basil of caesarea on proverbs

Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Vol. 59, Pt 1, April 2008

BASIL OF CAESAREA ON PROVERBS 8:22AND THE SOURCES OF PRO-NICENE

THEOLOGY

AbstractRecent scholarship has increasingly questioned the traditional assumptionthat Athanasius of Alexandria was a major influence on Basil of Caesarea.This study seeks to make a concrete contribution to this debate by demon-strating that Basil’s exegesis of Prov. 8:22, a verse whose interpretationwas hotly contested in the fourth-century Trinitarian debates, wasinfluenced by Eusebius of Caesarea rather than by Athanasius. Basil’s useof Eusebius of Caesarea here should prompt us to reassess more widelyEusebius’ influence on Basil, thereby helping us gain a better under-standing of the diverse sources of Pro-Nicene theology.

k0rio" 7ktis0n me 2rc1n 3d8n a2toA e2" 7rga a2toA

The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works

IN the Trinitarian controversies of the fourth century, there wasmuch debate on the correct interpretation of Prov. 8:22.1 So itcomes as a surprise that Basil of Caesarea concerns himself withthe meaning of this verse only once in his surviving corpus, inContra Eunomium 2.20. Yet even here Basil addresses only ahandful of points, all the while promising to conduct a fullexamination of the verse later on in the treatise.2 He fails tomake good on his promise, either in Contra Eunomium orelsewhere in his corpus.3

While we may lack from Basil a full treatment of Prov. 8:22,his discussion of it in Contra Eunomium 2.20 nonetheless revealshis engagement with the preceding debate on the meaning of theverse. In this essay I would like to argue that Basil is mainlydependent on Eusebius of Caesarea for his interpretation of

1 The classic study is Manlio Simonetti, ‘Sull’interpretazione patristica diProverbi 8, 22’, in Studi sull’Arianesimo (Rome: Editrice Studium, 1965), pp. 9–87.My thanks to Lewis Ayres and Andrew Radde-Gallwitz for their comments on thisshort note.

2 Basil, Contra Eunomium (¼ c. Eun.) 2.20, 31–7, ed. Bernard Sesboue, Basile deCesaree: Contre Eunome (Sources chretiennes 299 and 305; Paris: Les Editions duCerf, 1982–3), vol. 2, pp. 82–4.

3 M. van Parys, ‘Exegese et theologie trinitaire: Prov. 8, 22 chez les PeresCappadociens’, Irenikon 43 (1970), pp. 363–79, at p. 364.

� The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

For Permissions, please email: [email protected]

doi:10.1093/jts/flm187

Prov. 8:22 and not at all on Athanasius.4 Recent scholarship hasincreasingly contested the traditional assumption that Athanasiuswas a major influence on Basil.5 Accordingly, this study seeksto make a concrete contribution to this debate by demonstratingthe influence of Eusebius of Caesarea rather than Athanasiuson Basil’s exegesis of Prov. 8:22. As Basil was one of the keyformulators of Pro-Nicene Trinitarian theology, the results ofthis study help us to gain a better understanding of the diversesources of Pro-Nicene theology.6

Basil begins his discussion of Prov. 8:22 by summing up theHeteroousians’ appeal to the verse:

Now these men [i.e. Eunomius and his supporters] have recourse tothe text of Solomon, and from it, as if from a base of militaryoperations, they launch an assault on the faith. For on the basis ofthat passage said in the person of Wisdom (2k pros0pou t8" �o�0a"):the Lord created me (Prov. 8:22), they have supposed that it ispermissible for them to call the Lord a creature.7

Basil will not quarrel with his opponents that it is the pre-existent Son—the Wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24)—who speaksthis verse. The fact that he ascribes this verse to the person ofWisdom is of some significance, and this will be addressed below.Yet Basil rejects his opponents’ claim that the verse meant thatthe Son was a creature. He makes three points in order to showthat this is not so.8

4 While Parys admits that ‘Basile ne semble pas non plus avoir retenu, ou nepas avoir connu, l’exegese athanasienne de Prov. 8, 22’ (‘Exegese et theologietrinitaire’, p. 365), his references to Athanasius suggest parallels; I will show thatsuch is not the case.

5 See e.g. Marina Silvia Troiano, ‘Il Contra Eunomium III di Basilio di Cesareae le Epistolae ad Serapionem I–IV di Atanasio di Alessandria: Nota comparativa’,Augustinianum 41 (2001), pp. 59–91, who refutes the claims of Athanasian influencein c. Eun. 3 made by Volker Henning Drecoll, Die Entwicklung der Trinitatslehre desBasilius von Casarea (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), pp. 138f. On theissue more generally, see Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 2004), p. 221, and Stephen M. Hildebrand, The TrinitarianTheology of Basil of Caesarea (Washington, DC: Catholic University of AmericaPress, 2007), p. 80, n. 10.

6 I adopt the usage of ‘Pro-Nicene’ from Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy,pp. 236–40.

7 Basil, c. Eun. 2.20, 21–5 (Sesboue, Basile de Cesaree, vol. 2, p. 82).Translations of Basil are taken from that of Andrew Radde-Gallwitz and myself,forthcoming in the Fathers of the Church series. All other translations are my own.

8 Pace Bernard Sesboue, Saint Basil et la Trinite (Paris: Desclee, 1998), pp.162–3, and Drecoll, Die Entwicklung, p. 81, who conflate Basil’s first and secondpoints. Basil introduces the first point by pr8ton (‘first of all’) and the second point

184 M A R K D E L C O G L I A N O

1. Basil continues: ‘For my part, I have many things to sayabout this line. First of all, this is said only once in all theScriptures (7ti 6pax 2n p0sai" ta8" gra�a8").’9 In other words, thesaying is a hapax legomenon. The implication here is that becauseScripture speaks of the Son’s creation only in this verse, itshould be discounted in the face of abundant scriptural evidenceelsewhere that the Son is begotten and not created. Eusebius ofCaesarea made a similar point in his Ecclesiastica theologiawhen arguing against Marcellus of Ancyra’s interpretation ofProv. 8:22:

If someone were to find somewhere in the Scripture that it is oncesaid (e2 d 1 6pax pou t8" gra�8" e3r0skoi ti" e2rhm0non): The Lord createdme the beginning of his ways for his works (Prov. 8:22), it is necessaryto consider the sense of the text, which I will expound upon a littlelater, but not to undermine, as Marcellus does, the most importantdoctrine of the church on the basis of a single statement.10

As far as I can tell, Athanasius never made such a claim. Indeed,the sheer number of lines he devotes to the interpretation of thisverse indicates his belief in the importance of understanding itin a way that would contradict his opponents’ claims.11 He couldnot dismiss it. While Eusebius did oVer an interpretation ofProv. 8:22 to refute Marcellus’s exegesis of it,12 he nonethelessstated the principle that the teaching of a single unique verseshould not outweigh the rest of the Scriptures when they teachsomething quite diVerent from it. It is this very principle thatBasil expresses here.

2. Next, Basil says: ‘Second, in this book a great deal of themeaning is hidden and on the whole it proceeds by means ofproverbs, parables, dark sayings, and enigmas (cf. Prov. 1:6), suchthat no one may take anything from it that is either indisputableor crystal-clear.’13 Basil is unique in acknowledging that nointerpretation of Prov. 8:22 is convincing. His predecessorshad wasted much ink arguing for particular interpretations that

by 7peita (‘second’), showing that he sees them as distinct (c. Eun. 2.20, 26–7[Sesboue, Basile de Cesaree, vol. 2, p. 82]).

9 Basil, c. Eun. 2.20, 25–7 (Sesboue, Basile de Cesaree, vol. 2, p. 82).10 Eusebius, Ecclesiastica theologia (¼ Eccl. theo.) 1.10.2, ed. Erich Klostermann

and Gunther Christian Hansen, Eusebius Werke IV: Gegen Marcell. Uber diekirchliche Theologie. Die Fragmente Marcells (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1991), p. 68,22–6.

11 See Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianos (¼ Or.) 2.44–56.12 See Eusebius, Eccl. theo. 3.1f.13 Basil, c. Eun. 2.20, 27–31 (Sesboue, Basile de Cesaree, vol. 2, p. 82).

B A S I L O F C A E S A R E A O N P R OV E R B S 185

failed to win over their opponents. Marcellus had argued that thetext was a prophetic reference to the ‘creation’ of the incarnateChrist, not the pre-existent Word.14 Eusebius counteredMarcellus’ claim, arguing that the ‘person’ or ‘speaker’ (t1pr0swpon) of the text was the pre-existent Wisdom, that is, theSon of God, and that the verse referred not literally to his‘creation’ but, in line with Scripture’s typical metaphorical wayof speaking, to his ‘establishment’ as the ruler of the universe.15

Furthermore, Eusebius elsewhere maintained that Solomonintended the enigmatic passages of Proverbs to be ultimatelycomprehensible to those who could look beyond their literalsense.16 Similarly, Athanasius acknowledged the general diY-culty of interpreting Proverbs and the necessity of movingbeyond the plain sense in order to understand them.17 Follow-ing Marcellus, Athanasius argued that the ‘person’ or ‘speaker’(t1 pr0swpon) of Prov. 8:22 is the incarnate Christ.18

Basil would have none of this. Attributing Prov. 8:22 to theincarnate Christ was rife with diYculties and Basil by his silencedoes not endorse this interpretation. His inclination away from

14 Marcellus, fragments 23–9, ed. Markus Vinzent, Markell von Ankyra: DieFragmente [und] Der Brief an Julius von Rom (Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 24–32.

15 Eusebius, Eccl. theo. 3.1.1–3.2.8 (Klostermann and Hansen, Eusebius WerkeIV, pp. 137, 38 – 140, 14).

16 ‘Solomon, moved by God-given wisdom, dedicated his entire writing to thebenefiting and salvation of souls by the word of piety, but in order to exercise theunderstanding of those who read it he used dark problems. He testified to this inthe beginning of the book when he said: when the wise man has heard these things, hewill be wiser; the man of understanding will acquire skill, and he will understand aparable of dark sayings, and the words of the wise, and their enigmas (Prov. 1:5–6). Andagain: and to understand the twistings of words (Prov. 1:3). Indeed, it is easy tounderstand those things which are expressed in this way on the basis of what iscontained in the book, otherwise we would not be able to understand or penetrateto the meaning gathered from a consideration of the literal text (2k t8" proce0roul0xew").’ Eusebius, Contra Marcellum 1.3.14–15 (Klostermann and Hansen,Eusebius Werke IV, pp. 16, 29 – 17, 5).

17 ‘It is written: The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works (Prov.8:22). But since these are proverbs and are said in the manner of proverbs, onemust not simply take the literal text (t1n pr0ceiron l0xin) as it is. Rather, one mustseek the person (t1 pr0swpon) and in this way piously accommodate the meaning toit. For that which is said in proverbs is not said plainly (2k �aneroA), but is related ina hidden manner . . .. Therefore, it is necessary to reveal the meaning of theexpression, and to seek it as something hidden and not to take it simply as if it weresaid openly, lest by misinterpreting we stray from the truth.’ Athanasius, Or. 2.44[2], 4–13, ed. Martin Tetz, Athanasius Werke I/1: Die Dogmatischen Schriften(Berlin: De Gruyter, 1996–2000), pp. 220–1. Cf. Athanasius, Or. 2.77, where hemakes a similar point, appealing to Prov. 1:5–6.

18 Such is the main argument of Or. 2.44–56.


the stance of Athanasius and towards the position of Eusebiusmay be further indicated by the fact that Basil introduced hiscitation of Prov. 8:22 as ‘that passage said in the person ofWisdom (2k pros0pou t8" �o�0a")’.19 Except for this meagerhint, Basil refuses to argue for one or the other interpretation,preferring silence before such a mysterious text.20 In this hediVers markedly from both Eusebius and Athanasius, whobelieved that the text, though diYcult, could admit of aconvincing interpretation if one passed beyond the literal sense.Though both claimed to have done this, they still disagreedon the pr0swpon of the verse, resulting in fundamentallyopposed interpretations. Therefore, while Basil seems to acceptEusebius’ interpretation of the ‘person’, he dismisses bothof his predecessors’ optimism that one could convincinglyinterpret what Wisdom meant when he said that the Lordcreated him.21

3. After promising to conduct a thorough investigation of theverse,22 Basil adds a final point:

At any rate, in the meantime let us be sure not to let the followingpoint go unnoticed, that other translators, who have hit upon themeaning of the Hebrew words in a more appropriate way, render it as‘he acquired me’ instead of he created me. This will be a greatobstacle for them against their blasphemy of the term ‘creature’. Forthe one who said: I have acquired a man through God (Gen. 4:1)clearly used this term, not because he had created Cain, but ratherbecause he had begotten him.23

Here Basil is completely dependent on Eusebius.24 Eusebius citesthe three alternative renditions of Prov. 8:22 that were produced

19 Basil, c. Eun. 2.20, 23 (Sesboue, Basile de Cesaree, p. 82).20 See the apt comments of Richard Paul Vaggione, Eunomius of Cyzicus and the

Nicene Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 84, n. 34.21 Parys, ‘Exegese et theologie trinitaire’, p. 364, esp. n. 6, implies that

Athanasius, in the text cited in n. 16 above, had made the same point that Basilmade. But this is not so.

22 Basil, c. Eun. 2.20, 31–7 (Sesboue, Basile de Cesaree, vol. 2, pp. 82–4).23 Basil, c. Eun. 2.20, 37–44 (Sesboue, Basile de Cesaree, vol. 2, p. 84).24 Parys, ‘Exegese et theologie trinitaire’, p. 364, n. 7 cites Athanasius Or. 2.53 as

similar to what Basil says here. But in Or. 2.52–3 Athanasius does not appeal todiVerent translations but rather to other scriptural testimonies to argue that ‘hecreated’ means the same thing as ‘he formed’ (7plase) and ‘he set’ (kat0sthse). Inaddition, here Athanasius never says that ‘he created’ means ‘he acquired’(2kt0sato). Also misleading is Parys’s reference to Dionysius of Rome, apudAthanasius, De decretis 26.5–6 (Tetz, Athanasius Werke I/1, pp. 22, 28 – 23, 10).Furthermore, Sesboue (Basile de Cesaree, vol. 2, p. 85, n. 3), followingJ. Gribomont (‘L’Origenisme de saint Basile’, in L’homme devant Dieu


by the three post-Septuagint translators of the HebrewScriptures into Greek, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion,all of whom translate it as ‘he acquired me’ (2kt0sat0 me) insteadof the Septuagint’s ‘he created me’ (7ktis0n me).25 Eusebius is thefirst to use these alternative translations to interpret Prov. 8:22,and others after Basil adopted the same tactic.26 Yet Athanasiusnever uses the alternative translations in his interpretation ofProverbs 8:22.

Basil also follows Eusebius in his citation of Gen. 4:1 as anexample of the use of 2kt0sato in the Scriptures:

For this reason, when the first-formed Adam acquired the first sonamong human beings, he was said in that passage to have stated:I have acquired (2kths0mhn) a man through God (Gen. 4:1), the Hebrewtext containing ‘kanithei’ instead of I have acquired (2kths0mhn).27

Now the term ‘kana’ among the Hebrews means ‘he has acquired’(2kt0sato).28 So, then, it was said of Abraham: the field that Abrahamhas acquired (2kt0sato) (Gen. 25:10). Instead of he has acquired(2kt0sato), the Hebrew contains ‘kana’, the same word also used bythe Hebrews in the passage: The Lord acquired (2kt0sato) me thebeginning of his ways for his works (Prov. 8:22). Now the term ‘kana’ isused here, and all the translators are unanimous in rendering it with‘he has acquired’ (2kt0sato). But ‘he created’ (7ktisen) has beenrejected by the Hebrews, and it is not used in the Scripture underdiscussion. There is much diVerence between ‘he created’ and ‘heacquired’, in that, according to the latest understanding, ‘creating’means the passage from nothing into being, whereas ‘acquiring’characterizes the aYnity of the one who pre-exists with the one whois ‘acquired’.29

Note that Basil attributes Gen. 4:1 to a masculine speaker,presumably Adam, even though in Gen. 4:1 it is Eve who speaks

[Paris: Aubier, 1963], vol. 1, p. 286), erroneously suggests that Basil’s appeal tovariant translations is influenced by Origen. Simonetti, ‘Sull’interpretazionepatristica’, pp. 52, 68, correctly identifies Basil’s source.

25 Eusebius, Eccl. theo. 3.2.15 (Klostermann and Hansen, Eusebius Werke IV,pp. 142, 1 – 142, 5); cf. 3.2.20 (p. 142, 33–5).

26 E.g. Epiphanius, Panarion 69.25.1–9.27 kaniqei is Eusebius’s transliteration of the Hebrew yti yni q' (qanithi), the Qal

perfect first-person singular of hnq .28 kana is Eusebius’s transliteration of the Hebrew hn' q' (qana), the Qal perfect

third-person masculine singular of hnq .29 Eusebius, Eccl. theo. 3.2.21–3 (Klostermann and Hansen, Eusebius Werke IV,

p. 143, 3–17).


this line.30 Here again Basil is following Eusebius, who explicitlyattributes the verse to Adam in the passage cited above. In this,Basil does not follow Athanasius, who correctly attributedGen. 4:1 when he discussed it in the context of interpretingProv. 8:22:

And when Eve gave birth to Cain, she said: I have acquired a manthrough God (Gen. 4:1). Instead of ‘gave birth to’, then, she saidI have acquired. For after first seeing31 the child, she next said: I haveacquired. And on account of the phrase: I have acquired, no oneshould think that Cain was bought from someone else and not that hewas born of her.32

In the final line of this citation Athanasius says the ‘acquiring’ inGen. 4:1 should not be understood as if Eve purchased Cainfrom another person but rather as indicative of a natural birth.In the final line of Basil’s citation above, a similar distinction ismade, though between creating and begetting. Eusebius made asimilar distinction between creating and acquiring. Though atfirst glance it may seem that Basil’s distinction is based onAthanasius since both contrast begetting with another activity,here Basil is actually indebted to Eusebius. While Eusebiuscontrasts creating and acquiring, Basil contrasts creating andbegetting. Yet how Eusebius characterizes ‘acquiring’ is preciselyhow Basil understood the relationship between a father and sonthat comes into existence through begetting: it is one of ‘aYnity’(o2kei0th") between father and son.33 Just as, according toEusebius, ‘acquiring’ establishes an aYnity between father andson, so too, according to Basil, ‘begetting’ results in an aYnitybetween father and son. Accordingly, Basil’s point that Gen. 4:1is about begetting and not creating follows Eusebius.

Of Basil’s three short comments on Prov. 8:22, two can betraced back to Eusebius with great confidence. In the other case,

30 Basil makes the same error in De spiritu sancto 5.12, ed. B. Pruche, Basile deCesaree: Sur le Saint-Esprit (Sources chretiennes 17 bis; Paris: Les Editions duCerf, 1968), p. 283, here explicitly attributing the verse to ‘Adam’.

31 I read 2doAsa instead of e2poAsa (see Tetz, Athanasius Werke I/1, p. 181).32 Athanasius, Or. 2.4 [6], 29–33 (Tetz, Athanasius Werke I/1, p. 181).33 E.g. ‘nothing externally consequent to a father and a son is able to rupture

their essential aYnity (t1n kat’ a2t1n t1n o2s0an o2kei0thta)’, c. Eun. 1.5, 104–6(Sesboue, Basile de Cesaree, vol. 1, p. 178); ‘According to customary usage herebelow, the designation ‘‘to beget’’ signifies two things, the passion of the begetterand the aYnity to the one begotten (t8" pr1" t1 genn0menon o2kei0sew")’, c. Eun.2.24, 18 (Sesboue, Basile de Cesaree, vol. 2, p. 100). Basil also speaks of the naturalaYnity of a father and son in c. Eun. 1.27, 29–30 and 3.3, 14–15 (Sesboue, Basile deCesaree, vol. 1, p. 268 and vol. 2, p. 156).


Basil goes his own way, rejecting the exegetical optimism of bothEusebius and Athanasius with respect to the verse. Basil has notadopted Athanasius’ views on Prov. 8:22 but rather used thearguments of Eusebius to state his basic position on the infamousverse. This should alert us to be suspicious of the traditionalaccount of how Basil and the other Cappadocians wereinfluenced by the preceding theological tradition, and it givesfurther support to recent revisionist scholarship that questionsthe traditional assumption of Athanasius’ influence on Basil.Furthermore, the fact that Basil has so closely followed Eusebiusin his interpretation of Prov. 8:22 should prompt us to reassessmore widely the influence of Eusebius on Basil. Undoubtedlymany more points of contact between them will be found.A fresh consideration of Eusebius’ influence on Basil shouldreveal in greater detail the complex background to Pro-Nicenetheology. In this way Eusebius of Caesarea, whose orthodoxyAthanasius once impugned,34 and who is for this reason stillconsidered in some circles ‘Arian’, may finally receive duerecognition for his contributions to Pro-Nicene orthodoxy.

MARK DELCOGLIANO

Emory University, Atlanta, [email protected]

34 Athanasius, De synodis 17.3, ed. Hans-Georg Opitz, Athanasius Werke II/1:Die Apologien (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1935–41), p. 244, 27–8.


basil of caesarea on proverbs

Documents