The Word “Homoousios” from Hellenism to Christianity
Your opinion is important to us, please comment on this article.
by Michael Hall
Have you ever heard of the word homoousios If you are like me, you probably have never heard the word, or know how to pronounce it. I was ignorant of the word’s existence until I read an article by Pier Franco Beatrice in Church History entitled “The Word ‘Homoousios’ from Hellenism to Christianity.” The article investigates the history of the word’s usage leading up to its introduction at the Council of Nicaea, which is where Christianity became the dominant religion in the western world. Beatrice, who is a professor of Early Christian Literature at the University of Padua in Italy, sets out to prove that the word “homoousios came straight from Constantine’s Hermetic background” (243). In other words, Beatrice wants to prove that Constantine, who happened to be very knowledgeable in Egyptian and Greek mythology, drew on his knowledge of the ancients when he introduced the word at the Council of Nicaea (243). I did notice, however, a few problems with the evidence he used to reject the accounts of key witnesses at the Council. Although Beatrice gives a well-organized and generally well-supported argument that contributes to the field of Theological History, he fails to give sufficient reasons for the dismissal of the witnesses Ambrose of Milan and Athanasius of Alexandria.
Homoousios is a word used to “express the divine consubstantiality of the Son with the Father” (Beatrice 243). To define the term more clearly, it means the sharing of the same heavenly substance between two or more divine entities. Using the word in its Christian context, homoousios implies that God and Jesus are made from the same substance, but are two independent beings–not one and the same. This is much different from the divine trinity concept Christians use today. These words and ideas may not mean much to you unless you are familiar with theological terminology and concepts. As I am not well-versed in this area, I frequently found myself referencing the dictionary while reading the article. This did become distracting; although I am sure the audience this work was tailored for, such as theologians and ancient historians, would not have difficulty in that area.
Beatrice’s main purpose is to show that the introduction of homoousios at Nicaea is due to Constantine’s background in pagan mythology. In order to this, he must first, confirm that Constantine did introduce the word; second, prove the word was not used in its Christian form before Nicaea; and third, show that Constantine came in contact with the pagan mythologies that did use the word. He begins by introducing the three documented accounts of the Council, all of which have an opposing view. After sorting through the evidence, he finds only one that is reliable. That source happens to be Eusebius of Caesarea who says that Constantine directed the Council to include the term homoousios. Next, Beatrice goes against his peers and proves that homoousios, in its Christian context, was not in use by the Gnostics, Anti-Gnostics, or the Sabellians before Nicaea. Finally in the fifth and sixth sections, Pier finds the word, in its theological context, hidden in some Hermetic and Egyptian texts. So at this point, Beatrice has established that homoousios was used in theological context in ancient history. He then shows that Constantine would have had plenty of opportunity to absorb this information as he was constantly surrounded by pagan philosophers in his youth. Pier definitely shows a correlation between Constantine’s theological ideas and ancient beliefs (Beatrice 243-272). From this mountain of evidence, Pier Franco Beatrice puts forth a great argument for his thesis.
The way Beatrice constructed this article is exemplary. He takes the reader on an investigative journey around the ancient Mediterranean. First of all, the title was very appropriate as the word homoousios had a different meaning at each stage of its evolution. Beatrice, who is an authority in his own right, backed up his well-structured article with concrete evidence from both primary and secondary historical sources. The article definitely follows a very deductive pattern. By the process of elimination, he isolated the work to only the relevant information. There were many points in the piece where I questioned how he was going to link everything together. For example, after he proved the usage of the word in ancient times, I asked myself: Now how is he going to prove that Constantine ever came into contact with the pagan information? Sure enough, Pier surprised me by showing that Constantine was surrounded by pagan philosophers in his youth (Beatrice 264). You do have to trust his technique; you will get it in the end. Once you tackle the theological terminology and concepts, the article becomes a very rewarding piece to read.
Beatrice has definitely made a great contribution to the field of theological history. By the use of great detective work, Pier was able to synthesize Egyptian and Greek mythology with early Christian theology. He was able to show the major, if not absolute, influence Constantine had on the Council. If Pier’s view is accepted, it raises a great deal of new questions. How much of an influence does Paganism have on Christianity? Was the Council of Nicaea actually a council at all, or was it all for show? It also introduces a question that I will be addressing soon: What motivations, apart from divine intervention, caused Constantine to convert the Roman Empire from Paganism to Christianity? These questions, and others, will greatly contribute to the field of Theological history.
However, there are some support problems with his dismissal of the witness Ambrose of Milan. In the first section, Beatrice narrows the witnesses of Nicaea down to three: Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius of Alexandria, and Ambrose of Milan (245). “According to Ambrose, the word homoousios was used to openly contradict the Arian sentiment of a letter by Eusebius of Nicomedia which had been read out at the Council of Nicaea” (Beatrice 245). This view, which would negate the evidence which provides the foundation of Beatrice’s argument, was dismissed by Pier for two reasons. First, “it was formulated at a very late date (the second half of the fourth century)” (Beatrice 245). But the Council of Nicaea took place in 325 CE (Beatrice 244). This means that it would be only 25 to 75 years after the event. He does not specify the exact date of Ambrose’s publication. In my opinion, 25 years is not long enough, especially in ancient times, to question the validity of a document. Secondly, Beatrice states, “Ambrose had no direct contact with the Council of Nicaea and its protagonists, and does not seem to be well informed about the details of the council” (Beatrice 245). I would accept that claim if, in fact, Beatrice could produce some proof. But he fails to introduce any evidence to support his claim. Although his theory may be right, I would want a little more evidence before I dismissed this witness.
Also, there are some support problems with Beatrice’s dismissal of the witness Athanasius of Alexandria. According to Athanasius, “the Fathers of the council wrote the word homoousios in order to avoid, once and for all, the tendentious and corrupted interpretations of the Arians” (Beatrice 245). Now this is all that Athanasius says. And this statement alone contradicts Eusebius’ story of Constantine introducing the term. But Beatrice’s dismissal of this document is insufficient. Beatrice shows proof from another source, the Arians, stating that the “Nicene Creed was presented by Ossius of Cordova in his capacity as president of the assembly” (245). He then states arguments from several German scholars stating that the word would have been introduced at Nicaea because it coincided with Ossius’ theology (Beatrice 246). He then refutes the Germans with evidence that proves that false (Beatrice 246). He sums everything up when he states:
I therefore believe that the thesis according to which the word homoousios was the Greek equivalent of the Latin unius substantiae, and its introduction into the Nicene Creed the inevitable consequence of the victory of the Western tradition represented by Ossius, is definitely to be rejected, as it is not backed up by any available texts. By exclusion, there remains only the explanation provided by Eusebius of Caesarea (Beatrice 247).
What does this have to do with Athanasius as a witness? How does this invalidate Athanasius? His argument is only rejecting the Arian accounts and is dismissing Athanasius with no proof. Eusebius’ story may be correct, but Beatrice does not prove his story is the only valid account.
Overall, Pier Franco Beatrice presents a brilliant and very convincing argument for Constantine’s foreknowledge of the ancient word homoousios. Beatrice’s deductive technique provides a well-structured and highly supported article that contributes to the advancement of theological history. If his theory is accepted, it will present many new questions to be answered. I did, however, find some problems with the evidence he used to dismiss the witnesses in the first section. These problems, left unaddressed, could put Constantine’s role at Nicaea in doubt. Regardless of the problems, Beatrice has made some points that definitely require more attention. Although Beatrice gives a well-organized and generally well-supported argument that contributes to the field of Theological History, he fails to give sufficient reasons for the dismissal of the witnesses Ambrose of Milan and Athanasius of Alexandria.
Beatrice, Pier Franco. “The Word “Homoousios” from Hellenism to Christianity.” Church History. 71 (2002): 243-272.
Leave a reply