The rise of Christian theology and the end of ancient metaphysics : patristic philosophy from the Cappadocian Fathers to John of Damascus

336 Pages·2020·1.657 MB·English

by  Johannes Zachhuber

OUPCORRECTEDAUTOPAGEPROOFS–FINAL,16/4/2020,SPi
The Rise of Christian Theology and
the End of Ancient Metaphysics
OUPCORRECTEDAUTOPAGEPROOFS–FINAL,16/4/2020,SPi
OUPCORRECTEDAUTOPAGEPROOFS–FINAL,16/4/2020,SPi
The Rise of Christian
Theology and the End of
Ancient Metaphysics
Patristic Philosophy from the Cappadocian
Fathers to John of Damascus
JOHANNES ZACHHUBER
1
OUPCORRECTEDAUTOPAGEPROOFS–FINAL,16/4/2020,SPi
3
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP,
UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship,
andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof
OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©JohannesZachhuber2020
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2020
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin
aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe
priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted
bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics
rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe
aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe
addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform
andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress
198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2019954007
ISBN 978–0–19–885995–6
PrintedandboundinGreatBritainby
ClaysLtd,ElcografS.p.A.
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand
forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials
containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
OUPCORRECTEDAUTOPAGEPROOFS–FINAL,16/4/2020,SPi
1
Introduction
The Christian writers of late antiquity are famous for their foundational and
decisive contribution to the formation of the Church’s teaching. Rarely has it
been recognized, however, that they also pursued an ambitious and exciting
philosophical project alongside their engagement in the doctrinal controversies
oftheirage.Inthisbook,IwillforthefirsttimeofferafullanalysisofthisPatristic
philosophy.Iwillshowhowittookitsdistinctiveshapeinthelatefourthcentury
and give an account of its subsequent development until the time of John of
Damascus. In this Introduction, I will outline the approach taken, explain the
selection of authors that will be examined, and give a précis of my overall
argument.
1.1 Patristic Thought as Christian Philosophy
For a long time, early Christian thought has been connected with ancient phil-
osophy mainly in order to explore its sources and to show how the Fathers
depended on the insights of pagan thinkers from Plato and Aristotle in the
classicalperiod,toPlotinusandProclusinlateantiquity.¹Scholarswhodisagreed
with this assessment would do so by emphasizing the incompatibility between
ChristianfaithandGreekphilosophywhetherwithaviewtocensureChristianity
foritslackofrationalityortoinsistonitsgenuinelyreligiouscharacter.²
Morerecently,scholarsofbothhistoricaltheologyandancientphilosophyhave
rightly challenged the stark dichotomy of Patristic thought and ancient philoso-
phy that underlay either of these traditional approaches. Instead, Christian
authors have increasingly been treated as part of the late antique intellectual
world and as philosophers in their own right. In this vein, Patristic accounts of
creation, forexample,havesuccessfully beenreconstructed inthecontextoflate
ancient philosophical cosmologies rather thanan entirely separate undertaking.³
¹ Classical treatments along those lines include Chadwick (1966); Armstrong/Markus (1960);
Ivanka(1964).
² FortheviewthatChristianitywasunduly‘hellenized’throughtheinfluenceofpaganphilosophy
cf. Harnack (1976). The case for Christianity as an anti-intellectual force has most recently been
restatedinNixey(2017).
³ E.g.Köckert(2009);Karamanolis(2014),ch.2.
TheRiseofChristianTheologyandtheEndofAncientMetaphysics:PatristicPhilosophyfromtheCappadocianFathersto
JohnofDamascus.JohannesZachhuber,OxfordUniversityPress(2020).©JohannesZachhuber.
DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198859956.001.0001
OUPCORRECTEDAUTOPAGEPROOFS–FINAL,16/4/2020,SPi
2     
Christian views of the soul, of time, or of the will have similarly been treated
alongsidethoseheldbytheirnon-Christianphilosophicalpeers.⁴
TheaccountIwillgiveinthisstudyfollowsthistrajectoryyetextendsittothe
very heart of Christian theology. The philosophy whose history will here be
recounted is found directly in texts engaging with the central doctrines of the
ChristianChurch,namely,theTrinityandChristology.Thisraiseswide-ranging
and fundamental questions of terminology, method, and the disciplinary cast of
thepresentstudy.Howcandoctrinalquestionsyieldphilosophicalinsightsgiven
that they are based on authoritative decisions taken at the institutional level,
usually by synods and councils? Conversely, if philosophical categories are used
toanalysedoctrinaldebatesinlateantiquity,whatroomdoesthisleavefortheir
claimthattheyreflectdivinerevelation?
Partofmyanswertoquestionsofthiskindiscontainedintheverylanguageof
Patristic or Christian philosophy which will be employed throughout this study.
Itsmainpurposeistostemthedualistictendencyinherentintheconventionaluse
of theology and philosophy as quasi-disciplinary designators. It is important to
recall that this distinction has its origin in the medieval university with separate
faculties of philosophy and theology.⁵ Since then, it has become seemingly self-
evidentandis,therefore,appliedtohistoricalresearchonearlierperiodsaswell.It
is,however,anillfitforthefirstmillennium.Whilepaganintellectualsoftendid
notthinkhighlyofChristianity,theyfounditnaturaltoclassifyitasaphilosophy,
albeit an inferior one, rather than as religion.⁶ The new faith was simply too
different from traditional Greek or Roman cults. Christian writers, too, often
referredtotheirownactivityasphilosophy,usuallyqualifiedastruephilosophy,
truewisdom,ortrueknowledge.⁷
It is therefore arguable that the emerging intellectual culture of late ancient
Christianitycanbeconceptualizedasakindofphilosophywithinthelateancient
contextofapluralityofphilosophicalschools.⁸Itsrelationshiptothephilosophies
ofPlatonismorStoicismwillthenappearanalogoustotheonethoseschoolshad
amongsteachother.Dependenceandcritique,polemicalrejectionandtheaccept-
ance of shared principles will no longer appear mutually exclusive or even
contradictory.Moreimportantlyperhaps,noneofthoseobservationswillinitself
feed ideological narratives of Christianity as an anti-philosophical force or,
indeed,of‘hellenization’asabetrayalofthepurityofthegospel.
⁴ Cf.Karamanolis(2014).Seealsoesp.onthesoul:Ramelli(2007);ontime:Sorabji(1983);onthe
will:Frede(2012).
⁵ Cf.Geyer(1964);Pannenberg(1973),11–12.Fortheuseoftheologiainantiquitycf.theoverview
inMarkschies(2015),ch.1.
⁶ Cf.e.g.Galen,Plat.dial.comp.(150Kopf).
⁷ Fordetailedreferencessee:Bardy(1949).Forafullaccountofthetransformationoftheterm
‘philosophy’duringthisperiodcf.Malingrey(1961).
⁸ Zachhuber(2020a).
OUPCORRECTEDAUTOPAGEPROOFS–FINAL,16/4/2020,SPi
 3
ThisnotionofPatristictheologyasaphilosophicalschoolbecomesevenmore
plausiblewhenthespecificcharacterofancientphilosophyistakenintoaccount:
itsacceptanceofauthoritativetextsanditspracticeofcommentingonthem;⁹its
institutionalization in schools whose heads derived their authority by direct
descent (diadoche) from the school’s founder;¹⁰ its embeddedness in a specific
formofethicalexistence,asinfluentiallyemphasizedbyPierreHadot.¹¹Inother
words,whileitmayseemcounterintuitivetodaytoconsiderChristianthoughtasa
philosophy,lateancientphilosophy,aspointedoutbyArthurDarbyNockmany
yearsago,wouldstrikeamodernobserverasrathersimilartothekindofreligion
thathasdominatedtheWestforthepast1500years.¹²
In this sense, Patristic thought as a whole can be identified as Christian
philosophy. In the present book, however, the term Christian or Patristic phil-
osophywillgenerallybetakeninamorerestrictedsensesignifyingasetoflogical
andontologicalconceptsunderlyingthearticulationofdoctrinalstatements.Such
a philosophical system can be found in the Eastern Fathers from the end of the
fourth century. These theories, then, are not themselves doctrinal; they can be
appreciated or indeed critiqued independently of the affirmation of the doctrine
they are meant to support. Thus far, they can be understood as properly philo-
sophical. And yet, the argumentative purpose for which they were developed
clearly influenced their shape. As philosophies, they were from the outset
inscribed into the intellectual attempt to give a reasoned account of the
Christianfaithas expressedthrough anumberof credaland doctrinal formulae.
In this sense, these intellectual systems can be understood as Christian philoso-
phies.As willbecome apparent, a considerable numberof Patristic authors took
seriously the need to underpin their doctrinal standpoint by such a system of
termsandconcepts.Itisthestoryoftheirworkthatwillbetoldinthisbook.
Howcantheriseofthisphilosophybeexplainedandunderstood?Onemajor
factor,undoubtedly,wasthedecisionoftheCouncilFathersofthefourthandfifth
centuriestoadoptfortheformulationofthemostcentraldoctrinesofChristianity
termsthatcouldnotbefoundintheBibleor,atleast,werenotusedinitinany
technical sense. As soon as central tenets of the Christian faith were defined
throughwordssuchasousia,physis,andhypostasis,theexposition,justification,
and defence of these doctrines had to resort to definitions and arguments of an
increasinglytechnicalnature.
Importantthoughtheseinstitutionaldecisionswere,itisarguablethatanother
factorwasequallyinfluentialinensuringtheemergenceofPatristicphilosophyas
described above. Doctrines are often considered as static affirmations of certain
⁹ Betegh(2011),26–8;Sorabji(1990),1–30;Finamore/Johnston(2011).
¹⁰ Campenhausen(1963),esp.175.
¹¹ Hadot(1995).Cf.Hadot(2004),240forhisinterpretationofancientChristianityasphilosophyin
thissense.
¹² Nock(1933).IamgratefultoProf.MarkEdwardswhomademeawareofNock’sbook.
OUPCORRECTEDAUTOPAGEPROOFS–FINAL,16/4/2020,SPi
4     
truths;traditionaltheologyconsideredthemasdivinelyrevealed,whereashistor-
ianstendtothinkofthemasimposedbyinstitutionalauthority.Theverywords
‘doctrine’ or ‘dogma’ to us suggest rigidity and inflexibility. Such a perception
overlooks,however,thatthedoctrinesoflateancientChristianitywerenotsimply
promulgated and accepted but fiercely debated, rejected, and defended. A major
space,therefore,inwhichphilosophicaldevelopmentoccurredwasinthedebates
and controversies about doctrine that were such a central part of Christian
literaturethroughouttheperiodcoveredinthisbook.
In other words, Christian authors could not avoid embedding their doctrinal
confessions about the Trinity and of the Person of Jesus Christ into a termino-
logical and conceptual system whose validity did not directly depend on the
acceptance of these doctrines, because they were faced by opponents unwilling
to accept their own dogmatic formula. The trinitarian controversy of the fourth
century was therefore the incubator for the first and most influential version of
this Patristic philosophy. Subsequently, it was largely the debate about
Christology,whichstubbornlycontinuedforcenturies,thatstimulatedconceptual
clarificationsandmodificationsoftheoriginalfourth-centurytheory.
Recognizing the importance of doctrinal polemics for the development of
Patristicphilosophy inevitably highlights theextentto which itshistory wasone
of unintended consequences. Wide-reaching philosophical decisions concern-
ing, for example, the status of universals or the constitution of the individual
being, were often caused by the need to find rationalizations for a doctrinal
position an author simply had to defend. As we shall see, this was particularly
thecaseforsixth-centuryChalcedonianswhostruggledtojustifytheunpopular
formula of the Council of Chalcedon against a barrage of well-articulated
criticisms and in doing so became rather innovative and inventive in their
philosophicalideas.
In line with the often-haphazard character of philosophical developments
among Patristic authors is the observation of the plurality of forms it assumed.
Those scholars who have treated Patristic thought as part of the history of
philosophy have usually seen it as one or, at least, as converging towards one
unified vision in line with the supposed unity of Christian doctrine emerging
during this historical epoch. In reality, its plurality rapidly increased as the
centurieswenton,andthereisnoindicationthatbythetimethepresentaccount
comes toits close this tendencyhad come to a halt.The primary reason for this
increasingpluralizationwasthefragmentationofEasternChristianityduringthis
epoch, as the attempt to settle the Christological controversy through doctrinal
formulae led to the permanent establishment of rival ecclesiastical communities
across the Eastern Mediterranean. Yet even Chalcedonian attempts to develop a
philosophicalvisioninlinewiththelanguagemandatedbytheCouncilof451did
not result in unanimity but in several, rather different but equally fascinating
philosophies.
OUPCORRECTEDAUTOPAGEPROOFS–FINAL,16/4/2020,SPi
 5
Despite this plurality, some major patterns will emerge from the analysis of
these developments. There is a venerable tradition in philosophical historiog-
raphy, most prominently represented by G. W. F. Hegel, that has assigned
philosophical significance to the doctrinal development of late antiquity on the
grounds that doctrine itself was philosophical.¹³ More recently, it has been the
claim ofEasternOrthodoxthinkerssuch as Vladimir Lossky andJohnZizioulas
thatPatristicthinkersbroughtaboutanontologicalrevolutionwhilearticulating
thedoctrineoftheTrinityinparticular.¹⁴
Whiletheapproachinthisstudywillberatherdifferentfromthese,theoverall
result will partly converge with such earlier assessments. I will show that by the
end of the Patristic period philosophical ideas had been generated that were far
away fromconsensusviewsthatprevailedamong mostpaganphilosophers.The
term ‘ontological revolution’, thus far, is not far-fetched. Yet the revolutionary
philosophyisnotthefourth-centurysystemestablishedbyBasilofCaesareaand
GregoryofNyssa,asLosskyandZizioulasopined;rather,itwastheChristological
controversythatledChristianthinkerstotheadoptionofincreasinglyinnovative
intellectualassumptions.
1.2 From the Cappadocians to John of Damascus
TheparticularapproachtoPatristicphilosophytakeninthisbookdeterminesits
chronologicalscope.Thereisno doubtthatChristianwriters prior tothefourth
centuries can legitimately be classed as philosophers; in fact, thinkers such as
Justin Martyr and Origen who operated as independent teachers, may more
plausibly be compared to contemporaneous philosophers than their later des-
cendants in the fourth or sixth centuries.¹⁵ Histories of Patristic philosophy
therefore rightly begin with these thinkers or, even earlier, with the Gnostic
schools of the second century.¹⁶ Important works have even restricted their
scopeofenquirytothefirstthreecenturiesonthegroundsthatChristianthought
during this period was less impacted by external, political pressures than during
theensuingageofstate–churchalliance.¹⁷
YethoweverphilosophicalearlierFathersmayhavebeen,itisarguablethatasa
distinctiveandrecognizableentityChristianphilosophyonlyemergedintheEast
at the end of the fourth century. As such, it owes its existence to the so-called
¹³ Cf.Hodgson(2005).
¹⁴ Lossky(1944),27;Zizioulas(2004),36:‘WhatdoesitmeantosaythatGodisFather,Sonand
SpiritwithoutceasingtobeoneGod?Thehistoryofthedisputeswhichbrokeoutonthisgreattheme
[...]includesaphilosophicallandmark,arevolutioninGreekphilosophy.Thisrevolutionisexpressed
historicallythroughanidentification:theidentificationofthe“hypostasis”withthe“person”.’
¹⁵ ForJustinasaphilosophercf.hisDial.1–9(90–101Goodspeed).ForOrigen,cf.Ep.adGreg.1
(40,10–41,6Koetschau).
¹⁶ NotablyMoreschini(2004). ¹⁷ Karamanolis(2014),27.
OUPCORRECTEDAUTOPAGEPROOFS–FINAL,16/4/2020,SPi
6     
Cappadocian theologians, Basil ofCaesarea,Gregory ofNazianzus, and Gregory
ofNyssa.¹⁸Thesethree,andespeciallyBasilandGregoryofNyssa,integratedtheir
proposedsettlementtothetrinitariancontroversy intoaninnovativeandclearly
defined set of terms and concepts. On this basis, they spoke of the Trinity as a
single substance or ousia in three consubstantial hypostases thus coining the
formula that was to become recognized orthodoxy from the Council of
Constantinople in 381 onwards. Moreover, Gregory of Nyssa applied the same
conceptual language also to a range of other doctrinal topics including creation,
salvation,andtheeschatologicalresurrectionandrestorationofhumankind.¹⁹In
this way, Cappadocian philosophy permitted for the first time the systematic
integration of many doctrinal topics into one systematic whole. Christology,
however,wasnotoneofthem:afactthatwastohavegraveconsequences.
Withinasurprisinglyshorttime,thisphilosophybecamewidelysharedacross
the East. In this book, I will therefore refer to it as the ‘classical theory’. By this
Imeanthatitsacceptancewasfromthebeginningnotasignofschoolaffiliation
but became a sort of intellectual koine. From all the evidence we have, it seems
clear that the Cappadocian heritage was never tied to a distinctive part of the
EasternChurch.Cappadocianthoughtwasneitherconcentratedincertainareas,
as Antiochene and Alexandrian theologies were, nor was it connected with
particularintellectualmilieusaswasthecase withtheinheritanceofOrigenand
EvagriusofPontus.Instead,Cappadocianpatternsofthoughtandargumenttook
afoundationalplaceinthewritingofallmajortheologiansoftheEastonlyafew
decades after Gregory of Nyssa codified this novel philosophy around the
year380.
The near-total absence of reliable texts from the decades following the
Theodosian settlement of the 380s makes it impossible, for the time being, to
trace this remarkable success-story in any detail, but it is a matter of historical
recordthat,attheoutbreakoftheChristologicalcontroversyinthelate420s,all
sidesalreadytookforgrantedtheuseofCappadocianphilosophytoarticulateand
rationalizetheirvariousdoctrinalpositions.²⁰Whileneveragainlosingthisstatus,
the Cappadocian theory subsequently came under strain when individuals
employed it—or sought to employ it—to justify the particular positions they
took in the increasingly entrenched debate about the doctrine of the Person of
JesusChrist.
Thistendencybecamepronouncedfromtheearlysixthcentury.Inmanyways,
the main object of this book’s narrative is the dramatic intellectual realignment
that ensued from this decision. Different groups emerging during this period
soughttocapitalizeontheauthoritativestatustheCappadociantheoryhadgained
by explaining their Christologies on its basis. This, however, was never possible
¹⁸ SeeChapter2. ¹⁹ Zachhuber(1999). ²⁰ SeeChapter3,section3.1.1.