Theology as Christian Epopteia in Basil of Caesarea

Olga Alieva

Journal of Early Christian Studies, Volume 28, Number 3, Fall 2020, pp. 373-394
(Article)

Published by Johns Hopkins University Press

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/earl.2020.0029

For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/764459

[ Access provided at 20 Sep 2020 14:28 GMT from University of Melbourne-Library (+1 other institution account) ]
Theology as Christian
Epopteia in Basil of Caesarea

OLGA ALIEVA

In Spir. 27.66–67, Basil of Caesarea says that Christian dogma is preserved

“in silence” and “in mystery,” and connects it to the non-scriptural tradition
(paradosis) of the church. These words usually have been interpreted either
as a reflection of his “elitism” or as a reference to the disciplina arcani. This
paper seeks to demonstrate the weaknesses of both positions and suggests
that Basil’s dogma is better understood as the theological content of paradosis
within the threefold Platonic division of philosophy into the stages (1) puri-
fication, (2) instruction, and (3) contemplation (epopteia). Both his choice
of terms and his exegesis of the Tabernacle—(1) the profane, (2) the Levites,
(3) the priests—testify to the effect that Basil does, in fact, distinguish at least
two grades of spiritual advancement, of which the highest (epopteia) signifies
the ability to contemplate the hidden Trinitarian dogma behind the literal level
of paradosis. In its hidden aspect the dogma is also referred to as mysterion,
which Basil understands with the apostle Paul as something which can only be
revealed by the Spirit. The peculiar epistemic function of the Spirit, therefore,
renders meaningless any theological discourse outside the Trinitarian doctrine.
Thereby, Basil demonstrates that pneumanomachian theology is no more than
a scandalous profanation of “mysterion.”

INTRODUCTION

In Spir. 27.66–67 (SC 17bis:478–82),1 Basil of Caesarea formulates his

famous distinction between kerygma (κήρυγμα) and dogma (δόγμα), which
has been the subject of much discussion over the last sixty years. One of

The author thanks two anonymous reviewers who commented on an early draft
of this paper, providing constructive criticism and helpful suggestions.
1. We use throughout the Greek text: Benoît Pruche, Basile de Césarée, Sur le
Saint-Esprit, SC 17bis (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1968). The English text of Spir. relies
on the following translations: David Anderson, trans., St. Basil the Great: On the Holy
Spirit (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1980), and (for Spir. 27.66–67)
Emmanuel Amand de Mendieta, The “Unwritten” and “Secret” Apostolic Traditions

Journal of Early Christian Studies 28:3, 373–394 © 2020 Johns Hopkins University Press
374    JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

the most vexed issues in this connection is the status of the “non-­scriptural
instruction” (ἄγραφος διδασκαλία) of the church, which Basil sees as a
source of the Christian teaching on the Spirit and which, he says, has
been preserved “in silence” and “in mystery” by the fathers. The object
of this “mystery” is to prevent dogma from being neglected by the multi-
tude, for dogma is “kept secret” (σιωπᾶται), while kerygma is made public
(δημοσιεύεται). The one who attempts to reject the “non-scriptural cus-
toms” (τὰ ἄγραφα τῶν ἐθῶν) would damage the gospel in its most import-
ant points, and reduce the kerygma to a mere name.
Different interpretations have been suggested, which concern the con-
tent of the “mystery,” its social aspect, and its provenance.2 Most scholars
agree that Basil has in mind the practice of disciplina arcani of the early
church, a law imposing silence upon Christians with respect to their rites
and apparently certain aspects of their teaching.3 However, opinions diverge
on the question of whether the ritual and liturgical arcana, according to
Basil, add something to the content of the scriptural faith. As Florovsky
maintains, they only put this faith “in focus,” helping the believers to
grasp the true intention of the Scripture; Basil must refer to the fact that
the creed was orally communicated to the catechumens and they had to
learn it by heart and not divulge it to outsiders.4 Pruche also mentions the
profession of faith in this connection.5 On this reading, then, no esotericism

in the Theological Thought of St. Basil of Caesarea, Scottish Journal of Theology

Occasional Papers 13 (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1965).
2. The latter problem, namely Basil’s conviction that his doxology and other tra-
ditions were established by the apostles, is beyond the scope of this paper, and we
confine ourselves to a short note. Basil takes it for granted that the apostles themselves
have established the disciplina arcani, as well as many other church traditions and
doctrines, which is “historically untenable” (de Mendieta, “Apostolic Traditions,” 55).
It does not mean, however, that “a legend of apostolic origin for rite and custom” was
simply “invented” by Basil, as Richard P. C. Hanson, Tradition in the Early Church
(London: S. C. M. Press, 1962), 184, argues. William Arthur Tieck, “Basil of Cae-
sarea and the Bible,” (PhD diss., Columbia University, 1953), 145, singles out three
characteristics of authentic tradition according to Basil (confirmation by long usage,
recognition or acceptance by church as a whole, a sense which is in accord with piety).
3. As noted already by Isaac Casaubon in the seventeenth century; see C. F. H.
Johnston, The Book of Saint Basil, the Great Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, on
the Holy Spirit, Written to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium, against the Pneuma-
tomachi (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1892), 127–28; on arcana see Guy G. Stroumsa,
Hidden Wisdom: Esoteric Traditions and the Roots of Christian Mysticism, 2nd ed.,
Numen Book Series 70 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 30–31, with bibliography.
4. Georges Florovsky, “The Function of Tradition in the Ancient Church,” GOTR
9 (1963): 181–224; similarly Pruche in SC 17bis: 90–91.
5. Benoît Pruche, “Δόγμα et κήρυγμα dans le traité Sur Le Saint-Esprit de Saint
Basile de Césarée en Cappadoce,” SP 9 (1966): 257–62.
 ALIEVA / THEOLOGY AS CHRISTIAN EPOPTEIA   375

is implied in Spir. 27 whatsoever: for Basil, dogma was reserved not to the
monks or “advanced Christians,” but to those who have been baptized.6
An alternative reading sees the non-scriptural tradition as deriving inde-
pendently of the Bible from the apostles and implying deeper theological
doctrines reserved to “advanced Christians.” This can be assessed dif-
ferently: while Hanson deems this “startling innovation” quasi-­gnostic,7
Amand de Mendieta admits that a deeper understanding of Christian
truth is “reserved by Basil to an élite, to a few people particularly versed
in theological studies,” for such studies require a quiet and pious (that is,
monastic) life.8 This “elitist” understanding of Basil’s epistemology has
been widely accepted in the scholarly literature.9 Another solution is to
treat the whole passage as alien to Basil’s theology and provoked by “the
circumstances of the dispute.”10
However, questions remain with respect to these lines of interpretation.
First, although most examples of the “non-scriptural” tradition belong

6. Contra Hermann Dörries, De Spiritu Sancto: Der Beitrag des Basilius zum
Abschluß des trinitarischen Dogmas, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaf-
ten in Göttingen / Philologisch-historische Klasse 3.39 (Göttingen: Vandenhoek &
Ruprecht, 1956), 121–28, Pruche does not consider Spir. an “esoteric” work; see his
comments in SC 17bis:89–93; 336n2; 483n3.
7. Richard P. C. Hanson, “Basil’s Doctrine of Tradition in Relation to the Holy
Spirit,” VC 22 (1968): 241–55, at 251. In a similar vein, G. Bornkamm, “Μυστήριον,
Μυέω,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (hereafter TDNT) (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967): 4:802–28, at 826, claims that the association of dogma
with μυστήριον in the later church, and particularly in Basil, led to the separation of
the μυστήριον from the kerygma, “with which it is always firmly connected by Paul.”
8. Emmanuel Amand de Mendieta, “The Pair Κήρυγμα and Δόγμα in the Theolog-
ical Thought of St. Basil of Caesarea,” JTS (n.s.) 16 (1965): 129–42, at 136; Amand
de Mendieta, “Apostolic Traditions,” 41–42. For Dörries, too, the distinction stems
“aus der Natur des geistigen” (De Spiritu Sancto, 125). For criticism see E. Evans,
Review of Emmanuel Amand de Mendieta, The “Unwritten” and “Secret” Apostolic
Traditions, in Scottish Journal of Theology 21.1 (1968): 103–5.
9. Stephen M. Hildebrand, The Trinitarian Theology of Basil of Caesarea: A Syn-
thesis of Greek Thought and Biblical Truth (Washington, DC: The Catholic University
of America Press, 2007), 141–49, follows de Mendieta in distinguishing “scriptural
kêrygmata and scriptural dogmata as well as nonscriptural kêrygmata and dogmata.”
So does Lewis Ayres, Nicea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian
Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 218n97. Andrew Radde-Gallwitz,
Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Transformation of the Divine Simplic-
ity, Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 227n7,
briefly mentions Basil’s “elitism.”
10. Jean Gribomont, “Esotérisme et tradition dans le traité Du Saint-Esprit de
Saint Basile,” in Oecumenica 2 (1967): 22–57, at 49 (repr. in Jean Gribomont, Saint
Basile, Évangile et Église: Mélanges [Begrolles-en-Mauge: Abbaye de Bellefontaine,
1984], 2:446–80): “ . . . la note d’ésotérisme . . . ne sort pas de la nature même de la
conception doctrinale de Basile, mais plutôt des circonstances du débat.”
376    JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

to the ritual and liturgical practices and formulas, not all of those prac-
tices can be characterized as arcana: the doxology, for example, was pro-
nounced during a public prayer, as Basil himself states in Spir. 1.3 (SC
17bis:256). The observance of the Pentecost and standing at prayer are
also unlikely to have been kept secret. On the other hand, the confession
of faith mentioned by Florovsky and Pruche did not, before the Constan-
tinople council, contain any explicit formulas concerning the divinity of
the Spirit. Therefore, a more careful disambiguation between “mystery”
and “secrecy” is needed. What exactly does Basil mean when he says that
the tradition is transmitted “in mystery”? In addition, de Mendieta’s thesis
that monastic life as such provides a “deeper understanding of Christian
truth” seems far too optimistic, given that Eustathius and his supporters
represent exactly the monastic community. With this in mind, we suggest
revising the passage paying special attention to the terms used by Basil.
The need to do so is all the more imperative in so far as over the last
decades the discussions of early Christian “esotericism” have ceased to
arouse much suspicion, and Paul’s own indebtedness to Jewish esotericism
is now widely accepted.11 Further, historians of ancient philosophy have
invested much effort in what is sometimes designated as the transposition
of mystery cults’ vocabulary, by which it is usually meant that religious
terms are used to define non-religious phenomena, first and foremost the
process of cognition.
It is this transposition which seems crucial for a correct understanding
of Basil’s thought here. In what follows we show, first, that Basil consis-
tently uses mystery cults’ vocabulary and that in doing so he relies on the
Platonic tradition, which had already adjusted this imagery to designate
various degrees of philosophical advancement. Second, we draw attention
to the fact that the use of the word “mystery” in Spir. is not confined to
Christian sacraments and preserves the same “apocalyptic” meaning it has
in the Pauline epistles. The focus on the subtle intertwining of the Pauline
and Greek (philosophical) mysticism in Spir. enables us to consider Basil’s
kerygma/dogma division not as an ad hoc solution necessitated by the imme-
diate circumstances, but as the very basis of his theological epistemology.

CONTEXT AND PURPOSE OF THE TREATISE

Before we proceed, let us outline the context of Spir. and the place of
chapter 27 in this writing. As Dörries demonstrated in 1956, Basil’s vir-

11. Stroumsa, Hidden Wisdom, xiv.

 ALIEVA / THEOLOGY AS CHRISTIAN EPOPTEIA   377

tual opponent in the treatise (written in 374–75) is, first and foremost,
Eustathius of Sebaste and his disciples. Eustathius’s objections, presumably
preserved in the “protocol” of an actual conversation (held in 372), form
the kernel of chapters 10–26.12 Although the “Protokoll-Hypothese” was
questioned by Drecoll,13 it is still accepted by scholars.14 For the purposes
of this article, it suffices to say that Basil’s opponents represent a branch
of the homoiousian party and (apparently not questioning the divinity of
the Son15) maintain a subordinationist theology of the Spirit.16

12. Hermann Dörries, De Spiritu Sancto, 81–90. The course of Basil’s dispute with
Eustathius up to the final break in 375 (when Spir. is written) is beyond the scope
of this paper; we refer the reader to Manlio Simonetti, La crisi ariana nel IV secolo,
Studia ephemeridis “Augustinianum” 11 (Rome: Institutum patristicum Augustini-
anum, 1975), 411–18, and Philip Rousseau, Basil of Caesarea, The Transformation
of the Classical Heritage 20 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 239–45.
On Eustathius, see: Jean Gribomont, “Eustathe de Sébaste,” in Jean Gribomont,
Saint Basile, Évangile et Église: Mélanges, Collection Spiritualité orientale et vie
monastique (Begrolles-en-Mauge: Abbaye de Bellefontaine, 1984), 1:95–106; Yves
Courtonne, Un témoin du IVe siècle oriental: Saint Basile et son temps d’après sa
correspondance (Paris: Les belles lettres, 1973), 179–222.
Even before the dispute with Eustathius Basil was concerned about the
presence of
heretical views about the Spirit; see Michael A. G. Haykin, “And Who Is the Spirit?
Basil of Caesarea’s Letters to the Church at Tarsus,” VC 41.4 (1987): 377–85.
13. Volker Hennig Drecoll, Die Entwicklung der Trinitätslehre des Basilius von
Cäsarea: Sein Weg vom Homöusianter zum Neonizäner, Forschungen zur Kirchen-
und Dogmengeschichte 66 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 183–95,
266–67, and passim, dates the best part of Spir. earlier (372) and finds here traces of
Basil’s development from a homoiousian to a neo-Nicean theologian. The very idea of
development, however, has been questioned in recent research: Johannes Zachhuber,
“Basil and the Three-Hypostases Tradition: Reconsidering the Origins of Cappado-
cian Theology,” Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum (Journal of Ancient Christianity)
5.1 (2001): 65–85.
14. See, e.g., Hildebrand, The Trinitarian Theology, 142.
15. According to Dörries, De Spiritu Sancto, 46–54, chapters 2–8 aim at a differ-
ent group of thinkers (anomoeans). But Drecoll, Die Entwicklung der Trinitätslehre,
213, justly corrects this misunderstanding: “Basilius zufolge übernehmen sie ein Stück
anhomöischer Theologie. Das bedeutet auf der anderen Seite, daß sie selbst eigentlich
nicht Anhomöer sind.” So, even Basil’s reflections on the divinity of the Son are devel-
oped with the Spirit in mind (Die Entwicklung der Trinitätslehre, 224). Jean-Robert
Pouchet, “Le traité de saint Basile sur le Saint-Esprit: Son milieu originel,” Recherches
de science religieuse 84.3 (1996): 325–50, repr. in Jean-Robert Pouchet, Vivre la com-
munion dans l’Esprit Saint et dans l’Église: Études sur Basile de Césarée, Spiritualité
orientale 92 (Bégrolles en Mauges, Abbaye de Bellefontaine, 2014), 241–72, suggests
anomoean opponents for the whole treatise.
16. The term “pneumatomachians,” coined by their theological adversaries, shall
be kept here faute de mieux and for the sake of conciseness.
378    JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

The key objection Basil sets out to refute in Spir. concerns the use of
non-scriptural evidence in theology. Basil’s opponents criticize him for the
use of the doxology “Glory to the Father, with (μετά) the Son, with (σύν)
the Holy Spirit,” which appears to them as an unwarranted theological
innovation (Spir. 6.13; SC 17bis:286). They maintain that the Father
should only be glorified “through (διά) the Son” and “in (ἐν) the Spirit,”
regarding this doxology not only as based on scriptural evidence (Spir.
10.25; SC 17bis:334) but as confirming their theological position, insofar
as distinct prepositions designate distinct natures (Spir. 2.4; SC 17bis:262).
From the outset, then, the question of the Spirit’s divinity is presented
as having a methodological dimension, for it concerns both the sources of
theological evidence and their interpretation. The strategy Basil deploys in
this situation seeks to refute the pneumatomachian interpretation of “in
the Spirit” and to defend “with the Spirit” against accusations of “inno-
vation” while assigning to both formulas proper theological content.
Though Basil’s proofs are mainly exegetical in both cases,17 the scriptural
evidence for the divinity of the Spirit is smaller than for that of the Son,
so Basil argues not only from biblical texts, but also from the tradition
of the church (Spir. 29.71; SC 17bis:500). We should beware, however,
of mistaking this argument about the tradition for another controversy
which took place in the sixteenth century. Although Eustathius’s “acute
biblicism” might appear as a fourth-century variation of Sola scriptura,18
surely the pneumatomachians did not reject all tradition, otherwise mutual
accusations in “innovations” (καινοτομία) would have been senseless.19
Patristic evidence in favor of the “with the Spirit” formula is gathered
in chapter 29. Before presenting it, Basil discusses the status of the non-­
scriptural tradition in chapter 27, the one we are concerned with here,
and it is in this context that he introduces his famous distinction between

17. Jaroslav Pelikan, “The ‘Spiritual Sense’ of Scripture: The Exegetical Basis for
St. Basil’s Doctrine of the Holy Spirit,” in Basil of Caesarea: Christian, Humanist,
Ascetic, A Sixteen-Hundredth Anniversary Symposium, ed. Paul Jonathan Fedwick
(Toronto: Pontifical Institute for Medieval Studies, 1981), 337–60; Michael A. G.
Haykin, The Spirit of God: The Exegesis of 1 and 2 Corinthians in the Pneumato-
machian Controversy of the Fourth Century, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 27
(Leiden: Brill, 1994), 116–17; Jacob N. Van Sickle, “St. Basil the Great,” in Christian
Theologies of the Sacraments: A Comparative Introduction, ed. Justin S. Holcomb
and David A. Johnson (New York: New York University Press, 2017), 24–40.
18. De Mendieta, “Apostolic Traditions,” 23, and Hildebrand, The Trinitarian
Theology, 142.
19. Dörries, De Spiritu Sancto, 75.
 ALIEVA / THEOLOGY AS CHRISTIAN EPOPTEIA   379

kerygma and dogma.20 Even if it was composed before the rest of the Spir.
as a small “catechetic treatise,”21 it seamlessly fits into the general structure
of Spir.22 In fact, already in Spir. 9.22 (SC 17bis:322) Basil says that he is
going to study the “common notions” concerning the Spirit, “those taken
from the Scriptures together with those received through the non-scriptural
tradition (ἐκ τῆς ἀγράφου παραδόσεως) of the fathers.”23
Basil’s argument runs as follows:
Of the dogmata and the kerygmata which are preserved in the church, some
we possess derived from scriptural instruction (ἐκ τῆς ἐγγράφου διδασκαλίας),
and others we have received, handed down to us in a mystery (ἐν μυστηρίῳ)
by the tradition of the apostles (ἐκ τῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων παραδόσεως). Both of
them have the same strength for piety. And nobody will gainsay these . . . .
For, if we were to attempt to reject the non-scriptural customs (τὰ ἄγραφα
τῶν ἐθῶν) . . . we would be, without knowing it, injuring the Gospel in its
most important points, or rather we would be reducing the κήρυγμα to a
mere name.24

Basil goes on to give several examples of such non-scriptural traditions:

the sign of the cross (in the rite of the admission of catechumens25); ori-
entation to the east at prayer; the words of the Eucharistic invocation;26

20. Manlio Simonetti, “Genesi e sviluppo della dottrina trinitaria di Basilio di

Cesarea,” in Basilio di Cesarea: La sua età, la sua opera e il basilianesimo in Sicilia,
Atti del congresso internazionale (Messina, 3–6 xii 1979) (Messina: Centro di studi
umanistici, 1983), 1:169–197, at 191n62.
21. J. Coman, “Le rôle des Pères dans l’élaboration de l’œcuménisme chrétien,”
SP 9 (1966): 151–209, at 205–6.
22. The unity of this structure has itself been contested (see above n15), but see
Jean-Robert Pouchet, “Le traité de saint Basile Sur le Saint-Esprit: Sa structure et sa
portée,” Recherches de science religieuse 85.1 (1997): 11–40, repr. in Jean-Robert
Pouchet, Vivre la communion dans l’Esprit Saint et dans l’Église: Études sur Basile
de Césarée, Spiritualité orientale 92 (Bégrolles en Mauges: Abbaye de Bellefontaine,
2014), 273–312, at 277.
23. As de Mendieta has convincingly demonstrated (“Apostolic Traditions,” 29),
ἄγραφος and ἔγγραφος in this context do not mean “unwritten” and “written,” but
rather “non-scriptural” and “scriptural.” Similarly Julien Garnier, Sancti patris nostri
Basilii, opera omnia quae extant, PG 32 (Paris: J. P. Migne, 1857), 191n68.
24. Spir. 27.66 (SC 17bis:478–480; de Mendieta, “Apostolic Traditions,” 1–2,
with corrections).
25. The catechumens are not mentioned explicitly; this is a suggestion made by
Johnston, On the Holy Spirit, 128n9 on the basis of the Syriac version, and adopted
by Pruche in SC 17bis:480n2.
26. The reference is either to the words of ἐπίκλησις such as it was preserved in
Basil’s liturgy (SC 17bis:480n3) or to the Eucharistic anaphora in general (de Mend-
ieta, “Apostolic Traditions,” 2).
380    JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

the blessing of the water for baptism, and of the oil for anointing; the
threefold immersion of the baptized and the renunciation of Satan and
his angels. He continues:
On what scriptural proofs (ἐγγράφων) are we doing this? Is not our
authority the tradition kept in silence and in mystery (ἀπὸ τῆς σιωπωμένης
καὶ μυστικῆς παραδόσεως)? . . . Do not all these customs come from that
unpublished and arcane teaching (ἐκ τῆς . . . ἀπορρήτου διδασκαλίας),
which our fathers preserved in a silence (ἐν σιγῇ) out of the reach of
curious meddling and inquisitive investigations? They have well learned
the lesson that the holy nature of the mysteries (τὸ σεμνὸν τῶν μυστηρίων)
of the church is best preserved by silence (σιωπῇ). For, if the uninitiated
(τοῖς ἀμυήτοις) are not even allowed to contemplate (ἐποπτεύειν) these
mysteries, how could it be likely that their teaching should be advertised
(ἐκθριαμβεύειν) in writings?27

After giving a biblical example of similar reservedness (the plan of the

Tabernacle, see below), Basil concludes:
In just the same manner (i.e., like Moses) the apostles and the fathers have
also acted . . . . They used to preserve the sacred of the mysteries (τοῖς
μυστηρίοις) in secrecy and silence (ἐν τῷ κεκρυμμένῳ καὶ ἀφθέγκτῳ). For what
is disclosed carelessly and at random, for common hearing, is not at all a
mystery (μυστήριον). This is the reason for our tradition of non-scriptural
things (τῆς τῶν ἀγράφων παραδόσεως), to prevent the knowledge of our
δόγματα from becoming neglected . . . . For dogma is one thing; kerygma is
another thing. The former is kept secret (σιωπᾶται), but the kerygma is made
public (δημοσιεύεται). One form of this silence is the obscurity which we
find used by the Scripture. It renders the meaning of the dogmata difficult to
be understood, for the very benefit of those who study it.28

He gives more examples of the “non-scriptural mysteries of the church”

(τὰ ἄγραφα τῆς Ἐκκλησίας μυστήρια): the customs of kneeling or standing
at prayer, the observance of Pentecost, the confession of faith at baptism,
the doxology, and explains their theological meaning.

INITIATION

Pruche argues, against Dörries, that by using amyetos (ἀμύητος, “uniniti-

ated”) Basil does not contrast a small group of advanced Christians (like

27. Spir. 27.66 (SC 17bis:482; de Mendieta, “Apostolic Traditions,” 3–4, with
corrections).
28. Spir. 27.66 (SC 17bis:484; de Mendieta, “Apostolic Traditions,” 5–6, with
corrections).
 ALIEVA / THEOLOGY AS CHRISTIAN EPOPTEIA   381

Amphilochius, the bishop of Iconium, to whom the treatise is addressed)

with simple believers.29 As we have seen above, when Basil speaks of
what is reserved from the “uninitiated,” he mentions sacramental rites
and prayers or ecclesiastical customs. It can safely be deduced from the
context that by amyetos Basil means “not baptized.”30 This is not, how-
ever, the whole story.
We should not forget that in the fourth century c.e. the use of the terms
myesis (μύησις), mysterion (μυστήριον), and cognates in connection with
Christian sacraments was only being established,31 so the very choice of
the word amyetos32 is itself telling (in Basil’s corpus it is a hapax). In the
context of ancient mystery cults, myesis was the name for initiation, which
qualified one for participation in the mysteries; sometimes the term was
used in a broader sense, and in the Roman period it regularly referred
to the whole ceremony.33 Myesis implied purification (cf. Pl. Phd. 69c34),
and this fact determined the figurative use of the term: within the philo-
sophical tradition of Platonism, it signified purification which makes one
ready for the “mysteries” of philosophy and is normally associated with
the ­mathematical sciences. These sciences were not included in the phil-
osophical curriculum, but were considered as a necessary preparation

29. See above n5.

30. With exactly the same meaning the term is used by Athanasius (Apol. sec. 11.2;
Hans-Georg Opitz, Athanasius Werke 2.1 [Berlin: De Gruyter, 1940], 96), where
ἀμύητοι include the pagans and the catechumens.
31. According to Bornkamm (“Μυστήριον, Μυέω,” 826), mysterion becomes an
established term for baptism and the Lord’s Supper only in the fourth century. Man-
uel Mira Iborra, “About the Structure of De Spiritu Sancto by Basil of Caesarea,”
SP 47 (2010): 97–103, maintains that chapters 10–15 “use ideas and words which
appear in the Catecheses Mystagogicae of Cyril of Jerusalem.”
32. It is an adjectivum verbale derived (with an alpha privative) from the verb myeo
(μυέω, “to initiate someone”) and related to myesis (“initiation”). It literally means
“he who has not been initiated.” This and related terms are analyzed in: Ken Dowden,
“Grades in the Eleusinian Mysteries,” Revue de l’histoire des religions 197 (1980):
409–27. Neither the verb myeo, nor the noun myesis are attested in Basil’s texts; he
only uses the cognate noun mysterion, the meaning of which we shall discuss further.
33. In its passive form the verb myeisthai (μυεῖσθαι) or myethenai (μυηθῆναι) may
refer to the main festival as well, and this use becomes even more common in the Roman
period. In this meaning, myeisthai can be used on par with teleisthai (τελεῖσθαι). See
Kevin Clinton, “Stages of Initiation in the Eleusinian and Samothracian Mysteries,”
in Greek Mysteries: The Archaeology and Ritual of Ancient Greek Secret Cults, ed.
Michael B. Cosmopoulos (London: Routledge, 2003), 50–78, at 52.
34. E. A. Duke, W. F. Hicken, et al., Platonis Opera (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1995), 1:107.
382    JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

thereto (Alcin. Didask. 28;35 Plu. Quaes. conv. 8.2.1 [718cd];36 Theo. Sm.
De util. math. 14.18–16.237).
Whether myesis equaled (preliminary) purification or included it as its
first stage (as Theon suggests), is of less relevance to us than to the histo-
rians of ancient cults. What interests us here, is to what extent Basil was
aware of this association between myesis and purification. Since there are
no other instances of myesis or amyetos in his corpus, it is hard to tell for
sure, but let us note that Basil systematically associates purification with
“mysteries,” as a necessary preliminary.38 So, in Spir. 9.23 (SC 17bis:326–
28; Anderson, St. Basil, 44) it is only the “purified” (καθαρθέντα . . . ἀπὸ
τοῦ αἴσχους) who can “approach the Paraclete,” and it is only the illumi-
nation of the Spirit which bestows “understanding of mysteries, appre-
hension of hidden things.”39

35. John Wittaker, Alcinoos, Enseignement des doctrines de Platon (Paris: Les
belles lettres, 1990), 57. John Dillon, Alcinous: The Handbook of Platonism (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1993), 175, notes that the terms προτέλεια and προκαθάρσια (“intro-
ductory ceremonies” and “preliminary purifications”), used by Alcinoos, exemplify
“the widespread tendency in Middle Platonism to depict progress in philosophy in
terms of stages of initiation into a mystery religion.” Basil of Caesarea and Gregory
of Nazianzus also use the terms προτελεσθέντες (Bas. Leg. lib. gent. 2.45–46; Mario
Naldini, Basilio di Cesarea, Discorso ai giovani [Oratio Ad Adolescentes], con la
versione latina di Leonardo Bruni [Firenze: Nardini, 1984], 86) and προτέλεια (Gr.
Naz. De vit. sua 275–76; Christoph Jungck, Gregor von Nazianz, De vita sua [Hei-
delberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, 1974], 66) to refer to the preliminary stage
of education (i.e., classical paideia). See Olga Alieva, “Lesser Mysteries of Paideia:
Basil of Caesarea on Greek Literature,” Vestnik Drevney Istorii (Journal of Ancient
History) 77 (2017): 341–55 [in Russian].
36. Françoise Frazier, Jean Sirinelli, Plutarque, Oeuvres Morales, Vol. 9.3 (Paris:
Les belles lettres, 1996), 84. For detailed discussion, see Christoph Riedweg, Myste-
rienterminologie bei Platon, Philon und Klemens von Alexandrien, Untersuchungen
zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 26 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1987), 128.
37. Eduard Hiller, Theonis Smyrnaei philosophi Platonici expositio rerum math-
ematicarum ad legendum Platonem utilium (Leipzig: Teubner, 1878), 15 (hereafter
referred to as De util. math.); our translation: “According to Plato, one must be puri-
fied (ποιεῖσθαι τὴν κάθαρσιν) with the five mathematical sciences . . . . The tradition
(παράδοσις) of philosophical doctrines (logical, political, and physical) corresponds
to the sacred ceremony (τῇ τελετῇ). [Plato] calls contemplation (ἐποπτείαν) the study
of intelligible things, true being and the Forms . . . .” Institutional aspects of this
division are analyzed in Ilsetraut Hadot, Arts libéraux et philosophie dans la pensée
antique (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1984), 71–72.
38. Compare, for example, Basil’s Hom. 18.3 (PG 31:496.38–43): Καθαρεύων . . .
ἐδιδάχθη τὰ μυστήρια . . . ἔχων τὸν μέγαν διδάσκαλον τὸ Πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας.
39. The Plotinian inspiration for this passage is noted by Paul Henry, Les États du
texte de Plotin, Museum Lessianum, Secion philosophique 20; Études plotiniennes 1
(Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1938), 180. Generally skeptical about Basil’s use of Ploti-
nus, John Rist admits that this parallel is “more credible” than others, though it might
 ALIEVA / THEOLOGY AS CHRISTIAN EPOPTEIA   383

Since myesis refers to a ceremony which qualified one for mysteries, we

can understand Basil’s amyetos as “not purified.” This is not to deny that
by amyetos Basil means “not baptized,” but it is pertinent to mention that
Basil’s adversaries were all baptized and still did not admit the divinity of
the Spirit. Thereby, Basil says in Spir. 10.26 (SC 17bis:336), they reject
their own baptismal profession, which implies the dogma of “connumer-
ation” of the Spirit with the Father (Matt 28.19).
The association of myesis with purification is further confirmed by
the biblical example Basil gives in Spir. 27.66 (SC 17bis:482–84). He
reminds his readers that Moses allowed only the select few to contemplate
(ἐποπτεύειν) the sacra sacrorum: the profane (βέβηλοι ≈ ἀμύητοι) remained
outside the sacred precincts, the “first courts” were conceded to the purer
(καθαρωτέροις), the Levites, whereas sacrifices and other priestly functions
were allotted to the priests.40 That is to say, the status of not-being-­amyetos
does not exclude further grades of advancement (pace Pruche). Basil seems
to be conscious of this technical meaning of the word: once “initiated” (or
already during the very initiation), one gets access to the “mystical tradi-
tion” (μυστικὴ παράδοσις, ἀπόρρητος διδασκαλία) of the church.41

INSTRUCTION

In the ancient ritual context, purification was followed by esoteric

“instruction” (λεγόμενα ἐν ἀπορρήτοις).42 On the figurative level, paradosis
(παράδοσις, “tradition”) included those philosophical disciplines which pre-
pared one for the “greater mysteries” of philosophy. For instance, Theon
in De util. math. (14.18–16.2) says that the preliminary purification is
followed by the paradosis of the ceremony (τῆς τελετῆς), which consists
in logical, ethical, and physical studies.43 We find a similar sequence in
Plutarch (Alex. 744), and Clement of Alexandria applies this division to the

be a “Plotinian commonplace” (“Basil’s ‘Neoplatonism’: Its Background and Nature,”

in Fedwick, Basil of Caesarea: Christian, Humanist, Ascetic, 137–220, at 201).
40. Num 4.20.
41. Compare Basil’s use of dogma and kerygma in Hom. 13 (PG 31:425.1–6), where
the “solid food” of the dogma (Heb 5.14) is reserved for those who have been baptized.
42. On instruction, see: Walter Burkert, Homo Necans: The Anthropology of
Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1983), 274n1; Robert Turcan, “Initiation,” in RAC 18 (1998): 87–159, at 95; and,
most importantly, Riedweg, Mysterienterminologie, 2–29.
43. Cited above n37.
44. Robert Flacelière, Émile Chambry, Plutarque, Vies (Paris: Les belles lettres,
1975), 9:37.
384    JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

philosophy of Moses.45 For him, ethics and physics are “lesser mysteries,”
which prepare for the “greater mysteries,” or theology, which he also calls
epoptics. Riedweg justly noted the isomorphism of the divisions found in
Theon and Clement: Theon’s paradosis corresponds to Clement’s didas­kalia
(διδασκαλία, “instruction”), or “lesser mysteries” (τὰ μικρὰ μυστήρια).46
This division was developed by Origen. In his Cant. prol. 3.1 he says
there are three “branches of learning by means of which men generally
attain to knowledge of things”:47 ethics, physics, and epoptics,48 though
some add logic to this list. This division, he continues, the Greeks bor-
rowed from Solomon, who taught the moral science in the Proverbs,
natural science in the Ecclesiastes, and the epoptics in the Song of Songs
(Cant. prol. 3.4–7; SC 375:130–32). After the preparation in logic and

45. Str. 1.28.176 (Claude Mondésert, Clément d’Alexandrie, Les Stromates, Stro-
mate I [Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1951], 173; our translation): “The Mosaic philoso-
phy is divided into four parts: the ethics (ἡ ἠθικὴ πραγματεία) comprises history and
legislation; the third part, ceremonial (τὸ ἱερουργικόν), has to do with natural philos-
ophy (ἡ φυσικὴ θεωρία); and the fourth, highest, part is theology, or contemplation (ἡ
ἐποπτεία), which Plato calls ‘the greater mysteries,’ and Aristotle—‘metaphysics’ (μετὰ
τὰ φυσικά).” Compare Str. 5.11.71 (Alain le Boulluec, Clément d’Alexandrie, Les Stro-
mates, Stromate V [Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1981], 142), where Clement posits “the
lesser mysteries of instruction” (τὰ μικρὰ μυστήρια διδασκαλίας) between purification
(καθάρσια) and contemplation (ἐποπτεύειν).
46. Riedweg, Mysterienterminologie, 21. On the technical meaning of παράδοσις,
see also Friedrich Büchsel, “Δίδωμι κτλ,” in TDNT (1965), 2:171.
47. R. P. Lawson, trans., Origen, The Song of Songs: Commentary and Homilies,
ACW 26 (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1957), 39–40, with corrections.
48. Cant. Prol. 3.1: Generales disciplinae quibus ad rerum scientia pervenitur tres
sunt, quas Graeci ethicam, physicam, epopticen appellarunt (Luc Brésard, Henri
Crouzel, and Marcel Borret, Origène, Commentaire sur le Cantique des Cantiques,
SC 375 [Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1991], 129). Wilhelm Baehrens, Origenes Werke 8,
GCS 33 (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1925), 75, reads “enopticen,” but see Pierre Hadot,
“Théologie, exégèse, révélation, écriture, dans la philosophie grecque,” in Les règles
de l’interprétation, ed. Michel Tardieu (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1987), 13–34, at 17n4.
The same books of Solomon are associated with ethics, physics, and theology in Or.
Exp. in Pr. (PG 17:220.53–56).
This division is familiar to Ambrose (Solange Sagot, “Le triple sagesse dans le
De Isaac vel anima: Essai sur les precédés de composition de saint Ambroise,” in
Ambroise de Milan XVIe centenaire de son election épiscopal [Paris: Études Augus-
tiniennes, 1974], 67–114) and to Gregory of Nyssa (Jean Daniélou, Platonisme et
théologie mystique: Doctrine spirituelle de Saint Grégoire de Nysse [Aubier: Éditions
Montagne, 1944], 17–23 and passim). It is also used by Evagrius; see, e.g., [Bas.]
Ep. 8.4: τὴν ἐκ πρακτικῆς καὶ φυσικῆς καὶ θεολογικῆς διδασκαλίαν (though included in
Basil’s corpus, the letter is authored by Evagrius Ponticus: Yves Courtonne, Basile de
Césarée, Lettres [Paris: Les belles lettres, 1957], 1:22n1; Marcella Forlin Patrucco,
Basilio di Cesarea, Le lettere [Torino, Società editrice internazionale, 1983], 1:296).
 ALIEVA / THEOLOGY AS CHRISTIAN EPOPTEIA   385

ethics, one should move on to Ecclesiastes to “distinguish the causes and

natures of things” and “recognize the vanity of vanities that he must for-
sake” (Cant. prol. 3.14; SC 375:136–38; Lawson, Origen, 44). Only after
that, one proceeds to the Song of Songs, referred to as dogmatica et mys-
tica (Cant. prol. 3.16; SC 375:138).49
To return to our text: elsewhere in Spir. and in our passage (Spir. 27.66)
Basil identifies paradosis with didaskalia. The very interchangeability of
the terms paradosis and didaskalia, as well as Basil’s use of aporretos
(ἀπόρρητος, “arcane”) in connection with teaching and his stress on the
need for purification before receiving the paradosis50 are in line with the
philosophical use of this term. Does that mean that Basil’s aporretos didas-
kalia implies secrecy, as it was in mystery cults? As we have already seen,
Basil mentions among apostolic traditions certain things which were not
secret; he also applies the word paradosis to the words of the Scripture,
kerygma par excellence.51 This, again, is explained by the philosophical,
not religious, pedigree of the term: “ethics” and “physics” are not secret,
even if they are called “lesser mysteries.”
In what sense, then, is dogma (qua the content of paradosis52) “hidden”
(σιωπᾶται)? In the Hexaemeron, written shortly after Spir.,53 dogma often
stands for what the Scripture means or alludes to. So, for instance, in Hex.
1.3 (GCS [NF] 2:6) the words “in the beginning” (Gen 1.1) “anticipate”
the dogma of the end (περὶ συντελείας), which is not stated explicitly. In
Hex. 6.2 (GCS [NF] 2:90) the Mosaic history is said to be “sown” with the

49. Ilsetraut Hadot, “Les introductions aux commentaires exégétiques chez les
auteurs néoplatoniciens et les auteurs chrétiens,” in Les règles de l’interprétation,
99–122, at 117, sees here “une division typiquement néoplatonicienne,” for Porphyry
organizes the Enneads of Plotinus similarly: book 1—ethics, books 2 and 3—physics;
books 4, 5, and 6—epoptics. The first comprehensive analysis of this division: Pierre
Hadot, “Les divisions des parties de la philosophie dans l’antiquité,” Museum Hel-
veticum 36 (1979): 201–23.
50. Compare Basil’s Hex. 1.1 (Emmanuel Amand de Mendieta, Stig Y. Rudberg,
Basilius von Caesarea, Homilien zum Hexaemeron, GCS [NF] 2 [Berlin: Akademie
Verlag, 1997], 1–2).
51. For instance, in Spir. 10.25 (SC 17bis:334) the baptismal formula (Matt 28.19)
is called dogma, transmitted (παραδέδωκε) by the Lord; in Hex. 1.3 (GCS [NF] 2:6)
παραδιδόμενα refers to the book of Genesis.
52. Compare above, n48.
53. According to Jean Bernardi, La prédication des pères cappadociens: Le prédi-
cateur et son auditoire (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1968), 47, the homi-
lies were pronounced in 378, shortly before Basil’s death; Mario Naldini, Basilio di
Cesarea, Sulla Genesi (Omelie sull’Esamerone) (Milan: Fondazione Lorenzo Valla,
1990), xvii, suggests a slightly earlier date.
386    JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

dogma of theology; in Hex. 9.6 (GCS [NF] 2:159) the Trinitarian dogma
is “intimated” (παραδηλοῦται) in the plural “let us make” (ποιήσωμεν).
If we take into consideration this dynamic relation between dogma and
kerygma, it becomes less surprising that Basil uses dogma in connection
with divine monarchy in Spir. 18.47 (SC 17bis:412)54 or in connection with
the Nicaean Creed in Ep. 125.1 (φανέρωσιν . . . τοῦ σωτηρίου δόγματος),55
whereas in other letters the Creed is called kerygma (Ep. 51.2: τὸ εὐσεβὲς
κήρυγμα;56 Ep. 52.1: τὸ μέγα τῆς εὐσεβείας . . . κήρυγμα;57 Ep. 90.2: ἀγαθὸν
κήρυγμα τῶν Πατέρων58). In Ep. 125, the emphasis is on the “revelation”
(φανέρωσις) of the dogma which thereby becomes the kerygma of the
Creed. And “revelation,” Basil says in Spir. 24.56 (SC 17bis:452), is the
peculiar function of the Spirit. It is in this sense that dogma can be said to
be “hidden” from those who have not been purified and, consequently,
are not able to hearken to the Scripture.
The “instruction” stage, then, presupposes the study of Scripture
(kerygma) with a view to extract the Trinitarian dogma it contains. As
Basil understands it, paradosis is not a “supplement” to the Scripture,
but its theological meaning. The non-scriptural paradosis, on the other
hand, is the result of such “extraction” (which, in turn, invites interpre-
tation): fathers, too, started from the same scriptural evidence (Spir. 7.16;
SC 17bis:300). It is therefore slightly misleading to speak of “scriptural
kêrygmata and scriptural dogmata as well as nonscriptural kêrygmata
and dogmata”:59 despite being “embedded” into the text of Scripture,
dogma is understood rather than authoritatively proclaimed. For Basil,
although the formula “with the Spirit” (σὺν τῷ Πνεύματι) is not attested in
the Scripture, it can be deduced from it by those who are enlightened by
the Spirit. This doxology, Basil maintains against the pneumatomachians,
is in full agreement with the baptismal formula (Matt 28.19) and with the
faith of the fathers.

54. Compare Gribomont, “Esotérisme et tradition,” 44: “Or, quel point de la doc-
trine chrétienne était moins ésotérique, moins caché, non seulement aux fidèles et aux
catéchumènes, mais à la masse des païens, que le monothéisme?”
55. Yves Courtonne, Basile de Césarée, Lettres (Paris: Les belles lettres, 1961), 2:32.
56. Courtonne, Lettres, 1:133.
57. Courtonne, Lettres, 1:134.
58. Courtonne, Lettres, 1:196.
59. See above n9.
 ALIEVA / THEOLOGY AS CHRISTIAN EPOPTEIA   387

CONTEMPLATION

The most salient borrowing from mystery cults’ vocabulary is the word
epopteuein (ἐποπτεύειν, “contemplate”).60 In the context of the Eleusin-
ian mysteries, this word was used to refer to the highest degree of initia-
tion. One could be an epoptes (ἐπόπτης) only with an interval of at least a
year after initiation into the “greater mysteries” (Plu. Dem. 26). In other
words, within the group of mystai (“initiated”) there was a division into
the first year mystai and second year mystai, suggesting their experiences
were different.
Plato had used this word already in the Smp. 209e–210a and Phdr.
250bc to refer to philosophical contemplation.61 After him, the highest
stage of philosophical cognition was described in “Eleusinian” terms by
Aristotle (De phil. fr. 1562), Crantor (Stob. 2.31.2763), Philo of Alexan-
dria (Cher. 48–50 and passim64), Plutarch (De prof. 81e;65 cf. fr. 17866),
Theon of Smyrna (De util. math. 14.18–16.267), Alcinoos (Didask.

60. On epoptics, see: Jan Bremmer, “Inititation into the Eleusinian Mysteries: A
‘Thin’ Description,” in Mystery and Secrecy in the Nag Hammadi Collection and
Other Ancient Literature: Ideas and Practices, Studies for Einar Thomassen at Sixty,
ed. Christian H. Bull, Liv Ingeborg Lied, and John D. Turner, NHS 76 (Leiden: Brill,
2011), 375–97, esp. 484–89; Erich Fascher, “Epoptie,” RAC 5 (1962): 973–83;
Walter Burkert, Greek Religion (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985),
283. On the Christian appropriation of the term, see Christoph Auffarth, “Mysterien
(Mysterienkulte),” RAC 25 (2013): 422–71, esp. 448, and most importantly, Jan N.
Bremmer, Initiation into the Mysteries of the Ancient World, Münchner Vorlesungen
zu Antiken Welten 1 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014), esp. 161–65.
61. On the metaphorical use of the imagery of mysteries in Plato and before, see
Édouard des Places, “Platon et la langue des Mystères,” Études Platoniciennes 1929–
1979 (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 83–88; Riedweg, Mysterienterminologie, passim; Barbara
Sattler, “The Eleusinian Mysteries in Pre-Platonic Thought: Metaphor, Practise and
Imagery for Plato’s Symposium,” in Philosophy and Salvation in Greek Religion,
ed. Vishwa Adluri, Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 60 (Berlin: De
Gruyter, 2013), 151–90.
62. Ricardus Walzer, Aristotelis dialogorum fragmenta (Firenze: G. S. Sansoni,
1934), 79. Compare Clem. Str. 1.28.176, cited above, n45.
63. Curtius Wachsmuth, Ioannis Stobaei anthologii: Libri duo priores qui inscribe
solent Eclogae physicae et ethicae, vols. 1–2 (Berlin: Weidmann, 1884), 206.
64. F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker, Philo: On the Cherubim, The Sacrifices of Abel
and Cain, The Worse Attacks the Better, On the Posterity and Exile of Cain, On the
Giants, LCL 227 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929), 36.
65. Robert Klaerr, André Philoppon, Jean Sirinelli, Plutarque, Oeuvres morales,
Vol. 1.2 (Paris: Les belles lettres, 1989), 177.
66. F. H. Sandbach, Plutarch’s Moralia, Vol. 15, LCL 429 (Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press, 1969), 316–18.
67. See above n37.
388    JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

28.468), Clement of Alexandria (Str. 1.28.176; Str. 5.11.70–7169), Origen

(Cant. prol. 370), Iamblichus (Protr. 271), Synesius (Dion 10.972), Marinus
(Procl. 1373), and others.
That Basil knew this metaphorical meaning of epopteia (ἐποπτεία, “con-
templation”) can be seen from two passages in his homilies on Psalms,
where he mentions the technical division of philosophy into logic, ethics,
physics, and epoptics (Bas. Hom. in. Ps. 32.7;74 Hom. in. Ps. 44.10 [PG
29:408.42–44]). In the second passage, he applies the division to the Chris-
tian teaching, and does so in explaining the many-colored (πεποικιλμένη)
garments of the Bride (Ps 44.10). Interestingly, Plutarch explains similarly
the many-colored (ποικίλαι) garments of Isis, and contrasts them to the
“luminosity” (τὸ φωτοειδές) of Osiris, that is, epopteia (De Is. 382de).75
In Spir., the term is used twice outside our passage, and in both cases
epopteia is associated with the Trinitarian dogma. First, in Spir. 18.47 (SC
17bis:412; Anderson, St. Basil, 74) we read that the Spirit bestows the
power to contemplate (ἐποπτικὴν δύναμιν) on those who fix their eyes “on
the beauty of the image of the invisible God,”76 that is, on the Son, and
“through the image are led up to the indescribable beauty of its source,”
that is, to the Father. Basil’s thought here is based on two scriptural texts:

68. See above n35.

69. See above n45.
70. See above n48.
71. Hermenegildus Pistelli, Iamblichi Protrepticus (Leipzig: Teubner, 1888), 10.4–10.6.
72. Jacques Lamoureux, Synésios de Cyrène (Paris: Les belles lettres, 2004),
4:140–85, at 168.
73. Henri Dominique Saffrey, Alain-Philippe Segonds, Marinus, Proclus ou sur le
bonheur (Paris: Les belles lettres, 2001), 16.5.
74. PG 29:341.5–7.
75. Christian Froidefond, Plutarque, Oeuvres morales, Vol. 5.2: Isis et Osiris (Paris:
Les belles lettres, 1988): 247. In Str. 5.8.53 (le Boulluec, Stromate V, 110), Clement
allegorically interprets Joseph’s many-colored (ποικίλος) garments (Gen 37.23–24) as
his variegated (ποικίλη) knowledge. Compare Greg. V. Mos. 2.7 (Herbertus Musurillo,
Gregorii Nysseni De vita Moysis, Gregorii Nysseni Opera 7.1 [Leiden: Brill, 1964],
35.14–15): ἐκ ποικίλων μαθημάτων συμπηγνυμένη παίδευσις. According to Gregory of
Nyssa, Basil made use of τὰ ποικίλα μαθήματα in his commentary on Genesis, whereas
his brother Peter, as if he were at Mount Sinai, strives to enter “the darkness of
unutterable contemplation” (εἰς τὸν γνόφον τῆς τῶν ἀποῤῥήτων θεωρίας) (Hubertus R.
Drobner, Gregorii Nysseni In Hexaemeron, Gregorii Nysseni Opera 4.1 [Leiden: Brill,
2009], 10.19–11.6). Again, two stages are clearly discernible here.
76. See also Bas. Ep. 233.1 (Yves Courtonne, Basile de Césarée, Lettres [Paris: Les
belles lettres, 1966], 3:40): ὁ . . . τῇ θεότητι τοῦ Πνεύματος ἀνακραθεὶς νοῦς . . . τῶν
μεγάλων ἐστὶ θεωρημάτων ἐποπτικὸς καὶ καθορᾷ τὰ θεῖα κάλλη, etc. Compare Riedweg,
Mysterienterminologie, 22.
 ALIEVA / THEOLOGY AS CHRISTIAN EPOPTEIA   389

“No one knows the Father except the Son” (Matt 11.27) and “No one
can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except in the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor 12.3).77
Second, in Spir. 22.53 (SC 17bis:440–42; Anderson, St. Basil, 84, with
corrections), Basil relies on John 14.17 to demonstrate that the Spirit,
like the Father and the Son, “cannot be grasped by our thoughts.” He
writes, referring in turn to each of the three stages, that the Lord gives
the power of (3) beholding and contemplating the Spirit (τὸ καὶ ἐποπτικοῖς
ἤδη εἶναι καὶ θεωρητικοῖς τοῦ Πνεύματος) to his disciples, having testified
(2) by his “teaching” (ἐκ τῶν διδαγμάτων)78 that they have (1) “cleansed”
(καθαρότητα . . . μαρτυρήσας) their lives. On the contrary, (2) “a carnal man’s
mind is not trained in contemplation (ἀγύμναστον ἔχων πρὸς θεωρίαν τὸν
νοῦν),79 but (1) remains buried in the mud of fleshly lusts (Rom 8.6), pow-
erless (3) to look up and see the spiritual light (πνευματικὸν φῶς) of the
truth.”80 Both in the description of the Lord’s disciples and in the descrip-
tion of the “carnal man” two elements are discernible, namely their con-
dition (1) with respect to purification, (2) and with respect to teaching, or
γυμνασία.81 Both are required, as necessary conditions, for (3) the contem-
plation of the Holy Trinity, and correspond to Basil’s use of “purification”
and “instruction” as analyzed above.82

77. On the “illuminative” function of the Spirit in Basil of Caesarea see Ysabel de
Andia, “In lumine tuo, videbimus lumen (Ps. 35, 10): L’illumination par l’Esprit dans
le De Spiritu Sancto de Saint Basile,” in Mémorial Dom Jean Gribomont (1920–1986),
Studia ephemeridis “Augustinianum” 27 (Roma: Institutum patristicum Augustinia-
num, 1988), 59–74, at 62.
78. The construction is somewhat ambiguous, but it is more likely that ἐκ τῶν
διδαγμάτων modifies μαρτυρήσας, not καθαρότητα; similar construction in Bas. Hom.
23. 2 (PG 31:592.12–13): ἐκ τῶν . . . κατορθωμάτων μαρτυρούμενος; Ep. 56.1 (Cour-
tonne, Lettres 1:143): τὰς ἐκ τῶν πραγμάτων μαρτυρίας. The meaning of John 15.3,
to which the allusion is made here, is therefore slightly altered by the alteration of
the construction.
79. Compare the use of γεγυμνασμένα in Heb 5.14.
80. Pruche (SC 17bis:443n1) notes “la forte saveur platonicienne de cette passage.”
81. These stages are not clearly distinguished, for the teaching itself contributes to
the further purification of the soul; compare Porph. Sent. 32.33–34 (Erich Lamberz,
Porphyrii sententiae ad intelligibilia ducentes [Leipzig: Teubner, 1975], 25): Ἐπεὶ δὲ
κάθαρσις ἡ μέν τις ἦν καθαίρουσα, ἡ δὲ κεκαθαρμένων, etc., and Synes. Dion 9.8 (Lam-
oureux, Synésios, 164).
82. Similarly, in Is. intr. 1–2 Basil mentions two “gifts” of a prophet: “The first and
great gift, requiring an utterly purified soul, is to be able to contain the divine inspi-
ration . . . . The second . . . is to hearken to the intent of what is said by the Spirit,
etc.” The second gift requires continuous study of Scriptures: Nikolai Lipatov, St. Basil
the Great: Commentary on the Prophet Isaiah, Texts and Studies in the History of
Theology 7 (Mandelbachtal: Edition Cicero, 2001), 1. The authenticity of this work
390    JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

So, in two cases the epistemic function of the Spirit in theology is asso-
ciated with epoptics.

THE PLAN OF THE TABERNACLE

Basil supports his theological epistemology with a biblical example, which

confirms that he does, in fact, distinguish at least two degrees of advance-
ment within the group of the “initiated.” The plan of the Tabernacle
([1] the profane, [2] the Levites, [3] the priests) finds an exact parallel in the
Eleusinian “grades of initiation” ([1] amyetos, [2] mystes, [3] epoptes).83
In this respect, Basil’s debt to Origen’s homilies on Numbers84 has been
stressed on several occasions.85 Origen’s homilies are only preserved in
Latin translation, so we cannot trace verbatim borrowings; still the main
train of thought is very similar. Commenting on Num 4.1–49, Origen says
that only Aaron and his sons, the priests, were permitted to see “the Holy
of Holies,” which they were appointed to cover with a veil. The Levites,
on the other hand, were appointed to “lift these things on their shoulders,
everything that the hand of the priest had covered.” The things the Levites

is vigorously defended in: Nikolai Lipatov, “The Problem of the Authorship of the
Commentary on the Prophet Isaiah attributed to St. Basil the Great,” SP 27 (1993):
42–48, and, more recently, by Enrico Cattaneo, Il Commento a Isaia di Basilio di
Cesarea: Attribuzione e studio teologico-letterario, Studia Ephemeridis Augustinia-
num 139 (Rome: Institutum Patristicum “Augustinianum,” 2014), who also admits
a strong Origenist influence on this writing.
83. There is an interesting parallel in the Synes. Dion 6.2 (Lamoureux, Synésios,
155), where the plan of Proteus’s sanctuary is described in similar terms: there is an
outer court for the atelestoi (ἀτέλεστοι), who are curious about the aporreta (ἀπόρρητα);
whereas the shrine (ἀνάκτορον) is only opened for those who are not content with
small-talk and want to learn “the primary elements”: wild beasts, plants, fire—all the
varied forms of Proteus are thus associated with the “instruction,” apparently physics.
84. Or. Hom 5 in Num. (Wilhelm Baehrens, Origenes Werke 7, GCS 30 [Leipzig:
J. C. Hinrichs, 1921], 24–30; Louis Doutreleau, André Méhat, Marcel Borret,
W. Baehrens, Origène, Homélies sur les Nombres I (Homélies I–X), SC 415 [Paris:
Éditions du Cerf, 1996], 118–37; Thomas P. Scheck, trans., Christopher A. Hall, ed.,
Origen, Homilies on Numbers, Ancient Christian Texts (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-
Varsity Press, 2009).
85. Jean Gribomont, “Esotérisme et tradition”: 49–53; Gribomont, “L’Origénisme
de Saint Basile,” in L’homme devant Dieu: Mélanges offerts au père Henri de Lubac
(Paris: Aubier, 1964), 281–94, at 290n36; de Mendieta, “Apostolic Traditions,” 48n3.
Georg Günter Blum, Offenbarung und Überlieferung: die dogmatische Konstitution
Dei Verbum des II. Vaticanums im Lichte altkirchlicher und moderner Theologie
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 122n167 criticizes “origenistic” inter-
pretations of Basil’s text.
 ALIEVA / THEOLOGY AS CHRISTIAN EPOPTEIA   391

(that is, simple believers) “carry on their shoulders,” on Origen’s read-

ing, are those “ecclesiastical observances . . . which everyone is obliged to
do, and yet not everyone understands the reason for them” (GCS 30:26;
Scheck, Origen, 17). The examples of such “veiled things” given by Ori-
gen resemble those enumerated by Basil in Spir. 27.66: kneeling for prayer,
orientation towards the east in prayer, the rites of the Eucharist and of the
baptism, the observance of the Pentecost.
Origen invites his readers to proceed from the “order of history” to
the “splendor of the mystery,” that is, the spiritual meaning of the Bible:
If one of those who minister to God is worthy to take in the divine things
and to look at the mysteries (uidere mysteria) that the rest are less capable
of contemplating, he is understood to be an Aaron or one of Aaron’s sons.
He can enter into things which it is not lawful for others to approach.
(GCS 30:25; Scheck, Origen, 17)

It remains now to see what the term “mystery” means in Spir. 27.66.

MYSTERY

Two translations of ἐν μυστηρίῳ in Spir. 27.66 have been suggested:

“secret” and “sacrament.”86 For the fourth-century context, these transla-
tions are not mutually exclusive, given the practice of the disciplina arcani
already established in the church. Besides, it was noted that ἐν μυστηρίῳ
might be a Pauline allusion.87
Surprisingly, the latter observation has received relatively little atten-
tion in discussions concerning Spir. 27.66. Thus, Gribomont notes that
the biblical allusion explains the absence of the article before the noun as
well as the the use of the singular (which is atypical when one speaks of
the “sacraments”).88 As for the “eschatological” meaning of mysterion in
the Pauline corpus, Gribomont observes: “Cette nuance, très juive, échap-
pait nécessairement à Basile, qui manquait de la préparation historique
indispensable.”89 However, Basil’s attentive reading of the Pauline letters
compensates for the lack of “historical preparation,” for Paul’s own use

86. See discussion in Gribomont, “Esotérisme et tradition,” 52.

87. 1 Cor 2.7, see de Mendieta, “Apostolic Traditions,” 31n1.
88. Compare Bas. Ep. 188.1 (Courtonne, Lettres 2:124): προσιέναι τοῖς μυστηρίοις;
Ep. 53.2 (Courtonne, Lettres 1:138): ἐπιτελεῖν ἅγια μυστήρια; Bapt. (PG 31:1601.18):
τὰ τῆς ἱερωσύνης μυστήρια ἐπιτελῶμεν, etc.
89. Gribomont, “Esotérisme et tradition,” 52–53; Gribomont, “Le Paulinisme de
saint Basile,” in Studiorum Paulinorum Congressus Internationalis Catholicus 1961
(Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1963), 2:481–90.
392    JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

of the word mysterion is strongly influenced by the apocalyptic literature,

namely the book of Daniel.90
In Spir. 16.38 (SC 17bis:382; Anderson, St. Basil, 64) Basil says that it
is through the Spirit that Gabriel could foretell events (Luke 1.26–36) and
Daniel (Dan 10.11) could “teach hidden things” (διδάσκειν τὰ κεκρυμμένα),
for the revelation of mysteries (ἡ ἀποκάλυψις τῶν μυστηρίων), Basil says
with the apostle Paul (1 Cor 2.10), is the peculiar function of the Spirit.
This Pauline thought is repeated in Spir. 26.62 (SC 17bis:472, citing 1 Cor
14.2; cf. 1 Cor 12.3). Pauline overtones of mysterion are also perceivable
in Spir. 9.23 (SC 17bis:328; Anderson, St. Basil, 44), where the “under-
standing of mysteries” (μυστηρίων σύνεσις) is mentioned as one of the gifts
of the Spirit (Eph 3.4–5).91
Basil’s notion of “mystery” accords with that of the apostle Paul not
only inasmuch as both attribute revelatory function to the Spirit alone,
but also inasmuch as the “content” of the mystery for them concerns
God’s redemptive plan for humankind. In Spir. 24.57 (SC 17bis:454;
Anderson, St. Basil, 89) Basil says that by “gifts bestowed on us by God”
(1 Cor 2.12) Paul means “the mystery of the incarnation” (τὸ μυστήριον τῆς
ἀνθρωπήσεως). This claim is in full agreement with the Pauline usage: Paul
comes to Corinth to proclaim τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θεοῦ (1 Cor 2.1; cf. 1 Cor.
2.7: σοφίαν ἐν μυστηρίῳ), which is none other than the cross (1 Cor 1.23:
κηρύσσομεν Χριστὸν ἐσταυρωμένον). This mysterion, though being publicly
proclaimed (κηρύσσομεν), was not recognized by “the rulers of the age”
(1 Cor 2.8), but is revealed to those endowed with the Spirit (1 Cor 2.10).92
1 Cor 2 and Heb 5 form the kernel of Spir. 14.33 (SC 17bis:362; Ander-

90. In Dan, the term has an eschatological perspective and means, according to
the TDNT, “a concealed intimation of divinely ordained future events whose disclo-
sure and interpretation is reserved for God alone . . . and for those inspired by His
Spirit” (Bornkamm, “Μυστήριον, Μυέω,” 814). A most full and useful discussion is
offered in Benjamin Gladd, Revealing the Mysterion: The Use of Mystery in Daniel
and Second Temple Judaism with Its Bearing on First Corinthians, Beihefte zur ZNW,
160 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008).
91. The question of authenticity of this or any other Pauline epistle need not con-
cern us here. See, for instance, Markus N. A. Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery
in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum
Neuen Testament 2.36 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1990), 194n1, with
bibliography.
92. In Spir. 12.28 (SC 17bis:346; Anderson, St. Basil, 49), Basil says that the
cause of the “power to be renewed” is “hidden in an indescribable mystery,” and
the context is again unmistakenly Pauline (cf. Tit 3.5; Rom 12.2; 1 Cor 2.7). In Spir.
27.67 (SC 17bis:488; Anderson, St. Basil, 102), when Basil underpins the importance
of the non-scriptural traditions for the “mystery of true religion” (τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας
μυστήριον), he clearly does so with 1 Tim 3.16 in mind, where it signifies the whole
history of redemption from the incarnation to the resurrection.
 ALIEVA / THEOLOGY AS CHRISTIAN EPOPTEIA   393

son, St. Basil, 55–56). Basil sets out here to prove that the baptism into
Moses, being a “type” (τύπος), does not render insignificant the grace of
the baptism into Spirit. Those who claim otherwise,93 Basil continues, are
like small children in need of milk (cf. Heb 5.12), ignorant of the “great
mystery of our salvation” (τὸ μέγα τῆς σωτερίας ἡμῶν μυστήριον), namely
that we are brought to “perfection” (τελείωσις; cf. Heb 5.14) gradually, and
first receive “elementary lessons” (ἐστοιχειώθημεν; cf. Heb 5.12 τὰ στοιχεῖα)
by which we grow accustomed to the light of truth, and move towards
“the secret and hidden wisdom” (τὴν ἀποκεκρυμμένην ἐν μυστηρίῳ σοφίαν).
Indeed, Paul uses σοφία ἐν μυστηρίῳ (1 Cor 2.7) as parallel to σοφία ἐν τοῖς
τελείοις (1 Cor 2.6); by juxtaposing it with Heb 5.12–14, Basil naturally
concludes that mysterion is revealed gradually: the Spirit guides us to the
“perfection” (τελείωσις) by means of “exercises” (γυμνασία) and “elemen-
tary lessons” (στοιχεῖα) of the law.94

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The meaning of “tradition” (paradosis) in Basil’s text is broader than a

reference to the disciplina arcani can account for: it includes both the text
of the Scripture and the non-scriptural (ecclesiastical) customs and formu-
las, not necessarily arcana. According to Basil, non-scriptural paradosis is
not an independent source of theological knowledge, reserved for a select
few: starting from the scriptural evidence, which is itself “mystical” (that
is, dogmata are both hidden and revealed by the Spirit), fathers dressed
their teaching in the same form, for they did not want the dogma to be
neglected by the multitude. In this respect, we agree with de Mendieta
that, for Basil, behind the literal level of “tradition” (kerygma) there are
also deeper theological doctrines (dogmata).
When Basil speaks of epopteia, he means the contemplation of the hidden
Trinitarian sense of paradosis. Yet, pace de Mendieta, such contemplation
is reserved not for the monks (which would be a weak argument given the
historical context of the debate), but for those who profess the divinity of
the Spirit at their baptism (and thus are really “purified”) and are ready to
undergo his instruction. This “instruction” consists, for Basil, in ­discovering

93. Eustathius; the argument concerning baptism is discussed in Haykin, The Spirit
of God, 131.
94. Haykin, The Spirit of God, 136, summarizes Basil’s argument as follows: “The
objection of Eustathius reveals his failure to comprehend the way in which God has
dealt with humanity in history. God’s dealings with humanity can be compared to
a process of gradual acclimatization, in which eyes that have known only darkness
grow accustomed to the full intensity of sunlight.”
394    JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

the Trinitarian dogmata behind both scriptural and ­non-scriptural keryg-

mata. So, pace Pruche, dogma is only potentially public, for its discovery
is reserved, in line with the Pauline teaching, for the “perfect.”
Although Basil borrows the threefold Platonic scheme (“ethics—
physics—epoptics,” or “purification—instruction—contemplation”) from
Origen, he does so with a view to elaborate the Pauline notion of “perfec-
tion,” and to indicate a specific path to it (which remains beyond Paul’s
immediate concern in his correspondence). Pace Hanson, this philosoph-
ical “curriculum” is not a “quasi-gnostic” substitution for the Pauline
mysterion, but rather a way to it. The use of the mysteries’ vocabulary
paralleling the Pauline discourse of perfection is justified by the fact that,
by Basil’s time, “mysteries” was a standard metaphor for education, and
implied very little, if any, secrecy.
If there is a hint of esotericism in Basil’s theological epistemology, it has
to do not with the philosophical mysteria, but with the specific function of
the Spirit in revealing the mysterion in Paul. Basil’s theological masterstroke
is that now each and every step on the way to “perfection” is dependent
on the Spirit. In the case of Eustathius and other pneumatomachians, it
means, first, that their baptism (“purification”) is declared null and void,
for the baptismal profession implies “connumeration” of the Spirit with
the Father and the Son. Second, by rejecting the non-scriptural tradition,
they try to proceed to the theological epopteia (“greater mysteries”) skip-
ping the necessary paradosis stage (“lesser mysteries”), which, within the
metaphor, is a scandalous profanation. So, not only they are not close to
perfection—they have not started their course yet.
Basil’s idea seems to be that those who undertake the whole “course”
inevitably come to the profession of the divinity of the Spirit: not because
some “secret” doctrine concerning consubstantiality of the Spirit is trans-
mitted at a certain “grade of initiation,” but because the course itself bears
witness of its Author. From Basil’s perspective, then, the Holy Spirit is the
only way to ascend to this mystical contemplation of the Trinity. As a cor-
ollary, any theological discourse outside the Trinitarian doctrine simply
becomes meaningless.
In sum, the idea of gradual “initiation,” which underlies Basil’s divi-
sion into kerygma and dogma, cannot be considered as a mere situational
response to the pneumatomachian controversy (even if it is in the course of
this controversy that the idea becomes fully articulated) and presupposes
a deeper philosophical reflection about how, if at all, progress in theology
and theological knowledge as such are possible.

Olga Alieva is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the National

Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow