriodiNisa,” Gregorianum 19(1938), 280–301.BothauthorsdeveloptheiraccountsinresponsetotheclaimfromTheodorZahn, AdolfvonHarnack,andothersthatGregory’sconceptionofdivineunityismerelygeneric:see thetextscitedinIsayé, “L’Unité,” 422,n.1andGonzalez, “Laidentidad,” 301: “Porlotantola unidadnoesunaunidadabstractaogenérica,sinolarealidadconcretadeunamismavoluntady naturalezadivinas.” Forvariousreasons,theseearlierarticleshavehadlessimpactongeneral portraitsofGregory’sTrinitarianthoughtthantheymightotherwisehavehad.Itseemstome thatonereasonstemsfromtheemphasisontheconceptof “being” inthehighlyinfluential studiesbyvonBalthasar,Daniélou,Mülenberg,Balás,andothers:seeChapter2,pp.86–87,n.57 inthesection “Eunomius’ Blasphemy:TheRankingofActivities”.Thenarrativeinthesestudies isthatwhatwastrulydistinctiveandindeedrevolutionaryaboutGregorywashistransformation ofaclassicalmetaphysicalparadigm(muchasKarlHollhadintimatedat Amphilochiusvon Ikonium,3–4).UnityofactionhasbeenrevivedbyMichelBarnesandLewisAyres:see Chapter3,pp.148–58,inthesection “DivineActivityin ToAblabius”—seealsotheworkcited therebyBeauBranson.
7 Diemlum. (GNOIX,230.6–7).
8 Gregorymorecommonlyexpressesthesamepointwiththeterm διορθόω/διόρθωσις,which wasforGregorynotonlya skopos ofcertaintextsbutalsothepurposeofhisimperialmissionof oversighttotheprovinceofArabia: Epist. 2.12(GNOVIII.2,17.4;SC363,132).Both ἀπευθύνω and διορθόω havemedicalconnotations.
9 Forbenefaction,seeesp. Abl. (GNOIII.1,50.6,9).
falselyestimatetheoriginal’ssignificancewithinthewholeofGregory’ s literaryoutput.Atthesametimethatwemustplacetheworkswithinthe corpus,wemusttreateachpieceindividually,insofaraspossible;itwouldbe amistakesimplytoquarrythecorpusforasingle,systematicvisionembeddedinthevarioustextswithnoattentiongiventothewayseachtext’sgoalhas shapeditspresentation.10 Inpresentingconnectionsamongtheworks,Ido notmeantosuggestthat,forinstance,arigoroustextlike ToAblabius “solves” problemsadumbratedin Indiemluminum.Aswewillsee,theproblemsdo notadmitofareadysolution,and,inbothmoreandlessrigorousexpositions, Gregory’sTrinitariantheologyismarkedbyaconstitutiveambiguity,withone sidecomingfromhispositioninthepro-Melitian,three-hypostasestradition andtheotherarisingfromhisvariousstrategiesforspeakingofTrinitarian unity,includinghisglossingofthebaptismalformulawiththelanguageofa single “life-givingpower.”
ThisbookisastudyofthevarioustextsGregoryproducedandinsome casesperformedontheperplexingquestionsofChristiandoctrine.11 Inparticular,IfocusonwhatGregoryvariouslycalls “themystical[or ‘revealed’] dogmas” or “therationaleofthefaith”—thatis,thecreedanditsattendant questions.ThesequestionsrangefromthedivinityoftheSonandtheHoly Spirittotheunityofthethreehypostases,tothemysteryofChrist’sincarnation, passion,andresurrection.Mystudyiswrittenprimarilywithstudentsand scholarsofGregoryinmind andyetithardlyneedstobesaidthatthese textsarepertinenttothebroader fieldsoflateantiquityandpatristics,and Ihopemyconclusionswillspeaktothesewideraudiences.Whilescholars ofearlyChristianitywillbefamiliarwithmanyofthecontextualsources Icite,inanumberofcasesthepreciseconnectionsdrawnhereamongtexts andeventshavenotbeenexamined.
10 IntheinitialgenerationofcriticalscholarshiponGregory’sTrinitariantheology,the quarryingmethodwascommon:WilhelmMeyer, DieGotteslehredesGregorvonNyssa:Eine philosophischeStudieausderZeitderPatristik (HalleanderSaale:E.Karras,1894);Franz Diekamp, DieGotteslehredesheiligenGregorvonNyssa:EinBeitragzurDogmengeschichteder patristischenZeit (Münster:DruckderAschendorff ’schenBuchh.,1895);KarlHoll, AmphilochiusvonIkoniuminseinemVerhältniszudengrossenKappadoziern (TübingenandLeipzig: Mohr(Siebeck),1904).NotealsothesurveyofGregory’sunderstandingofdivinenamesby WaltherVölker: “ZurGotteslehreGregorsvonNyssa,” VigiliaeChristianae 9(1955):103–28. RecentsurveyaccountsbyAnatolios,Beeley,andBehrhelpfullytreattheworksseparatelyas theycreateaportraitofthecorpus’ theologyasawhole seeKhaledAnatolios, Retrieving Nicaea:TheDevelopmentandMeaningofTrinitarianDoctrine (GrandRapids,MI:Baker Academic,2011),157–240;ChristopherA.Beeley, TheUnityofChrist:ContinuityandConflict inPatristicTradition (NewHaven,CT,andLondon:YaleUniversityPress,2012),199–221;John Behr, TheNiceneFaith:TheFormationofChristianTheology,Volume2, Part2 (Crestwood,NY: SVSPress,2004),409–73.
11 Iamnotdiscussingtwodogmaticworksinthecorpus: AgainstAriusandSabellius,which iswidelyviewedasspurious,and TotheMonkPhilip,whichhasnotbeenwidelyaccepted, thoughitsauthenticityhasrecentlybeendefendedbyAnnaSilvas(Letters,225–6).
Aswillalreadybeclear,myassumptioninplacingtheseworkssidebyside (asopposed,forinstance,toselectingasingletextfordetailedcommentary throughout)is not thatthetextscontainasystemthattheinterpretercan reconstruct.Inmyview,suchasystematicpresumptionwasthemajor flawin theinitialgenerationofscholarlyworkonGregory’sTrinitariantheology,and itcontinuestoappearincertainkindsofscholarship.In1896,thegreat GermanCatholicpatristicsscholarandsystematicianFranzDiekamppublishedhisdissertation DieGotteslehredesheiligenGregorvonNyssa.For Diekamp,Gregory’smainsignificancelayinhisability,morethanany previousChristianwriter,toofferasystematicaccountoftheentiretyof Christian Wissenschaft.WhileGregoryemployedtheexactframeworkestablishedbyOrigen,hemanagedtocorrectthelatter’serrors.12 Atthesametime, heavoidedthe “rationalist” errorofEunomius,whoisreadasendorsinga “Neoplatonic” doctrinethatthehumanintellectcanknowthedivineessence.13 Inhisclassic1904monograph,whichinmanywayssettheagendaforthestudy ofCappadociantheology,KarlHollendorsedDiekamp’ssystematicinterpretationandpresentedhisownversionofit.LikeDiekamp,heseesGregoryasa systematicthinker(asinDiekamp,thesystemisconstructedbyexcerptsfroma hostofdiverseworks)andarguesthatthesystemisaimedatcorrectingOrigen andlikewisepaganspeculativemetaphysics.14 Whilethelanguageof “system” isnotasfashionabletodayasitwasattheturnofthetwentiethcentury,the conceptcreepsintocertainrecentaccounts.Take,forinstance,JohnBehr’ s excellentchapteronGregoryin TheNiceneFaith.Behr’sexpositionofvarious textsissuperb,butthesystematicfeatureappearsinhowhestitchessomeof theworkstogether forexample,inhisaccountofhow ToPeter and To Ablabius relatetootherworkssuchas AgainstEunomius 3.3,wherethe incarnateeconomyisthemainfocus.Thelogicaldistinctionsbetweensubstanceandhypostasisone findsintheformer,Behrsays,aresomehow preparatoryforthelatter,butthedistinctionbetweenthemisimportant: “Withthisscriptural ‘ grammar ’ inplace[thatis,from ToPeter and To Ablabius],wecannowturntoexaminewhatGregoryunderstandstobethe taskoftheology,thecontemplationoftheactivitybywhichGodismade known,specificallythatrevealedin ‘the prosopon oftheknowledgeofthe
12 Diekamp, DieGotteslehre,6: “DarinaberliegtdieHauptbedeutungdiesesLehrers,dasser esbesser,alsdieübrigenkirchlichenLehrerbisaufseineZeitverstandenhat,diegesamte christlicheWissenschaftsystematischaufzufassenunddasSystemmitvollerConsequenznach allenSeitenhinauszugestalten.Esitsfreilich,wiewirsehenwerden,imWesentlichendasselbe System,welchesdergeistvolleOrigenesgeschaffenhat.AberGregorhatesvervollkommnet;er hatmancheIrrthümerausgemerztunddemLehrgebäudegrössereEinheitundeinenruhigen, bestimmtenAbschlussgegeben.”
13 e.g.Diekamp, DieGotteslehre,55. 14 Holl, AmphilochiusvonIkonium,200–1.
Father,’ JesusChrist.”15 Accordingtothisformulation,then, ToPeter and To Ablabius arenotthemselvesworksoftheologybutmerelyprolegomenafor suchworks,andthissystematicorderingissomethinginGregory’smindas wellasinhismodernreader’s.Similarly,KhaledAnatolios,whoexplicitly andrepeatedlyspeaksofGregoryasarguing “systematically,” distinguishes Gregory’ s “Trinitarianfundamentaltheology,” whichheequateswithhis anti-Eunomianepistemology,fromhis “doctrineofGodasthree-personed Goodness.”16 NotunlikeBehr,Anatoliostoodescribes ToPeter asproviding “linguisticrules” for “scripturaltrinitariancontemplation.”17 Thepointhere isnottodisputethatparticularclaim(Idiscuss ToPeter intheExcursus).Itis rathertonotethatscholarlyreconstructionofasystematicarchitecturelinking diversetextsrunstherisksofartificialityandanachronism.
Incontrasttothesystematicapproach,Iwouldprefertothinkofmy readingofthecanonasliteraryandrhetoricalanalysisgroundedinasense oftheworks’ varioushistoricalcontexts.Icannotclaimthatsuchanapproach isimmunefromanyoftheproblemsofothermethods,buttheprocedureis intendedtokeepthefocusoneachwork’soriginalrhetoricalaims.By “literary, ” ImeanthatIaimtogiveatleastsomeaccounttothework’ssurface features theuseofimagery,metaphor,andthelike ratherthanimmediatelydivingintotheirconceptualdepths.Undoubtedly,mygesturesinthis directionaremerelyabeginning;aswewillsee,Gregory’sliterarystylesvary fromdidacticto florid,anditwouldbeimpossibletocommentonthestylistic featuresofeverytextdiscussedhere.Still,Iwishtoconveytheconvergenceof formandcontentinGregory’swritingsinthedoctrinalarea.By “rhetorical,” Imeanthatthroughselectcommentaries,IexaminehowGregorycarefully matchedargumentativeappealsandchainsofimagerytoeachwork’soccasion and skopos.JustassomeonelisteningattentivelytoGregoryonEpiphanyin 383wouldhavegraspedimmediately,treatmentsofdoctrinecomeinvarying forms,withvaryingdegreesofprecision.Thereaderofanyindividualpassage mustaboveallaskofwhatwholeitisapart,andhowtheaimsofthatwhole havegovernedthewritingofthispart.Thereisinfactachainhere,eachlinkof whichaffectstheinterpretationoftheothers:eachpassagemustbesetwithin thepartoftheworkinwhichitappears;eachpartmustbenestedwithinthe wholework;thewholeworkmustbesetwithinGregory’swidercorpus,andin
15 Behr, NiceneFaith,vol.2,435.IshouldadmitthatIhadmadeasimilarclaimaboutBasil: AndrewRadde-Gallwitz, BasilofCaesarea:AGuidetoHisLifeandDoctrine (Eugene,OR: Cascade,2012),71: “Likeanyrule,[thedifferentiationofthedivinehypostaseswithinthe commonsubstance]doesnotbyitselfformthe content oftheologicalreflection” (emphasisin original).Inolongerpresumethatonecanasreadilyseparatethatwhichistheologicalcontent fromthatwhichisnot.Still,itistellingthatBasilhasthesameambiguitythatIamarticulatingin Gregorybetween,ontheonehand,thedistinctionsofthethreehypostasesand,ontheother hand,theirinseparabilityinactivityandinhumanthoughtandworship.
16 Anatolios, RetrievingNicaea,158. 17 Ibid.,226.
particularmustbebroughtintodialoguewithanyworkswithrelevantparallels;andthentheseparallelworksmust,totheextentpossible,bereadagainst thebackdropoftheirparticularoccasionsandmoments.Ifthere is asystemto bediscovered,itliesinthestructureofagivenwork:thearrangement (οἰκονομία)andordering(τάξις, ἀκολουθία)thatGregory,withhisrhetorical training,usestounfoldhispoint.18 Someworksbearthissystematiccharacter moreobviouslythanothers,butlookingforthehingepointsinvariousworks willenableacarefuldialecticaldivisionoftextsintowholesandparts.Itismy hopethatbyattendingtoworks’ structures,convincingpatternsacrossthe workscanemerge.Itwillbeevidentthatacrucialmethodologicalprinciplefor thisstudyisthatparallelpassagesaretobestudiedsynoptically.Parallelsdo notalwaysprovideevidenceofsynchronicity,butoneoughttoaskwhatthey dotellus.
Itismycontentionthatsucharhetoricalandliteraryapproachconveysan intentionallyvariedcanonofwritings,andthatthereisatheologicalpointto thevariety.ThedivisionoforthodoxyfromheterodoxywasarguablydichotomousinthemindsofGregoryandhiscontemporaries,butthatdoesnot meanthattheadequacyofanygiventheologicalargumentwasanall-ornothingaffair.WhenGregorysaysinhisEpiphanyhomilythatheisnot aimingto “correcttheunderstandingofthefaith,” hislanguageisboth carefullychosenandambiguous.Thephrase ὁ
theunderstandingoraccountofthefaith iscommonacrossGregory’sworks.Itrefers minimallyandmostconcretelytothebaptismalformulataughtbyJesustohis disciplesandmaximallyandmostabstractlytoGregory’sowntheological elaborationofthatformula.Theelisionofthesetwo Christ’screedand Gregory’sownteaching isessentialtothetextsstudiedhere.Tocorrect (ἀπευθύνειν)thisformulaofcoursedoesnotmeanto fixsomeproblemin Jesus’ teaching,butrathertolayitoutinastraightline.Itisthesame metaphorastheconceptof “orthodoxy” itself namely,straightbelief and, interestinglyenough,onGregory’sownaccount,layingoutsuchastraightline is not whatheisdoinginthishomily.Bysayingthatsuchalignmentisnothis aiminthehomily,Gregoryimpliesthathisbriefdigression despiteor perhapsbecauseofitsillustrativeforce fallsshortofsuchaccuracy,which inturnintimatesthattherearedegreestodoctrinalprecision.Gregorywas oftenasinterestedinrefiningwhathetooktobeorthodoxdoctrineashewas inberatingandcondemningheretics.Thereisanelementofself-criticism here.Whilehedidnotapproachhisopponentswithanopenmind,hedid viewhisownexpressionswithsomemeasureofeditorialawareness.
18 SeeChristophKlock, UntersuchungenzuStilundRhythmusbeiGregorvonNyssa,Beiträge zurKlassischenPhilologie173(FrankfurtamMain:Athenäum,1987),160.
IfGregorywasnotinterestedincorrectingtherationaleofthefaithinthis homily,hecertainlywasinotherworks.OneimpetusforGregory’swriting camefromhisroleasanintellectuallygifted,principledpastorwhowas interpretingandreinterpretingthebaptismalformulathatheregardedas Jesus’ ownlegislationforthechurch’sbeliefandpractice.Still,thisinternal explanationgetsusonlysofar.Wemustalsoaskabouttheexternalcircumstanceswithinwhichtheworkswereproduced.Gregory’sdogmaticwritings embodythevicesofclassicalandlateancientrhetoric:excess,one-sidedness, andmaliciousinterpretation.Theyalsoexemplifyrhetoric’svirtues:topicality, persuasiveness,anddialectical “thinkingwith” theideasofothers.ItisimportantnottopresumethatGregory’sworkswereaddressingapre-populated fieldofquestionscomingfrom “theology” asweunderstandit,withoutasking whattheoccasionsoftheworkswere andhowGregoryendeavoredtospeak tojustexactlythesemoments.Theexemplarsoftherhetoricaltraditionare fullyappreciableonlywhenreadinlightofanoccasion,withallthetensions andanxietiesofthatparticularmoment.Imagine,totakeamodernexample, readingAbrahamLincoln’ s GettysburgAddress withnoknowledgeofthe AmericanCivilWar.Onecouldspeakaboutthephrasing,therhetorical tropes,thestudiedbrevityandreserveofthespeech,butitspowerwouldbe lostwithoutitssetting.Countlesssimilarhistoricalexamplessuggest themselves Pericles’ FuneralOrationwouldlosemuchwithoutThucydides’ History,andDemosthenes’ OntheCrown wouldsufferifweknewnothingof PhilipofMacedon’saggressionagainstAthens.Suchspeechescannot,of course,bereducedtopiecesofhistoricaldocumentation,butwithouta senseofcontext,realorimagined,wecouldnotappreciatetheirdistinctive features.ThecomparisonwithGregoryisnotacompletestretch;aswewill see,anumberofhistextswereperformedorally,andnotonlypublichomilies. Eventhoseworkswhichwereatleastostensiblyintendedforprivatereading areoftenframedintermsofsomeimmediatequestionoraccusationthat Gregorymustaddress.WemustthereforeaskwhataknowledgeofGregory’ s lifeandcircumstancesrevealsabouthisreasonsforwritingonChristian doctrine.
GREGORY ’ SLIFEANDCIRCUMSTANCESUPTO378
Gregory’sChristianfamilybelongedtotheprovincialaristocracyinPontus. HisfathertaughtrhetoricinNeocaesareaandthefamilyownedlandinthree provinces.Asthe fifthoftenchildren,nineofwhomsurvivedinfancy, Gregory’soldersiblingshadastronginfluenceonhim.SotoodidGregory’ s education.Whilewehavenodirectevidenceregardingtheplaceandthe natureofGregory’sstudies,itisclearthatheassimilatedGreekliteraryculture
well.Inone flatteringletteraddressedtothegreatoratorLibanius,Gregory impliesthathissoleteacherwashisbrotherBasil,whoseteacherinturnwas Libanius,whichmeansthatanyrhetoricalvirtuesGregorydisplaysaremerely reflectionsoftheaddressee’sskill.19 Ofcourse,itisnottruethatBasil’ssole teacherwasLibanius(thoughhelikelyattendedhimforsomeshortperiodin Constantinople),anditisnotcrediblethatGregorylearnedfromBasilalone. Herefers,forinstance,eveninthesamelettertohisownattendanceatthe lecturesofacertainmedicalexpert oneofthreesuchreferencesinhis corpus.TheclichéonesometimesencountersthatGregorywasnotformally educatedisbasedsolelyonthislone flatteringremarkandcannotbetreated seriously.Gregory’seducationalachievementscanbereadilyascertainedin variousways.Mostobviously,hiswritingscontaincitationsofandallusionsto worksbyHomer,Sophocles,Euripides,Plato,Aristotle,Isocrates,Demosthenes,andLucian.20 Hereferstothegrammarian’sinstructionanduses examplesfromsuchtextbooksasDionysiusThrax’s.HecitesAesop’sfables. Hemakeslearnedreferencestowhathelearnedfromabookofmedicalart. HeknowstextsofPlato(minimally Phaedo, Cratylus, Phaedrus, Republic,and Symposium)andAristotle(minimally Categories),andhasadoxographical graspoftheStoicsandEpicureans.HealsoreferstoandusestheworkofPhilo ofAlexandria.Thissummarymerelynamesthemostevidenttextualreferences,leavingasidedisputedsourcesforwhichcomplexinferentialjudgments mustbemade.Inadditiontocitationsofliterature,onecanobserveGregory’ s culturallevelinhiscorrespondence.Hissurvivingcorpusoflettersshowshim incontactnotonlywithLibaniusandwithcertainstudentsofeitherLibanius orsomeothergreatsophist,butalsowithothersophistsandpersonsofhigh stature.21 Thiskindofcorrespondenceoccupiesalarge,arguablydisproportionatepercentageofthesurvivingcorpus.SurelyGregorywrotemoreletters thanthetwenty-eightthatsurvive(andreceivedmorethanthetwointhe corpusthatareaddressedtohim).Ithasbeenspeculatedwithgoodreason, then,thatthesurvivingcorpusofletterswasselectedinparttoshowcase hisliteraryculture.22 Theimpressiongiveninthecorrespondence,then,is ofaculturedgentlemanwitharefinedcircleoffriends.Addedtothese
19 Epist. 13.4–6(GNOVIII.2,45.15–46.10;SC363,196–200).
20 Iomitreferencesheresincetheywouldbetoomanyandareaccessibleeitherincritical editionsofGregory’sGreektextsorinsubsequentpagesofthisbook.
21 Forcorrespondencewithsuchpersons(notincludingfellowbishops): Epist. 7(toHierius theGovernor),8(ToAntiochanus),9(ToStagirius),11and12(ToEupatriustheScholastic), 13and14(ToLibanius),15(ToJohnandMaximian),20(ToAdelphiustheScholasticus),21(To Ablabius),26(TheSophistStagiriustoGregory),and27(Gregory’sReplytoStagirius),and 28(Addresseeunnamed).
22 Onthe “secular” natureofthecorpus,seeSilvas, Letters,61andAndrewRadde-Gallwitz, “TheLetterCollectionofGregoryofNyssa,” inEdwardWatts,CristianaSogno,andBradStorin, eds., LateAntiqueLetterCollections:ACriticalIntroductionandReferenceGuide (Oakland,CA: UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2016),102–12,at106–9.
12 GregoryofNyssa’sDoctrinalWorks
observationsareGregory’sunmistakableuseofrhetoricalformsandselfconsciousdeploymentoftropesandstylisticelementscommontotherhetors oftheso-called “SecondSophistic.”23 Theworksstudiedinthisbookare inconceivableapartfromthisliteraryandrhetoricalculture,andwewillreturn tothispointinvariousplaces.
Ashasbeenoftenthecaseforhumanists,forGregoryandhisfamily, learnedculturewasintegrallyconnectedtopiety.Afterhisfather’sdeath,his eldestsiblingMacrinatransformedtheestateintoakindofdomesticmonastery,evenfreeingthedomesticservants.Afterherdeathin379,Gregorywould honorherinthreeofhiswritingsforhercommitmenttothephilosophicallife ofasceticdisciplineandindependence,courageinthefaceofgriefandher owndeath,learning,andargumentativeprowess.24 Gregory’sbrotherBasil wasalsoamodelforhim.MuchofGregory’stheologyexaminedinthisbook isdirectlyinspiredbyBasil.Basilreceivedasecularrhetoricaleducationbefore hisconversiontotheasceticlifeandultimatelyhisordinationtothepriesthood.BasilwasmadebishopofCappadocianCaesareain370.Houndedby Valens,aChristianemperorwhoopposedtheNicenefaith,Basilbuilta formidablenetworkofalliesthroughouttheregionwithwhomhecorrespondedregularly.Healsocreatednewbishoprics,installinghistalentedfriend GregoryasbishopofSasima thoughhenevertookupresidencethereandis knownintraditionbyhishometownofNazianzus andhisyoungerbrother GregoryasbishopofNyssa.(Throughoutthisstudy “Gregory” alonewillbe GregoryofNyssa;theotheronewillbeeither “GregoryofNazianzus” or “Nazianzen”.)Inhiswritings,Gregoryneverreflectstheresentmentathis treatmentbyBasilthatNazianzenobviouslyfelt.Theyoungerbrotheroften referstoBasilashisfather.Perhapsbeforehisbrothermadehimbishop, Gregorywrotehis firstsurvivingwork, OnVirginity,whichadvocatesamong otherthingsthemoderateasceticlifethatBasilpromoted.Italsoprovides evidencethatGregorywasmarried.Thisearlywork’sauthoristhoroughly immersedintheliberalarts,withornateencomiasticgesturesandlearned referencestomedicineandphilosophy.Healsohasthoughtdeeplyaboutthe Christianlifeasarebirth thatwhatisbornfromSpiritisSpirit inaugurated bytheeconomyofChrist’sincarnation.25 Thus,theguidingthemeofhis
23 SeetheclassicstudyofLouisMéridier, L’Influencedelasecondesophistiquesurl’ œuvrede GrégoiredeNysse (Paris:LibrairieHachette,1906)andKlock, UntersuchungenzuStilund Rhythmus.ForKlock’sreponsetoMeridier,see123–45.
24 Epist. 19; Macr.; An.etres.
25 FortheinterpretationofJohn3:6,see Virg. 13(GNOVIII.1,304.21–305.6).Thebirthin theSpiritpresumablyoccursatbaptism.Itsresultisthat “theSpiritstoresupthelife-giving powerinthosewhoareborn” (τὸ πνεῦ
). Althoughtheverb ἐναποτίθεται hereisapparentlychoseninpartasaplayontheverb “isborn alongwith” (συναποτίκτεται)usedearlierinthesentence,thesamelanguageisimportantin severalplacesthroughoutGregory’scorpusevenwherethispunisnotinview.SeeChapter3, p.12,n.66inthesection “GregoryofNyssaandPlato’ s Cratylus”.Fortheinauguratingroleof
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
