Modeling of Transmission Parts

Theophronius of Tyana’s creed (first creed) has θεὸν τέλειον ἐκ θεοῦ τελείου, καὶ ὄντα πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἐν ὑποστάσει.⁷⁶ The officially ratified creed (second creed) expounds Mt 28:19 the following way:

… obviously of the Father who is truly father, of the Son who is truly son, and of the Holy Spirit who is truly holy spirit, as those names are not given without meaning or function (οὐχ ἁπλῶς οὐδὲ ἀργῶς), but as accurately signifying the proper hypostasis, rank and glory of those named by them. Thus, they are three with respect to their hypostasis, but one with respect to their harmony (ὡς εἶναι τῇ µὲν ὑποστάσει τρία, τῇ δὲ συµφωνίᾳ ἕν).⁷⁷

One paragraph of the Ekthesis Makrostichos (345) runs:

For we know that he is not just God’s λόγος προφορικὸς or ἐνδιάθετος, but the living God-Logos existing by itself (καθ’ ἑαυτὸν ὑπάρχοντα), God’s Son and Christ, who accompanies and stays with his Father before eons and assists him in the entire creation of both visible and invisible things, yet not as a mere aspect of divine foreknowledge (οὐ προγνωστικῶς).⁷⁸

76 J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, Singapore³1972, 267 (Athanasius, De synodis 24; ed.

H.G. Opitz, Berlin 1940, 250).

77 Ibid., 269 (De synodis 23,5–7): καὶ εἰς τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ εἰς παράκλησιν καὶ ἁγιασµὸν καὶ τελείωσιν τοῖς πιστεύουσι διδόµενον, καθὼς καὶ ὁ κύριος ἡµῶν ᾽Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς διετάξατο τοῖς µαθηταῖς λέγων “πορευθέντες µαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνοµα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος”, δηλονότι πατρός, ἀληθῶς πατρὸς ὄντος, υἱοῦ δὲ ἀληθῶς υἱοῦ ὄντος, τοῦ δὲ ἁγίου πνεύµατος ἀληθῶς ἁγίου πνεύµατος ὄντος, τῶν ὀνοµάτων οὐχ ἁπλῶς οὐδὲ ἀργῶς κειµένων, ἀλλὰ σηµαινόντων ἀκριβῶς τὴν οἰκείαν ἑκάστου τῶν ὀνοµαζοµένων ὑπόστασίν τε καὶ τάξιν καὶ δόξαν, ὡς εἶναι τῇ µὲν ὑποστάσει τρία, τῇ δὲ συµφωνίᾳ ἕν.

78 Athanasius, De synodis 26,6; ed. Opitz, 253 (cf. Kelly, Creeds, 279 f.). Calling the Son λόγος προφορικὸς ἢ ἐνδιάθετος is again condemned in the eighth anathema of the second council of Sirmium (351) against Marcellus’ pupil Photinus (cf. De synodis 27,3; ed. Opitz, 255).

30 chapter two

Socrates’ text of the creed is already amplified by the gloss: ἀλλ’ ἐνυπόστα-τον Λόγον ὄντα τοῦ Πατρὸς, καὶ Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ.⁷⁹This glossator shows an accu-rate awareness of what the point of introducing this term into the trinitarian discussion was: It was an Origenist way to secure the apologetic Logos-terminology against its Marcellian ‘abuse’. The Word, wisdom and power of God is not a λόγος οἷος ὁ ἐν καρδίᾳ or a σοφία οἷα ἐν ψυχῇ ἀνθρώπου,⁸⁰but an eternal divine being ἐν ἰδίᾳ ὑποστάσει, acting αὐτοπροσώπως⁸¹from creation throughout the history of the world, reigning alongside the father without end. Thus, for the homeousians the Logos of Marcellus corresponds exactly to the ἀνυπόστατος ἐπιστήµη which the six bishops who subscribed to the Letter of Hymenaeus claimed Paul of Samosata’s Logos to resemble. Not surprisingly, they accused him and his pupil Photinus⁸²not only of Sabel-lianism, but also of Paulinianism and thus obviously made use—at least at the second council of Sirmium (351)—of anti-paulian documents like the Letter of Hymenaeus.⁸³A similar conservative position, very close to the Cappadocian compromise, can be found in Meletius of Antioch’s famous homily, which caused his deposition by the anti-nicene emperor Constan-tius II., but was not accepted by the Nicene Eustathians either. MeleConstan-tius confesses:

The Son is and is called Logos, but is not perceived as (mere) voice or word of the Father. For he subsists by himself (ὑφέστηκε γὰρ καθ’ ἑαυτὸν) and acts, and everything is through and in him. Similarly, he is wisdom and is perceived neither as (mere) thought of the Father nor movement or activity of his intellect, but as offspring of the father, equal to him and his accurate image.

For he is the one who was sealed by the Father, God himself, and he does

79 Historia ecclesiastica II, 19,17; ed. G.C. Hansen, Berlin 1995 (GCS NF 1), 115.

80 Epiphanius, Panarion 65,3,4 (GCS 37, 5) = Paul of Samosata, fr. 49 Loofs (“Paulus von Samosata”, 163).

81 Cf. Ekthesis makrostichos (De synodis 26,6; ed. Opitz, 253): ὁ καὶ τοῖς πατριάρχαις αὐτο-προσώπως ὀφθείς.

82 In the debate between him and Basil of Ancyra at Sirmium II (351), he said according to Epiphanius, Panarion 71,2 (GCS 37, 251): οὔπω δὲ ἦνhυἱός_i, λόγος δὲ ἦν, καθάπερ ἐν ἐµοὶ ὁ λόγος.

Accordingly, Epiphanius criticizes him in 71,3–5 exactly the way Eusebius argued against Marcellus claiming that God’s son and co-creator could neither be his λόγος ἐνδιάθετος nor προφορικός (cf. bel. on Epiphanius).

83 Cf. H. de Riedmatten, Les actes de Paul de Samosate. Étude sur la christologie du IIIe au IVe siècle, Fribourg 1952, 129–133. The consequence of this association of Marcellus, Photinus and Paul was a severely adulterated concept of Paul’s monarchianism which already in Epiphanius is barely distinguishable from Marcellus’ modalism; cf. ibid. 82–91 and R.M. Hübner, “Die Hauptquelle des Epiphanius (Panarion, haer. 65) über Paulus von Samosata: Ps-Athanasius, Contra Sabellianos”, in: ZKG 90 (1979), 55–74.

not inhere in something else, nor does he subsist by himself (οὐχ ἑτέρῳ µὲν ἐνυπάρχει, οὐχ ὑφέστηκε δὲ καθ’ ἑαυτόν), but is the active offspring who has created all this and always conserves it.⁸⁴

The creation of God’s wisdom (Prv 8:22) and the begetting of his Son (Ps 2:7) are complementary analogies: The Logos is not ἀνυπόστατός τε καὶ ἀνύπαρ-κτος like human wisdom, but ἐνυπόστατόν τε καὶ µόνιµον like a human son, a created natural entity; but neither is he heterogeneous to his source, like the product of a certain technical know-how, but a unique ‘reduplication’

of the Father, his only-begotten son, similar to him in every respect.⁸⁵ Of course the Marcellan party did not fail to react. Given that Marcellus himself is the author of the pseudo-Athanasian Expositio fidei,⁸⁶he even explicitly repudiates Eusebius’ reproaches saying:

We believe […] in one only-begotten Logos, wisdom, Son, begotten from the Father eternally and without beginning, not in a λόγος προφορικός, not in a logos ἐνδιάθετος, not in an outflow from the perfect one, not in a piece cut off from the impassible nature or an emanation, but in the Son perfect in himself, living and acting, the true image of the Father, equal to him in honour and glory.⁸⁷

Shortly before Marcellus’ death (ca. 371), the Marcellian party wrote an Expositio fidei to Athanasius seeking his support against Basil of Cesarea.

They still do not speak of three hypostases, but at least of a subsisting Triad:

84 Epiphanius, Panarion 73,30 (GCS 37, 305): καὶ ὅτι λόγος ἔστι τε καὶ λέγεταιhὁ_iυἱός, οὐ µὴν φωνὴ τοῦ πατρὸς οὐδὲ ῥῆµα νοεῖται. ὑφέστηκε γὰρ καθ’ ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἐνεργεῖ, καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα· ὥσπερ καὶ σοφία ὁ αὐτὸς ὢν οὐκ ἐνθύµηµα τοῦ πατρὸς νοεῖται, οὔτε κίνησις τοῦ ἡγεµονικοῦ καὶ ἐνέργεια, ἀλλὰ γέννηµα ὅµοιόν τε τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τὸν χαρακτῆρα τοῦ πατρὸς ἀκριβοῦν. τοῦτον γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἐσφράγισεν, ὁ θεός, καὶ οὐχ ἑτέρῳ µὲν ἐνυπάρχει, οὐχ ὑφέστηκε δὲ καθ’ ἑαυτό_hν_i, ἀλλὰ γέννηµά_hἐστιν_iἐνεργητικὸν καὶ πεποιηκὸς τόδε τὸ πᾶν καὶ φυλάττον ἀεί.

85 Ibid. 73,31 (p. 306 f.). The whole homily still makes a slightly subordinatianist impres-sion, when it calls the son λόγος καὶ σοφία καὶ δύναµις τοῦ ὑπὲρ σοφίαν καὶ δύναµιν, ὑπὲρ ὃ φθέγξασθαι δύναται γλῶττα, ὑπὲρ ὃ κινῆσαι διάνοια (ibid. 73,30; 305).

86 This was suggested by F. Scheidweiler (“Wer ist der Verfasser des sog. Sermo major de fide?”, in: BZ 47 [1954], [333–357] 356 f.) and discussed afterwards quite controversially.

The status quaestionis is presented comprehensively by K. Seibt, Die Theologie des Markell von Ankyra, Berlin/New York 1994 (AKG 59), 70–84, who intends to prove the Marcellian authorship of the document mainly from the exegesis of Prov 8,22–25 (ibid., 317–321).

87 Expositio fidei 1,2, in: Athanasiana I, ed. H. Nordberg, Helsinki/Helsingfors 1962, 49.

Although Sabellius is explicitly rejected in 2,2; ibid., 51 (οὔτε γὰρ υἱοπάτορα φρονοῦµεν ὡς οἱ Σαβέλλιοι λέγοντες µονοούσιον καὶ οὐχ ὁµοούσιον καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ἀναιροῦντες τὸ εἶναι υἱόν) the allegory of source and river in 2,4 conveys a modalist impression by calling father and son δύο σχήµατα καὶ δύο ὀνόµατα. Moreover, the son’s sessio ad dextram and reign without end is not mentioned a single time—a striking fact in texts with such a close relation to the creed.

32 chapter two

For we are confessing an eternal Father of an existing (ὄν) and subsisting (ὑφεστώς) eternal Son and an eternally existing and subsisting Holy Spirit, as we do not call the Triad ἀνυπόστατον, but conceive of it as ἐν ὑποστάσει.⁸⁸ Four years later, the Marcellian party confesses its orthodox faith to some bishops exiled in Egypt and finally condemns its master’s doctrine about God’s expansion and contraction, speaking openly of three subsisting real-ities in God:

We have not thought anything deviating from the Nicene […] faith, […] and pronounce accursed […] everyone who does not regard the holy Triad as three persons who are incomprehensible, ἐνυπόστατα, consubstantial, coeternal and perfect in themselves, just as we pronounce accursed those who call the Son an expansion, contraction or energy of the father, and those who do not confess the God-Logos, the Son of God to be from before the ages, coeternal with the Father and a son and god who is ἐνυπόστατος and perfect in himself.⁸⁹

When Socrates tells us that already Eustathius of Antioch had called the son ἐνυπόστατος καὶ ἐνυπάρχων in a controversy with Eusebius of Cesarea,⁹⁰ he probably rephrases the debate in his own terms, as such a friendly stance towards the hypostatical plurality in the homoousian party can-not be detected before the turning point of 362, when Athanasius’ Tomus ad Antiochenos provided the basis for a reconciliation between the Ori-genist three-hypostases theology and the Nicene ὁµοούσιος. According to the confession of the Meletians, the expression ‘three hypostases’ is accept-able,

because we believe in the Holy Trinity which is not only a triad by name, but a really existing and subsisting one (ἀληθῶς οὖσαν καὶ ὑφεστῶσαν), a really existing and subsisting Father, a really substantially existing and subsist-ing (ἀληθῶς ἐνούσιον ὄντα καὶ ὑφεστῶτα) Son, and a subsistsubsist-ing and existsubsist-ing (ὑφεστὼς καὶ ὑπάρχον) Holy Spirit.

88 Expositio 2,4; in: M. Tetz, “Markellianer und Athanasios von Alexandrien. Die markel-lianische Expositio fidei ad Athanasium des Diakons Eugenios von Ankyra”, in: ZNW 64 (1973), (75–121) 79,29–32.

89 Epiphanius, Panarion 72,11 (GCS 37, 265 f.): οὔτε φρονοῦµεν οὔτε πεφρονήκαµέν τί ποτε ἐκτὸς τῆς κατὰ Νίκαιαν ὁρισθείσης οἰκουµενικῆς καὶ ἐκκλησιαστικῆς πίστεως, ἥνπερ ὁµολογοῦµεν

† δυνάµει ταύτην φρονεῖν, ἀναθεµατίζοντες τοὺς τολµῶντας κτίσµα λέγειν_hτὸν υἱὸν ἢ_iτὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον, καὶ τὴν ᾽Αρειανὴν αἵρεσιν καὶ Σαβελλίου καὶ Φωτεινοῦ καὶ Παύλου τοῦ Σαµοσατέως, καὶ τοὺς µὴ λέγοντας τὴν ἁγίαν τριάδα τρία πρόσωπα ἀπερίγραφα καὶ ἐνυπόστατα καὶ ὁµοούσια καὶ συναΐδια καὶ αὐτοτελῆ, ἀναθεµατίζοντες δὲ καὶ τοὺς πλατυσµὸν ἢ συστολὴν ἢ ἐνέργειαν τοῦ πατρὸς τὸν υἱὸν λέγοντας, καὶ τοὺς τὸν θεὸν λόγον τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, προαιώνιον καὶ συναΐδιον τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ἐνυπόστατον καὶ αὐτοτελῆ υἱὸν καὶ θεὸν µὴ ὁµολογοῦντας.

90 Historia ecclesiastica I, 23,8 (GCS NF 1, 70).

Accordingly, the reply of the Eustathians admits that ‘one hypostasis’

is possible, if it is not intended as an “abolition of the Son and the Holy Spirit, as if the Son was unsubstantial (ἀνούσιος) or the Holy Spirit without hypostasis (ἀνυπόστατος)”.⁹¹This turning point removed every obstacle for a mainstream reception of the Origenist term ἐνυπόστατος in trinitarian theology, as it emerges esp. in Pseudo-Athanasius, Didymus the Blind and later on in Cyril of Alexandria, partly also in John Chrysostom.⁹²

2.2. The Establishment of the Technical Usage