99+

Download PDF
Search Full PDF Package Translate Try Premium for €1 Jesse
HOME MENTIONS ANALYTICS UPLOAD TOOLS

How Difficulties in Transmitting the

Texts of Basil’s Adversus Eunomium 3.1
and Maximus’ Letter to Marinus Led to
the Rise and Fall of Ferrara-Florence
Jacob N Van Sickle

2013, The Use of Textual Criticism for the Interpretation of Patristic Texts. Edited by Kenneth Steinhauser
and Scott Dermer
 880 Views  20 Pages 2 Files ▾
 Philology, Late Antique and Byzantine History, Medieval Literature, Medieval History, Patristics,
Medieval Studies, Textual Criticism, Medieval Theology, Orthodox Theology, Manuscript Studies,
Medieval Church History, Papacy (Medieval Church History), Codicology, Byzantine Studies,
Catholic Theology, Late Antiquity, Byzantine History, Church History, Late Byzantine history,
Maximus the Confessor, Manuscripts (Medieval Studies), Basil of Caesarea, Palaeography,
Catholic-Orthodox dialogue, Textual Criticism (Religion), Orthodox Christianity, Ecumenical dialogues,
Ecumenical and Interfaith Dialogue, Great Schism, Philology, Codicology, Critical Edition,
Textual Criticism and Editing, Filioque, Late Medieval History, Greek manuscripts, Ecumenism,
Orthodox Church, Editing, History of Book, Ecumenical Councils, Catholic Church History, Bessarion,
Council of Ferrara-Florence, Eastern Orthodoxy, 15th Century Florence, Eastern Orthodox Christianity,
Eastern Orthodox Theology, Greek Manuscripts and Textual Criticism,
Textual Circulation and Reception, Greek Manuscripts (Palaeography, Codicology, Text Transmission),
Humanism (15th-17th c.), Medieval and Neolatin Texts, Greek (Byzantine) Texts,
Byzantine Diplomatics (Imperial and Patriarchal Chancellery) ...more ▾
Show more ▾

The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate how issues of textual transmission stymied
productive discussion at Ferrara-Florence on the doctrine of the Llioque and led to a schism
within the Greek delegation, which resulted in the signing of a formula of reunion ...read more

 Download PDF Full PDF Package Translate 

Original PDF Related

plague forced them to move the council to Florence where they

2
continued for another five. Jaroslav Pelikan has said of the
council, “At no time before or since have the doctrinal
differences between the East and the West been discussed as
thoroughly as they were in the debates … surrounding the
Council of όlorence.”3
Issues discussed included the teaching of purgatory, the
use of leavened versus unleavened bread at the δord’s Supper,
the papal monarchy, and most especially the Latin doctrine of
the filioque. The principal Greek theologians at the council were
Mark Eugenicus, bishop of Ephesus and official legate of the
Patriarch of Alexandria, and Basil Bessarion, Metropolitan of
Nicaea and eventual Latin Patriarch of Constantinople. 4 On the
Latin side were John of Montenero, Lombard provincial of the
Dominican order and principal exponent of the filioque, and
Cardinal Julian Cesarini, leader of the Latin commission.
Though considerable time was spent debating the
meaning of words and constructing syllogistic arguments,
ultimately these endeavors yielded little fruit. The one issue on
which a (not quite complete) agreement was reached was
decided mainly by appeal to the weight of patristic authority.
The holy fathers, it was believed by both parties (though the
Greeks held to this more exclusively than did the Latins), were

2
The Latins had officially convened the council in Ferrara before the
arrival of the Greeks in order to take care of matters internal to the Church of
Rome.
3
Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the
Development of Doctrine, vol. 2, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-
1700) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), 280.
4
Another leading “unionist” who does not feature highly in this account
but was integral to the council nonetheless was George Scholarius, a lay
advisor to the emperor who later in life came to oppose union and became
Patriarch of Constantinople, taking the name Gennadius.

the undisputed interpreters of divine truth, directed as they were

by the Holy Spirit. If a consensus patrum could be established,
the matter was deemed settled.5 Early in the filioque
discussions, a course was plotted toward establishing just such a
consensus. Complicating any use of the fathers, however, then
as now, are the difficulties in establishing a reliable text. In the
course of the discussions and ultimate resolution of the Council
of Florence, textual problems surrounding two crucial texts—
St. Basil of Caesarea’s Adversus Eunomius, book 3 and St.
εaximus the Confessor’s Letter to Marinus— served to create a
false consensus patrum and contributed to a bitter end to the
council despite its apparent initial success.
Basil’s Adversus Eunomium 3.1
Four whole sessions6 of the council were devoted to the
right understanding of Basil’s Adversus Eunomium.7 Early in
the debate it was discovered that there were significant textual
variants at a crucial place in the text. In book 3, section 1, a

5
So one Greek representative, after a long session of disputation,
remarked, “Why Aristotle, Aristotleς Aristotle is no good….What is goodς
St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Chrysostom —not
Aristotle, Aristotle!” Sylvester Syropoulous, Memoirs, ed. V. Laurent, Les
mémoires du grand ecclésiarque de l’Église de Constantinople Sylvestre
Syropoulos sur le Concile de Florence (1438-1439), Concilium Florentinum
documenta et scriptores, ser. B, vol. 9 (Rome: Pontifical Oriental Institute,
1971), 464; cited as Memoirs.
6
March 7, 10, 11, and 14 of 1439. A. Edward Siecienski, The Filioque:
History of a Doctrinal Controversy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010),
156.
7
Adversus Eunomium was completed in 364/365; it is a refutation of
Enomius’ Liber Apologeticus, wherein Eunomius defends his Heteroousian
theology (holding that the Son and the Spirit are not of the same essence as
the Father). For more on this work and its historical setting, see the very
helpful introduction in Mark DelCogliano and Andrew Radde-Gallwitz,
trans., St. Basil of Caesarea: Against Eunomius, FC 122 (Washington, DC:
Catholic University of America Press, 2011), 3 – 78.

passage appealed to by the Latins differed markedly from the

version that the Greeks were using. Below are the two variants
as they reach us in the manuscript tradition.8 I present the texts
9
based on existing witnesses as opposed to the council record
for two reasons. First, none of the manuscripts collated by
modern editors agree in detail with the quotations from the
council record, while four manuscripts dating from before the
council have been found to agree on the “δatin” reading offered
here. Three of these currently reside in Italy, 10 at least one of
which we know was actually present at the council. 11 Second,
the quotations in the council record, which were likely written
from memory rather than real-time dictation and were almost
certainly based on a hearing of the texts as they were read in
council rather than directly copied, do agree with the
manuscripts on the essential points. This would have been all
the precision needed for their purposes. It seems certain,
therefore, that the readings upon which discussion at the council
actually turned were what we have in our manuscripts. Here

8
I am following the reproduction of ε. ύ. de Durand, τ. P., “Un
e
passage du III livre Contre Eunome de S Basile dans la tradition
manuscrite,” Irénikon 54, no. 1 (1981): 37. The texts may also be
reconstructed on the basis of the critical edition: Bernard Sesboüé, S. J. et al.,
eds., Basile de Césarée: Contre Eunome: suivi de Eunome Apologie, vol. 2,
SC 305 (Paris: du Cerf, 1983), 146, where E, L, M, and N are representatives
of the “δatin” text, and the “ύreek” reading is substantially that presented by
the editors as the authentic text of Basil.
9
This was done by Joseph Gill, ed. and trans., Quae supersunt actorum
Graecorum Concilii Florentini: Res Florentiae gestae, Concilium
Florentinum documenta et scriptores ser. B, vol. 5 (Rome: Pontifical
Oriental Institute, 1953), 262. Cited as Acta Graeca.
10
See Paul J. Fedwick, Bibliotheca Basiliana Universalis: A Study of the
Manuscript Tradition of the Works of Basil of Caesarea, vol. 3 (Brepols:
Turnhout, 1997), 629.
11
The manuscript is Venetus Marcianus 58. See Bernard Sesboüé et al.,
eds., Basile de Césarée: Contre Eunome: suivi de Eunome Apologie, vol. 1,
SC 299 (Paris: du Cerf, 1982), 106.

they are in parallel, followed by translations12 of each.

Differences are in bold.
“Latin” text: “Greek” textμ
ἈȟȚȫȝαIJȚ ȝ੻Ȟ Ȗ੹ȡ įİȪIJİȡȠȞ ἈȟȚȫȝαIJȚ ȝ੻Ȟ Ȗ੹ȡ
IJȠῦ υȠῦ , παȡ’ αὐIJȠῦ IJὸ įİυIJİȡεύεȚȞ IJȠῦ υȠῦ
εȞαȚ ἔχȠȞ țαὶ παȡ’ αὐIJȠῦ
ȜαȝȕȐȞȠȞ țαὶ ἀȞαȖȖȑȜȜȠȞ
ἡȝῖȞ, țαὶ ὅȜωȢ IJῆȢ αἰIJȓαȢ
ἐțεȓȞηȢ ἐȟηȝȝȑȞȠȞ
παȡαįίįωıȚȞ ὁ IJોȢ İ੝ıİȕİίαȢ παȡαįίįωıȚȞ ੅ıωȢ ὁ IJોȢ
ȜȩȖȠȢ ... İ੝ıİȕİίαȢ ȜȩȖȠȢ...
(…) ȠὕIJω įηȜȠȞȩIJȚ țαὶ IJὸ (…) ȠὕIJω įηȜȠȞȩIJȚ țαὶ IJὸ
πȞİῦȝα IJὸ ἅȖȚȠȞ, İ țαὶ πȞİῦȝα IJὸ ἅȖȚȠȞ, İ țαὶ
ਫ਼πȠȕέȕηțİ IJὸȞ υὸȞ IJૌ IJ੺ȟİȚ ਫ਼πȠȕέȕηțİ IJὸȞ υὸȞ IJૌ IJε
țαὶ IJῷ ἀȟȚȫȝαIJȚ IJ੺ȟİȚ țαὶ IJῷ ἀȟȚȫȝαIJȚ—੆Ȟα
Ƞ੝țέIJ’ ὅȜωȢ ıυȖχωȡȒıωȝεȞ—
ἂȞ İțȩIJωȢ... Ƞ੝țέIJ’ ἂȞ İțȩIJωȢ...

The word of piety transmits Perhaps the word of piety

that he is second to the Son in transmits that he is second to
dignity, having his being the Son in dignity...
from him and receiving
from him and announcing
to us and being completely
dependent upon him as
ἵause…
(…) δikewise, it is clear that, (…) δikewise, it is clear that,
even if the Holy Spirit is even if the Holy Spirit is

12
English translation of the “ύreek” version is from DelCogliano and
Radde-Gallwitz, Against Eunomius, 186; diff erences in the “δatin” version
are based on the translation in Siecienski, Filioque, 157.

below the Son in both rank below the Son in both rank
and dignity, and dignity—let us make
it is still this supposition—it is still
not likely… not likely…
Two important issues are at play here. The one concerns
whether the Holy Spirit has his being from the Son. The other is
whether Basil actually agrees with Eunomius that the Spirit is
“below the Son in both rank and dignity.” According to the
reading of the δatins’ manuscripts, Basil clearly teaches that the
Son acts as a “cause” of the ώoly Spirit. The crucial word is
αIJία, which the Greeks insisted applies only to the Father and
not the Son. The text of the Latins also indicates that Basil was
in agreement with Eunomius on the question of dignity, while
the Greeks’ text suggests the opposite.
The clarity with which the δatins’ version of the passage
speaks on these issues allowed them to interpret through its lens
the rest of Basil’s corpus, which as we might expect is far from
precise on an issue that arose some three centuries after his
death. Here is manifest the long-standing practice, dating to the
classical era, of “interpreting ώomer by ώomer.” Passages that
are less clear are understood in the terms of passages by that
same author, which are more so. Therefore, by the reading of
the δatins’ text, every ambiguous statement of Basil that might
be turned to the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit
was read in support of the filioque doctrine on the basis of this
13
one clear statement. This line of thinking worked also in
another way. Since, it was held, all the holy fathers, Greek and
Latin, were inspired by one and the same Spirit, they constitute

13
For a list of the considerable number of Basilian proof-texts offered
by the δatins at the council, see Alexander Alexakis, “The ύreek Patristic
Testimonia Presented at the Council of Florence (1439) in Support of the
όilioque Reconsidered,” Revue des études byzantines 58 (2000): 155.

a “symphony of saints” in which harmony is guaranteed. If the

Latin fathers taught explicitly the procession of the Spirit from
Father and Son while the Greeks have been unclear, the Latins
14
must be used to read the Greeks. The scandalous suggestion of
some that the Latin fathers (who as a rule were held in high
esteem in the East, if they were seldom read) might all have
been in error on this point while the Greek fathers preserved the
truth of the matter is disproven by the text of Basil’s Adversus
Eunomius at issue— if it was accepted as genuine.
To this question we now turn. It is a somewhat
misleading convention of scholarship to refer to the two
conflicting variants as the “ύreek” and the “δatin” texts. First,
this language leaves the impression that the issue was with a
translated Latin version, which as we have seen was not the
case. Both readings were found in Greek manuscripts at the
council. εoreover, it is not the case that the “δatin” text was
found exclusively in manuscripts brought to the council by the
Latins while the Greek text was the version brought by the
Greeks. This is the impression one is left with when reading the
Greek Acts, which give no detailed account of the individual
codices at the council and suggest that the lone manuscript of
the Latins bore the whole weight of their reading. They also
record Mark of Ephesus’ response to the discrepancy: there are,
to his knowledge, a handful of manuscripts in Constantinople
that agree with the text that the Latins have brought forth, but
there are “thousands” more, the oldest included, which do not.15
He ventures that the copy of the Latins has been tampered with
in order to substantiate the filioque. However, one biased source

14
This was the argument by which Metropolitan Basil Bessarion swayed
the majority of the Greek delegation toward union. See Siecienski, Filioque,
162– 163.
15
Acta Graeca, 296.

ABOUT AUTHOR

Jacob N Van Sickle

Cleveland State University
Adjunct

Welcome to my academic homepage on academia.edu. I

am a scholar and teacher of Christian theology, especially
the theology of the Early and Byzantine Church. I am also a
priest of the Orthodox Church in America serving at St.
Theodosius Cathedral in ... more ▾

PAPERS FOLLOWERS
+ Follow 
20 149

19 MORE BY JACOB N VAN SICKLE View All ▸

Basil and the Art of Shepherding in Fourth

Century Asia Minor: An Examination of His
Epistolary Ministry
Jacob N Van Sickle
 More Options

RELATED PAPERS

The Filioque, Thomas de Aquino Byzantinus,

and Ps.-Basil’s Contra Eunomium: Mark
Eugenicus and John Montenero, OP, at the
Council of Florence (1439) (Pre-Print Copy)
Christiaan Kappes
 Download  More Options

Patristic Testimonia in the Council of Florence

(REB 58_2000)
Alexandros (Alexander) Alexakis

 Download  More Options

The Interpretation of the Epiclesis from the

Acta Graeca of the Council of Florence (1439)
and Its Impact on the Editio Princeps of the
Liturgies of St. John Chrysosotom and St.
Basil the Great: Nicholas Cabasilas
Reinterpreted // Studia Liturgica, vol. 54/2
(2024), p. 176–206
Mikhail Bernatsky
 Download  More Options

The Case Against Diodore and Theodore:

Texts and their Contexts (Oxford Early
Christian Texts). By John Behr. Pp. xix, 526,
Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011,
£140/$265
John Behr
 Download  More Options

“Aristotle’s Tetragon: Compilation and

Consensus during the Great Schism.” In
Michael Van Dussen and Pavel Soukup, eds.,
Religious Controversy in Europe, 1378-1536:
Textual Transmission and Networks of
Readership (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols,
2013), 187-210.
Michael Van Dussen
 Download  More Options

THEOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES OF DIALOGUE AT

THE COUNCIL OF FERRARA-FLORENCE
(1438-39)
Tonny-Leonard Farauanu
 Download  More Options

Kann man Bücher verbrennen? Severus of

Antioch’s Letter to Nonnus Scholasticus, a
Heretical Codex, and a Late Roman Autodafé
Kutlu Akalin and Volker Menze
 Download  More Options

Ἐξ ἀμφοῖν. Cyril of Alexandria and Polemics

Over klioque of Gregory Palamas
Mikonja Knežević

 Download  More Options

Manipulating the Message: Letters of

Gelasius and Nicholas I on Papal Authority
Bronwen Neil

 Download  More Options

Reading Basil of Caesarea's On the Holy Spirit

as Apology: Reassessing the Inmuence of
Eustathius of Sebaste on the Treatise.
John Whitty
 Download  More Options

Review of Vitae Antonii Versiones latinae: Vita

beati Antonii abbatis Evagrio interprete; Versio
uetustissima, ed. P. H. E. Bertrand and L.
Gandt, Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina
170 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2019) in Journal of
Late Antiquity 13 (2020): 175-177.
Scott G. Bruce
 Download  More Options

Per Fillium : A Biblical Alternative to the

Filioque Clause and a Via Media between
Rome and Constantinople
Antonio Arsenal
 Download  More Options

Inside and Outside the Text: An analysis of

apologies, contents and addresses in
Jerome’s De Viris Illustribus and Eusebius’
Church History
Annamaria Laviola-Svensäter
 Download  More Options

The accidents of transmission: On a

surprising multilingual manuscript leaf. With
the edition of the Ethiopic version of two
Constantinian epistles (CPG no. 8517,
Epistula Constantini imperatoris ad ecclesiam
Alexandrinam, and CPG nos 2041 = 8519, Lex
lata Constantini Augusti de Arii damnatione)
Alessandro Bausi
 Download  More Options

From Irenaeus to Grotius: A Sourcebook in

Christian Political Thought, 100-1625 (review)
Oliver O'Donovan

 Download  More Options

‘Unfortunate Rather than Wicked’: Failure to

Communicate in the De legatione ad Gaium
Benjamin Hicks

 Download  More Options

The Letter to the Romans: Salvation as

Justice and the Deconstruction of Law. By
Herman C. Waetjen. Sheseld, UK: Sheseld
Phoenix Press, 2011. Pp. xxiv + 390. Cloth,
$115/€85
Herman Waetjen
 Download  More Options

The Filioque Controversy in the 13th century.

A collection of major Church Fathers' citations
advanced by the Filioque-supporters in order
to fortify their theological position.
Conceptual consistency with writers of the
Latin West, in: TEOLOGIA XV,4. 49 (2011) 43-
60.pdf
Theodoros Alexopoulos
 Download  More Options

'‘On account of the difference of language’

Greek, Latin, translation and retranslation in
the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (451)',
Paper given at the Conference "Shifting
Frontiers XII. The Fifth Century: Age of
Transformation", Yale University, 26 March
2017
Tommaso Mari
 Download  More Options

Texts, Law, and Church Reform: The Anti-

Simoniac Dossier of BM Reims Ms. 15 and the
Collectio Sinemuriensis
John S . Ott
 Download  More Options

Cicero at Court: Martino Filetico's

Iocundissimae disputationes
Virginia Cox

 Download  More Options

A new Byzantine source concerning the

reception of the Council of Florence:
Theodore Agallianos’ Dialogue with a monk
against the Latins (ca. 1442), dans I.
BILIARSKY (éd.), Laudator temporis acti.
Studia in memoriam Ioannis A. Božilov, II,
Soka 2018, p. 156-166
Marie-Hélène Blanchet
 Download  More Options

The Citation of Latin Authors at the Council of

Florence
Richard Price

 Download  More Options

Philosophical Arguments and Christian

Worship in St. Basil's Debate with Eunomius
Ovidiu Sferlea

 Download  More Options

Siecienski, Edward. The Filioque: History of a

Doctrinal Controversy. Oxford Studies in
Historical Theology. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2010. Pp. ix + 355.
Hardcover. $49.95.
Nick Norelli
 Download  More Options