“I Will Pour Out My Spirit”: Didymus against Eunomius in Light of John 16:14’s History of Reception
In: Vigiliae ChristianaeSearch for other papers by Kellen Plaxco in
Current site
Google Scholar
This article provides an account of Didymus the Blind’s subtle attention to theological nuance and invites readers to reconsider his importance for the theological debates of the late fourth century. The polemical shape of Didymus’s theology of the trinity is underdetermined. This article argues that Didymus responded to Eunomius’s first Apology. The argument takes the shape of a short history of the reception of John 16:14. This verse was used in anti-monarchian tradition to distinguish the Holy Spirit from the Son, but it also led to low pneumatologies that in some cases implied angelomorphic pneumatology. Eunomius’s pneumatology in Apology 25 is a radicalization of this anti-monarchian reading of John 16:14, which Didymus opposed with careful attention to Scripture’s usage of terms for “pouring out.”
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
20
Origen, HomGen 9.1. Hebrews 6:17 states: “ . . . when God desired to show even more clearly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose (τὸ ἀµετάθετον τῆς βουλῆς αὐτοῦ), he guaranteed it by an oath.” Didymus would agree with Origen’s interpretation of Hebrews. In the Commentary on Zechariah (e.g., i, 183), Didymus states that the reason those who are thirsty can drink and be filled by the Son is that the Son is immutable: “Anyone coming to him drinks, you see, for the reason that his position is immovable.” It is the Son’s constancy that enables him to be a divine source.
-
28
See Michel Barnes, “The Beginning and End of Early Christian Pneumatology,” Augustinian Studies 39:2 (2008), 169-86, at 184-86, for a discussion of “ordering” the Trinity as a distinctive anti-monarchian tactic.
-
40
Origen, Jo. 2.127. Ὅτι µὲν γὰρ καὶ αὐτὸ αὐτῷ µαθητεύεται, σαφὲς ἐκ τοῦ λεγοµένου περὶ παρακλήτου καὶ ἁγίου πνεύµατος• “ Ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἐµοῦ λήψεται, καὶ ἀναγγελεῖ ὑµῖν.” Εἰ δὲ µαθητευόµενον πάντα χωρεῖ, ἃ ἐνατενίζων τῷ πατρὶ ἀρχόµενος ὁ υἱὸς γινώσκει, ἐπιµελέστερον ζητητέον.
-
42
Novatian, Trin. 16.3: Sed si a christo accepit quae nuntiet, maior ergo iam paracleto christus est, quoniam nec paracletus a christo acciperet, nisi minor christo esset (ccsl 4). fotc, DeSimone trans., 62.
-
44
Eusebius, Eccl. theol. 3.4.2-3; Spoerl trans. εἰ τοίνυν ὁ λόγος φαίνοιτο ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐξελθὼν καὶ πρὸς ἡµᾶς ἐληλυθώς, τὸ δὲ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον, ὡς καὶ Ἀστέριος ὡµολόγησεν, παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, αὖθίς τε ὁ σωτήρ φησιν περὶ τοῦ πνεύµατος ὅτι “οὐκ ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ λαλήσει, ἀλλ’ὅσα ἀκούσει λαλήσει, καὶ τὰ ἐρχόµενα ἀναγγελεῖ ὑµῖν. ἐκεῖνός µε δοξάσει, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἐµοῦ λήψεται καὶ ἀναγγελεῖ ὑµῖν”, οὐ σαφῶς καὶ φανερῶς ἐνταῦθα ἀπορρήτῳ δὲ λόγῳ ἡ µονὰς φαίνεται, πλατυνοµένη µὲν εἰς τριάδα, διαιρεῖσθαι δὲ µηδαµῶς ὑποµένουσα;
-
45
Eusebius, Eccl. theol. 3.4.9; Spoerl trans.: ὁ δὲ µονογενὴς υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐξεληλυθέναι ἑαυτὸν διδάσκει διὰ τὸ συνεῖναι αὐτῷ πάντοτε, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον δὲ πνεῦµα ὁµοίως ἕτερον ὑπάρχον παρὰ τὸν υἱόν. ὃ δὴ σαφῶς αὐτὸς ὁ σωτὴρ παρίστησιν λέγων “ἐκ τοῦ ἐµοῦ λήψεται καὶ ἀναγγελεῖ ὑµῖν.” ἄντικρυς γὰρ παραστατικὸν ἂν εἴη τοῦτο τοῦ µὴ εἶναι ἓν καὶ ταὐτὸν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦµα• τὸ γὰρ παρ’ ἑτέρου λαµβάνον τι ἕτερον παρὰ τὸν διδόντα νοεῖται.
-
47
Eusebius, Eccl. theol. 3.5.2-3; Spoerl trans. τὸ δὲ διδόναι αὐτὸν τὸ πνεῦµα πάλιν ἕτερον αὐτὸν παρίστη τοῦ διδοµένου• οὐκ ἂν γὰρ ὁ αὐτὸς ἦν ὁ διδοὺς καὶ τὸ διδόµενον, ἀλλ’ ὁ µὲν παρέχων ἦν ὁ σωτήρ, τὸ δὲ διδόµενον τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦµα, οἱ δὲ λαµβάνοντες οἱ ἀπόστολοι, τὸ δ’ ἐµφύσηµα καθαρτικὸν ὡς ἔφην τῶν ἀποστόλων ἢ καὶ ἐνεργητικὸν τῆς µεταδόσεως τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος, ἑκατέρως γὰρ νοεῖν δυνατόν.
-
49
Eusebius, Eccl. theol. 3.5.17-19; Spoerl trans. αὐτὸς ὁ σωτὴρ τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον ἕτερον ὑπάρχειν παρ’ ἑαυτὸν ἐδίδαξεν, τιµῇ µὲν καὶ δόξῃ καὶ πρεσβείοις ὑπερέχον καὶ κρεῖττον καὶ ἀνώτερον πάσης τῆς νοερᾶς καὶ λογικῆς τυγχάνον οὐσίας (διὸ καὶ συµπαρείληπται τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ τρισµακαρίᾳ τριάδι), ὑποβεβηκός γε µὴν [εἶναι] αὑτοῦ. ὃ δὴ παρίστη εἰπὼν “οὐ γὰρ ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ λαλήσει, ἀλλ’ ὅσα ἀκούσει λαλήσει”• παρὰ τίνος δὲ ἀκούσει, διασαφεῖ λέγων “ἐκ τοῦ ἐµοῦ λήψεται καὶ ἀναγγελεῖ ὑµῖν”, ἐκ τοῦ ἐµοῦ δηλαδὴ θησαυροῦ• ἐν αὐτῷ γάρ “εἰσιν πάντες οἱ θησαυροὶ τῆς σοφίας καὶ γνώσεως ἀπόκρυφοι”. αὐτὸς µὲν οὖν ἅτε υἱὸς µονογενὴς παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς λαµβάνει καὶ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀκούει, τὸ δὲ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον παρ’ αὐτοῦ χορηγεῖται• διό φησιν “ἐκ τοῦ ἐµοῦ λήψεται καὶ ἀναγγελεῖ ὑµῖν”.
-
51
Eusebius, Eccl. theol. 3.5.21; Spoerl trans. ἀλλὰ γὰρ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος ἑτέρου ὄντος παρὰ τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱόν, τὸ ἰδίωµα παριστὰς ὁ σωτὴρ κέκληκεν αὐτὸ παράκλητον, τὸ κοινὸν τῆς ὁµωνυµίας ἀφορίζων διὰ τῆς τοῦ παρακλήτου προσηγορίας, ἐπεὶ καὶ αἱ ἀγγελικαὶ δυνάµεις εἶεν ἂν πνεύµατα• “ὁ” γὰρ “ποιῶν τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὑτοῦ πνεύµατα” εἴρηται. ἀλλ’ οὐδὲν τούτων ἐξισοῦσθαι δύναται τῷ παρακλήτῳ πνεύµατι. διὸ τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ τρισµακαρίᾳ τριάδι . . . The “individuality” (idioma) of the Spirit’s hypostasis derives from Origen’s Commentary on John, and it is later emphasized by Eunomius in Apol. 25.17. Eunomius describes the Spirit as “having his own existence” (ἰδίαν ἔχον ὑπόστασιν).
-
55
See Raoul Mortley, From Word to Silence II: The way of negation, Christian and Greek (Bonn: Hanstein, 1986), 128-59.
-
56
Eunomius, Apol. 25.22-24: ἀλλὰ τρίτον καὶ φύσει καὶ τάξει, προστάγµατι τοῦ πατρός, ἐνεργείᾳ δὲ τοῦ υἱοῦ γενόµενον, τρίτῃ χώρᾳ τιµώµενον ὡς πρῶτον καὶ µεῖζον πάντων καὶ µόνον τοιοῦτον τοῦ µονογενοῦς ποίηµα . . .
-
57
See Origen, Jo. 2.73-75, here at 2.75: τὸ πάντων διὰ τοῦ λόγου γενοµένων τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦµα πάντων εἶναι τιµιώτερον καὶ τάξει πρῶτον πάντων τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς διά Χριστοῦ γεγενηµένων.
-
62
Origen, Jo. 2.76: . . . ἔοικε τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦµα διακονοῦντος αὐτοῦ τῇ ὑποστάσει, οὐ µόνον εἰς τὸ εἶναι ἀλλὰ καὶ σοφὸν εἶναι καὶ λογικὸν καὶ δίκαιον καὶ πᾶν ὁτιποτοῦν χρὴ αὐτὸ νοεῖν τυγχάνειν κατὰ µετοχὴν τῶν προειρηµένων ἡµῖν Χριστοῦ ἐπινοιῶν.
-
65
John Whittaker, “Proclus, Procopius, Psellus, and the Scholia on Gregory Nazianzen,” Vigiliae Christianae 29 (1975), 309-313, at 1. See Enn. 5.2.11. Though Plotinus only used the term ὑπερερρύη here, the usage caught the eye of many commentators and enjoyed widespread later influence in the Platonic tradition. Gregory Nazianzen appears to have known this particular line in the Enneads, if not others. See, famously, Or. 29.2.
-
71
See Alasdair Heron, “The Holy Spirit in Origen and Didymus the Blind: A Shift in Perspective from the Third to the Fourth Century,” in Kerygma und Logos, ed. by Adolf Martin Ritter (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979) 298-310.
-
79
Didymus, Spir. 56; note the similarity between Rufinus’s translation of Origen and Jerome’s translation of Didymus. Rufinus’s Origen describes the angels as conuertibiles, and Jerome’s Didymus states that the Holy Spirit is inconuertibile. That Didymus has swayed Rufinus’s translation of Origen is a tantalizing prospect.
-
82
Didymus, Spir. 55; DelCogliano, Radde-Gallwitz, Ayres 13. Capabilem substantiam uocat, quae capiatur a plurimis et eis sui consortium tribuat; capacem uero eam quae communicatione substantiae alterius impleatur, et capiens aliud, ipsa non capiatur ab alio.
-
84
Didymus, Spir. 50. Cf. Didymus, Spir. 34: “Therefore, whoever fills all creatures, at least those which are able to participate in power and wisdom, is not one of those whom he himself fills. It must be concluded from this that his nature is different from that of all creatures.” This is a form of an argument that, whatever else might be said of the Holy Spirit, it differs substantially from creatures.
-
86
Vaggione trans., 69. Rist (1981) does not notice the reference.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 242 | 27 | 11 |
| Full Text Views | 186 | 6 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 78 | 11 | 1 |
“I Will Pour Out My Spirit”: Didymus against Eunomius in Light of John 16:14’s History of Reception
In: Vigiliae ChristianaeSearch for other papers by Kellen Plaxco in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
This article provides an account of Didymus the Blind’s subtle attention to theological nuance and invites readers to reconsider his importance for the theological debates of the late fourth century. The polemical shape of Didymus’s theology of the trinity is underdetermined. This article argues that Didymus responded to Eunomius’s first Apology. The argument takes the shape of a short history of the reception of John 16:14. This verse was used in anti-monarchian tradition to distinguish the Holy Spirit from the Son, but it also led to low pneumatologies that in some cases implied angelomorphic pneumatology. Eunomius’s pneumatology in Apology 25 is a radicalization of this anti-monarchian reading of John 16:14, which Didymus opposed with careful attention to Scripture’s usage of terms for “pouring out.”
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 242 | 27 | 11 |
| Full Text Views | 186 | 6 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 78 | 11 | 1 |