I

CUA STUDIES EN EARLY CHRISTIANITY

GROUP IDENTITY AND

GENERAL EDITOR

RELIGIOUS INDIVIDUALITY IN

Philip Rousseau, Andrete IViiIelton DistinguishedProfessor

LATE ANTIQITY

EDITORIAL BOARD

Katherine L.Jansen, DeparhnentofHisto;y

William E. Klingshirn, Department ofGreek and Latin
Trevor C. Lipscombe, The Catholic University ofAmerica Press
frankJ. Macera, School ofTheology and Rett otis Studies
Timothy Noone, School ofPhitosophy
Sidney H. Grithth.DepartmentofSemiticand
Egyptian Languages zzndLiteratures

EDITED BY

EricRebitlardandforgRnpke

INTERNATIONAL EDITORIAL BOARD

Pauline Allen, Australian Catholic University

Lewis Ayrcs, Durlians Uiiiversicj
Daniel Boyarin, University ofcalfnsua, Berkeley
Gillian Clark, University ofBrisrot
Angelo di Berardino, OSA, Istituto Patriscico Angustinanium, Rome
Hubertus R. Drobner, Theologische Facultdt, Paderborn
David W.Johnson, SJ,Jesuit School ofTheology, Berkeley
Judith Lieu, University ofCambridge
Frederick xc Norris, Emmanuel School ofRettyion
Eric RebWard, Cornell University
John M. Rist, University ofToronto
Linda SAran, University of Thronto
Susan I. Stevens, Randolph-aIacon JJhmruns College
Rica Lizzi Testa, Universitd degli Studi di Ferugia
Michael A. Williams, University ofWtshington, Seattle

The Cttt,otic University ofAmerica Press

lUashungron, D.C.

88

KiM BOWlS

Smith, Jonathan Z. lb Thke Place: Thward Theory in Ritual. Chicago: Chicago Universj
Press, t987.
Trading Places. in Ancient Magic and Ruat Power, edited by Marvin W. Meyer
and Paul A. Mirecks, 132.4. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
Constructing a SmaU Place. In Sacred Space. Shrine, City, Land, edited by Ben..
jamin Kedar-Kopfstein and Raphael]ehudah Zwi Werblowsky, 5630. London: Ne
York University Press, 1998.
Stewart, Susan. On Longing: Narratives ofthe Miniature, the Gigantic, the Souvenir, eb Col
lection. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1993.
Striker, Cecil L. and Y. Dogan Kuban, eds. Katenderhane in Istanbul: The Buildings, Their
History, Architecture, and Decoration. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1998.
Taft, Robert F. The Great Enerunce:AHistouy ofthe Transfer ofGifts and otherPreanapha.
raiRites oft/se Liturgy ofSt.John Csysostom. Rome: Ponrifirium institurum Studior
Orientalium, 1975.
The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West. Coilegevslle, Minn.: Liturgical Press,
1986.
The Byzantine Rite. A Short History. Collegeville, Mmn.: Liturgical Press, 1992.,
Beyond East and fIbst. Problems in Liturgical Understanding. Rome: Pastoral Press,

Susanna Elm

4. Gregory of Nazianzus
Iviediation between Individual and ComTnunity

1997.

Thomas, John Philip. Private Religious foundations in the Byzantine Empire. Washington,
D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1987.
Thiir, Hilke. Kontinuitt und Diskontinuitt im ephesischen Wohnbau der fthen Kai
serzeiC In PaThs und Imperium. Kutturette studpotittsche Identrtilt in den Stddten
der rnschen Provinzen Kleinasiens in derfruben Kaiserz tie, edited by Chriswf Bet
ns, Henner von Hesberg, Lutgarde Vandeput, and Marc Waellcens, 2.5774. Leuven:
Petters, 1001.
Vikan, Gary. Early Byzantine Pilgrimage desotionatia as Evidence for the Appearance of Pd.
grimage Shrines. In Akten desXIL Internationaten KongressesJiir chnstlicheArchdolo
gie, edited by Ernst Dassmann and JosefEngemann, 37788. Munsrer: Aschendorff,
t995.

Early Byzantine PutgrimzgeArt. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, zolo.

Voicu, SeverJ. Cesaa, Basiio (Ep. 93/4) e Severo. Augustinianum 35 (ss): 697703.
Weitzmann, Kurt. Loca sancta and the Representational Arts of Palestine. Dumbarton
a
Oaks Papers iS (5974): 3155.
Wilkinson, ]ohn.Jerusatem Pilgrims before the Crusades. Warminster, U.K.: Aris and Phil
lips, zooi.
Yasin, Ann Iviarie. Saints and hurch Spaces in the Late Antique hfeditecranean: Architecture,
Cult, and Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1009.

Tensions between group identity and religious individuality are never

ea.cy to confront, whether as the individual experiencing the tension or as a
scholar, especially a social historian, attempting to capture the individual and
his or her experience in the remote past, also known as late antiquity. To para
phrase Seth Schwartz, how should we picture an average late antique man?
To whom did he (here a generic he, without gendered assumption) feel con
nected, why. and how? How did he express faith, joy, love, anger, fear? Couid
he read, and if so, did he bother? In which languages did he address his god or
gods and how would he have been addressed? The focus of this volume on the
individual in relation to community appears to reflect the confluence of two
recent shifts in modern historical approaches to the later Roman world: first, a
steadily increasing focus on the geological, ecological, demographic, gnd eco
nomic givens of the Mediterranean world, sparked at least in part by Peregrine
Horden and Nicholas Purcells The Corrupting Sea, and, second, at the same
time and in response to occasionally rather constructivist ideas as to what
i- made the Mediterranean man into such a man, the return of the individual.
Recent research increasingly reintegrates individuals into what has emerged
as the structural matrix of the later Roman world, because
constructivist and
I thank Enc Rebillard andJorg Rhpke for the invirauon to
their splendid conference.

89

SUSANNA ELM

90

GREGORY Of NAZIANZUS: INDIVIDUAL & COMMUNITY

also reveal that the great men of older historiograpfi

actually
make a difference. The very success of much recent
occasion,
did, on
study of group interactions has thus also brought to the fore the signifie
of the individual and the manner in which it has been constructed, but thb
individual tends to be anything but the average man of late antiquity.2
Indeed, many of our ancient authors were themselves masters at artic,2
lating the tensions between the individual and the group, between individual
agency and the demands of the collective. However, most of these individu
als, these authors, were members of the elite. Nevertheless, the majority of the
debates that deeply moved these (Greek) Roman elite men focused precisely
on the tensions between the good order of the cosmos and the o;koumene of I
the Romans that formed part of that cosmos, and demands aimed at grant
ing and ensuring individuals their own personal salvation.3 Mid-fourth eentu
ry debates as conducted, for example, by the emperor Julian, the philosopher
Themistius, the rhetoricians Libanius, Eunomius, Gregory ofNazianzus, Basil
of Caesarea, and their peers, revolved around the right balance between submission, even enslavement, to a higher order and personal agency, choice, and
free will. Was individual salvation predicated on submission and, if so, submission to whom or to what? Did such submission leave room for individual
choice and, if so, what choice? Did the focus on individual salvation further
the collective good and the order of the oikournene, or did it, rather, represent I
an enormous disruption, catapulting those who adhered to certain ways oflife
that promised individual salvation outside the common family of man?4 Expressed in their classic formulations, these are the tensions between asceticism

structural analyses

i. Peregrine Hocden and Nicholas Purcell, Con opting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History (Oxford: Blackwcll, 2000); CurIos F. Norea. Impend Ideas in the Roman Jteso: Representation. Cimihstwn.
Power (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, aolI). iso splendid example ofjssr such a reintegration.
See a salutary criticisni of culturally constructed assumptions about Mediterranean masculinity

je bishop; the hermit and the monk; the philosopher and the age of anx
porphyry versus lamblichus; retreat versus involvement; Christians vetit
pagans In what follows, I will present a particular iteration of that familiar
5cnsttn to show how one ancient author used tension between group identi
and religious individuality in a rather fruitful manner to develop a concept
would prove to be of tongue dure: the idea of the deification of the mdi
idual, also known as thedsis.
The author in question is Gregory of Nazianzus, and thedsis a concept he
invented. Or. rather, Gregory of Nazianzus invented the neologism thedsis in
Oration 4 against Jisliaa. The term crystallizes how Gregory nuanced and
altered the concept of the divinization of the individual in intense dialogue,
eonftontati1, and conflict with his contemporaries. These contemporaries
included orthodox Christians, heretical Christians, former Christians who
had resinried worship of the ancient gods of the Greeks and the Romans, and
persons who had always believed in the gods of the Greeks and Romans, aka
pagans. All who participated in these debates belonged to a homogeneous
group: that of the Greek intellectual elite of the later Roman Empire formed
bypaideia. That was the basis of their group identity and it preserved its cohe
sive force, whereas other group identities had far more porous boundaries. In
formulating his novel concept, Gregory agreed with some who remained pagas throughout and differed rather markedly from others who, like him, were
to become pillars of Christian orthodoxy. The pagan-Christian divide did not
hold firmly. Before entering in medias res, however, I would like to expand
briefly on the meaning and relevance of thedsis and on Gregory of Nazianzuss
historiographic persona as it relates to the question at hand.
j

or rather pcrsonhood in Seth Schwartz. Ubre the Jews a bfed:teuanean Society?Reriprocity and Solidarity
in Ann cut JusLnim (Princeton: Princeton University Press, cola), I am paraphrasing page i. See aba Er
ich S. Gruen. Rethinking the Other in Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, roll).
Sec further Susanna Elm, Sons of Hetlenio,n, fathers of the Chrrrch: Emperor Juh.m. Gregory of
Nazi,i,iziu,a,tdtheIivUn ofRome (Berkeley: University of California Presi. voit).
For other. relcvanr examples of the rccrnt reintegration of the individual into a structural analy
six see Kyle Harper. SLirenj in the Late Roma,i Il ortd, 4.D. 275425 (New York: Cambridge University
is
Press, ton). Especially relevant for the following is lvlichael Frede, A Free Vit1: Origins ofthe Notion
2
.1,inient Thought (Berkeley: Unisersiry of California Press, loll). See also the essays coUected by George
Levine, The Joy ofSecu/arioan: xi Eu.ryijor Hou IFb LIre sVou (Princeton: Princeton University Pcesi,
toil); fruitful, in particular. is Philip Kitchrr, Challenges for Secularism: 0456.
.

91

Thesis
Thesis Traditionally Understood
Gregory developed his notion of thedsis in the context of formulating the
notion of ideal Christian priesthood in Oration 2 on the same theme. Both to
gether, thepsjs and priesthood, became foundational for orthodox Christian
praxis and, in due course, for the praxis of the Greek and then Russian or
thodox Churches. Gregorys second oration On Priesthood, in which he
first
formulated his ideas regarding divinization and the priest, remains required

SUSANNA ELM

92

GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS: INDIVIDUAL & COMMUNITY

reading in Russian seminaries to this day.5 TheOsis, deification, was a

concept in the so-called Corpus Areopagiticum and in the theolog3
of
imus the Confessor.6 Symeon the New Theologian made it the cornerat
0f the monastic movement later known as hesychasm. The term entered
Church Slavonic and then modern Russian as obozhenie, retaining both Old
semantic structure and the importance of its Greelc equivalent.7 In
sum
pointed out by Jaroslav Pelican, who here stands as pars pro toto for th
ventional accounts of the development of the Eastern churches, th6 osis or
d..
fication was the chief idea of St. Maximus, as of all of Eastern theo1og->
he continues, like all of [MaximussJ theological ideas, it had come to
him
from Christian antiquity and had been formulated by the Greek fathersa
Scholarly consensus holds that what these Greek fathers considered deifi
cation or divinization was a recognizable conflation of two views, the biblj1j
and the Platonic.9 Such scholarly consensus itseWrepresents a number of Con.
flations. First, the Greek fathers under discussion are usually seen as a horn0- j
geneous group consisting in the main of the three Cappadocians without
further differentiation, to be followed by Maxiinus Confessor and Syrneon
the New Theologian, also more or less considered as one homogeneous strand
-

Hilarion Mfeyev, Zh;z,z I Uchenie St. Grigorsia Bogostora. (St. Petersburg: Metcjia, Cool).
I thank Boris Rodin Maslov for this reference and for relating its content. See also Boris R. M0sl09,
OikriOsis Pros Theon: Gregory of Nazianzus Concept of Divinization and the Heteronomous Subject of Eastern Christian Penance: Zeitschrqlfiirdntikes Cli ristentu,n/]ournal ofAncient Christianity i6
(tot;): 31143.
6. Gregorys teachings on riotous, in particular in their relevance to throdiry, also had a more imme
diate effect, especially on his student Evagrius Ponricus and on Palladius of Helenopolis. SeejuliaKon
srantinovsky. Evagrius Ponticus: The Making oft Gnostic (Facnharn. U.K.: Ashgare, 1009). 47 utsd
Demetrios S. Katos, Palladius ofHelenspolis: The Origenise Advocate (Oxford: Oxford University Prs,
loiS), 15654. For Marimos Confessor see Torsicin Tollefsen, The Chrisrocenrnr Cos,n stagy of Sr. Maui
,n,ss the Confessor (Oxford: Oxford University Press, tool). His recent discussion of the concept m Torstein Tollefscn, Activity and Participation in Late Antique and Early Christian Thought (Oxford: Othrd
University Press, Lola), dots not include Gregory ofNazianzus.
7. For a summary see Hilation Mfeyev, St. Symeon the New Theologian md Orthodox Thidmtion
(Now York: Oxford University Press, zooo), a6 and Maslov, Dikes Isis.
8.Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tr.mthtso,m:A Histss-yoftheDeodopment ofthe Doctrine, vol. z, The
Spirit sffastern hristi.mnity (doot2oo) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ryy.y), 10.
9. Donald F. Winslow, The Dynamics ofSalvation: A Stud). in Gregory of Nazianzsss (Cambridge.
Mass.: Philadelphia Parrisuc Foundation, 1979), i. Winslows dirussion of Gregory at 17199 ttmSlis
foundational; his argument that Gregory merged Plato and Scripture is acrrptrd by Norman Russell, The
Doctrine ofDejflsation its the Crick Rmeristsc Tr,mdirio,s (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1004), xxiu5
Russell lists the vocabulary of deification at 11134 and 33314. Gregory Nazianzus or ; and 4 play flu
role in these discussions other than foc the oco occurrences of the term tl,thsis in or 4.
-5

fdCvetoPme

93

so that, second, Gregory of Nazianzuss own individual role

fornW1 100 of deification and its later Byzantine and Russian ortho
is downplayed, if not entirely overlooked. Third, Platonism stands
an other homogenizing move that flattens a number of different phio
fact an intense debateinto one more or less harmonious
5ophical voicesin
subdivided into either Christian Platonism or pagan
neatly
then
Is
ne, which
usually
known as Neoplatonism.
latter
the
150nisrn
Such scholarly emphasis on group identity, in this case the subgroups
outlined, has had rather detrimental results for the study of thesis. The
propO5 merger of Platonic and biblical concepts to create theosjs fails to ac
count for the spectacular subsequent success of the notion of deification in
:the East, because it remains rather vague when describing what thedsis actu
[fly entailed. What did the ancient authors in question mean when they talk
ed chout tljesis? This vagueness remains even in the most recent works on
thensis, despite their undisputed merit, because their collapsing of such differ
-ent authors as, for example, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory
ofNazianzus, into a neat package called the three Cappadocians does little
to clarify the matter.

Gregory of Nazianzus on Thesis

3Ii

-,

mo.Thus Russrll,flsctrine offle1fication, zi315, notes Gregorys distinctiveness, but flattens his im
act by labeling it the Cappadocian thought. As a result, he misses Gregorys impacr on ttlaximus the
.flflfrssor,o3337.

the Traditional View

Indeed, what Gregory ofNazianzus said when he spoke of theUsis differed

5markedly from Gregory of Nyssas concepts of deification. Gregory of Nyssas
rersion has received in-depth scholarly analysis that is then often transposed
onw Gregory of Nazianzus. What Gregory said when speaking of thedsis,
-.

u. Hubert Mend, Homsthsis eheO. Fbn derptatonischen Angleirhungan Goet zur Gottah,slichkeie bei

Gregor von Nyssa (Fnbourg, Ssvitztrland: Paulusverlag, mx) focuses only on Gregory of Nyssa; his work
ma fosndatmoual; ]tffrey A. Wirvang, Resources on Theosis svith Select Primary Sources
in Translation:
In Paitakers ofthe Divine Nature. The Hivtsty and Development ofDejflcaeio,m in the
Christian Traditions,
nil. Michael J. Christensen and]effrey A. Witrung (Madison, NJ.: Fairleigh
Dickinson University Press,
194309, has an extensive bibliography. Claudio Moreschini,
Fitosofia e Letteratura in Gregsris do
Nazianzo (Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 1997), 3336, cngages Gregorys
vocabulacy; Philippr Molac, Don
leuret Thmnsfiguratisn. Une Lecture dim chee,mmeme,ie Spirituci de Saint
Gregoire de lVazianze (Paris: Edi
l-flnm du Crrf, ionS) discusses Gregorys concept of man as Gods eikJn, which
of
he considered obelsis a
F

94

SUSANNA ELM

GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS

one central point, was that Christianity properly practiced would make
into God. And such proper practice required as essential condition the riglt
correlation between individual and communal action. Gregorys idea of dci.
fication, of making individual human beings divine, sits uneasily with
scholars as Donald Winslow indicates when he remarks that Gregory hinseW
was well aware that the constant use he made of the doctrine of deificat00
must have been somewhat startling to his congregation.2 Leaving the pre
sumed reaction of Gregorys audience aside, what scholars find startling is that
Gregory could have intended this as the reassertion of any divine element
within created nature rather than solely as a gift of God the creator, accord
ing to John McGuckin. Norman Russell solves this conundrum by PrOposing
that Gregory must have intended deification as a metaphor only, because he
cannot have meant to imply that a creature can become God in the Proper
sense of the word. What he must have meant must have been metaphorical
because he cannot have meant the process to have been in any sense real.3
In other words, the idea that startles scholars is that Gregory could have
applied the notion of deification in a Christian context to individual persons
(rather than to humanity as a whole, deified through Christs incarnation), be
cause that idea comes perilously close to pagan notions such as apotheosis and
to the theurgic operations that made god (theon poiein) present in the souls
of men. Such notions were propagated by persons such as Julian, the emperor
and theurgist, who was alive and well at the time Gregory wrote his second
oration on priesthood and the notion of deification.4
Several factors are operative in the scholarly reluctance to attribute a real
rather than merely a metaphorical idea of deification to Gregory of Nazian
zus. Gregory developed his version of deification primarily in two texts: his

95

the Priesthood and his Oration 4 againstJutian. Because Gregory

from a historiographic standpoint, as the Theologian: who
seen,
usuallY
of Constantinople because he was a fine thinker but a
Bishop
as
up
55ed
scholars of later Roman history rarely consider his writacisninistrato,
a
b
the priesthood at all when thinking in terms of the evolution of later
theologians, on the other hand, are interested in Gregory as
Modern
Rome.
focus on his later so-called Theological Orations, where
hence
and
eologi1
does not explicate, his notion of thesis (since he did that in
but
emptoyS
he
Because theologians and church historians use Gregorys
his eatlier orations).
priesthood,
if at all, only to note his ideas of pastoral care, they
the
on
orat1O
attention
to what he has to say about theOsis in that oration.
much
pay
not
do
Modern philosophers do not use Gregory to find out what persons like him
thought about deification in the fourth century because he was a Christian
?latonist and not a pagan Neoplatonist, and modern philosophers do not like
to read the texts of Christian Platonists unless they really cannot avoid them
(and in such cases of dire necessity the confirmed Platonist Gregory of Nyssa
tends to be far more palatable than the other Gregory). Modern historians use
Gregorys Oration 4 against Jidian for their (limited since polemical) contri
butions to the reconstruction of the emperor Julians history. Gregorys ideas
about theosis are not seen as relevant to that task. Church historians look at
Oration for that same reason, which is also the reason why modern theo
logians do not read it: since it deals with the pagan emperor and apostateju
lian, it cannot have any theological content to speak of. Hence what Gregory
has to say here about theOsis remains largely overlooked, with the exception
of the two occasions where Gregory actually uses the term. It is after all in his
Oration against Jutian that Gregory coined the new term theOsis. That alone
should, however, give us some clues: Gregory developed the notion of theOsis
in the context ofpriesthood and against the emperorJulian.5
on
fl 2

discusses Gregory ofNyssa as prearsor

part. 3175, ,c6i. Tollefsen, .dcticity anti Participation.
for Maximus Confessor, but nor Gregory of Naz,anzus.
so. Winslow, Dyn.nmcs ofSatvarmn. ,8o.
s3.John McGucldn, The Strategic Adaptation of Deification in the Cappadorians so Panakersof
the Divine Pasture. The History and Development ofDesfic.stson i,, the Christian Tradstwns, ed. MichadJ. I
Christensen and Jefirey A. Witruog (Madison, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, zoo?), 10,n
Rusell, Doctrine ofDz(/icatiun. zln14. makes much of Gregory Nazianzus or. 41.17, the only dn,e Geet
ory states that a created beiog rannor become God, which for Russell implies that, for Gregory. Ibllaiving

Athu,sasius, man can become god only by analogy.

demonstrates that Christian wr,tets WacoZ
14. Russells appendix, Doctrine ofDesfication,
pains to develop a vocabulary that distanced their concepts from such associations.

INDIVIDUAL & COMMUNITY

OikeiUsis pros theonGregorys notion of theosis

OikeiOsis and Stoa What, then, does Gregorys notion of theosis imply and
why does it matter when thinking about the relation between the individual
and the coHective in religious terms? What does Gregory actually say? First,
S.

Foru dreaded analysis see Elm. Sons efHeltenism,

17081, 25905,

31117,

41322.

96

SUSANNA ELM

GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS: INDIVIDUAL & COMMUNITY

in Gregory of Nazianzuss case, the scholarly consensus about the conflation

of Platonism and the Bible must be jettisoned. Gregory never quotes a Peter
1:4, the one New Testament passage alluding to divinizacion. Psalm 8a:6 is th
second scriptural passage often adduced in this context and he uses even tj
one rarely.16 Further, Gregory never used the phrase homoiJsis tbeOi, com.nlon
ly associated with the Platonic concept of assimilation to the divine. Instead
us Oration 2 he speaks exclusively of oikeiJsis pros theon; theisis is a conceptual
continuation of his understanding of oikeidsis pros theon and neither concept
is prima facie Platonic.17 Rather, oikeisis is a well-known Stoic concept, d
this is significant for Gregorys use of the terminology of deification. The verb
oikeiod from which the nearly untranslatable noun derives, means, first, to grow
used to, to treat someone as, or to make someone ones own; second, to feel en
dearment for; and, third, to assert kinship with someone. This semantic range
permitted the term oikeidsis to expand beyond its technical Stoic usage.8
In Stoicism, especially as part of Stoic ethics, the term denoted a concept
of the self in its relation with the external world. The natural impulse to love
oneself, which guarantees the individuals well-being, now encompassed the
other: you love yourself best if you love others as if they were you. Parental
love expresses the concept well. However (according to the famous image of
the second-century A.D. Stoic Hierocles), the principal point was the outward
expansion of love in ever widening circles to more and more distant persons,
stretching eventually to include not only humanity but the very cosmos. This
cosmic dimension of the power of self-love relates to its origins.9 According
to Epictetus, all men are brothers because they are Zeuss progeny, so that all
humans form one koinPn and are bound by the same koindnia. Therefore, all

uistic acts benefit both the self and the other and the recognition of this
ethical behavior. The connection between altruism and ethics is
fDct propels
because the altruistic act presupposes a choice (prahaire
relevant
1ticulatly
from
free
will (autexousia; cf. or.
results
j) nd
the
care
self in contrast to Platonic notions, denotes not
Stoic
of
Thus,
world
into
the
oneself, but the expansion of the self in a volun
from
a retreat
benefitting
gesture
all others. As far as the philosopher is con
altruistic
tary
cern1 this requires that he prove his worth by engaging fully in lifes activ
ftj5. Such a demand, essential to the Stoic philosopher, directly challenges
uother distinction, that between the contemplative life and practical wis
dom.t Through participation in the world the Stoic philosopher who at
tained perfect oikeiOsis identified his self with the entire cosmos, including hu
manity, because he understood that all was one and justified by divine Reason
(Logos) itself identical with Nature ( Physis), which it also governs. Hence the
philosophers apatheia, or absence of passion, that is, indifference to good and
evil, makes him the perfect mediator between divine Reason and man, and be
tween human beings.22
Oikeijsis, the individuals linking of his self to nature, was also expressed
as the philosophers syrnpatheia with the entire cosmos. This provided the
mological dimension by which oikeisis, in late antiquity, entered the thought
world of Platonism, especially in Plotinus, as Gary M. Gurtler has shown.
Here the important point is that such a concept presupposes an understand
ing of the created cosmos, including man and his physical body. as essentially

,6. e Pc i:,, since I know that die putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ
made clear to me; ls 8t:6. I said. You are gods, Sons of the Most High, all ofyou. Tollcfsen, Theosis
Ulunainates his reliance on scripture.
7. Mend observed in his conctusinn to Hu,,iathsis thin that by die fourth century all philosophical
schools used that phrase. Gregory of Nys,a did, hut not Gregory of Nazianzus.
ii. For greater detail see Maslov, Oikeitisit. forthcoming. The point is not whether Gregory was
conscious of the Stoic history of the term. Groeg B. Krrferd, The Starch foe Personal Identity in Seoit
Thooght ERL s (1971): 17879, discusses the meaning and translations of the terms. Robert Bees. Die
Qikeiosnlehre Der Stoa i: Rekonsorukeiopa flirts In/salts (OViinhurg: Konigahausen & Meumann, too4),
14849. Max Pohlene. Gronr/fr.igen Der Storer/sen Pl,ilosuphie (Gottingen; Vundenhorck & Ruptrcbt.
1940). 147, rip. it, addresses the origins of oikethsis as foundational for Stoic ethics.
its. Gretchen Reydams.Schils, The Ro,nan Stoics; Self Responsibility, and 4ffectron (Chicago: Uni
versiry ofChicago Press, soo), 39, 11334.

I
I

C.

97

to. Hirroclrs at Sroburus 4.671.7673.Ii; see also Epietreus alit5. 1.13.3; Anthony A. Long, Hetlenis
tic Philosophy: Stoics, Epicureans, &eptics (London: Duckwordi. 1974), i71, describes the Stoic noeion of
oikeiisis thus: Ml crratores are so tonstiested by Natorr that they are well-disposed towards themselvrs
The word translated well-disposed (oikeios) is commonly used cia Grrrk to mran related/akin/belong
ing to; but the Stoics are expressing a trchniral concept... Oikeiosis determines an animals rrlationslsip
en its rnvieonmene, but that to whirh it is primarily well disposed is itself (Diogenes Larrtios vii 8). Its
self-awareness is an affective relationship, and all behaviour can hr interpreted us an extension or manifes
tation of the same principle.
xi. Epictetus diss. 3.i.46; the fuller citation is Reydains.Schils, Roman Stoics, 745 even when sue
appear the most svithdrawn, even svhether in ourselves or on the remotest of islands, we are actually still
mvolvrd in rommtmiry and cannot he otherwise; and Bees, O,keiosislebre, 14849 and e8.
et. E.g., Chrysippus in Diogenes Laertius Liues 7.8788; Long, Hellenistec Philosophy, i6; also
Rrydams.Schils, Ro,nan Stoics,
Anthony A. Long, Soul and Body in Stoitism Phrunesis 17 (l981):
37: Theer is in Stoicism a great chain of being svhich tolerates no discontinuity or introduction of prin
ciples wluch operate at one level but not at another. The entire universe isa combination ofgod and mat
ter, and what applies to the whole applies to anyone 0f its identifiable pares.
.

98

SUSANNA ELM

good because divinely created and shared by all.27 By late antiquity (by way
Plotinus) such views resulted in a (un-Platonic) rehabilitation of the Phys.
cal world as a well-ordered divine economy, in which all things and pers0
found their proper place.24

GREGORY Of NAZIANZUS: INDIVIDUAL & COMMUNITY

Oration 2 Gregorys second oration stands firmly in this

oration, Gregory outlines his notions of perfect priesthood: the ideal ortho
dox priest is none other than the philosopher. Gregorys emphasis on the p

osophical life has, however, typically been read in the Christian Platonic or
Neoplatonic vein as reflecting a retreat to the self, understood as strict rejec
tion of the world and its imbroglios. Indeed, on the face of it, Gregorys sec
ond oration, also known as Apology for His fttght, makes much of his rcpu..
-:

03. Gary M. Gurder, Sympaihy: Stoic Masrrialissn and the Platonic SouL in aVeoplatonorn and
Nature: Studies in Ptotinus Enneath rd. Michael F. Wagner (Albany N.Y. State University of New

York Press, zoos), 14176.

04. Pierre Hador. LAppuet du Nioplatonisnsr a La Philosophic de La Nature En Occident: in
Tr,idision said Gegenusirt: EranosJ.zhrbach 1961 (Zurich: Rhein-Verlag. 5970). itSti.
z. Clement and Ocigrn also contributed to Gregorys notions. For Clement, a sense of snnmat
-

with the divine seas essential to eikesOsss. Oeigen added an emphasis on the agency of God in establishing that intimacy between himself and the believer, and on the Christians enthusiastic embrace of that
kinship, e.g., Ocigeurs Ccli. 4.6. .lp.stheth as an aspect of oskesSsis was particularly important for Clemens
Mrvandrinus ,tr. 4.13.543; 69.73; Qd.s. and 33.i; Michel Spannrat. Le Stosrn,,se Des Plres de lfgtisc
Dc Ctnent de Rome 2 ClEnsem rLitexandrse, twd nil. (Paris: ditsous do Scud, 1937), 14930 and 377
e6. Dominic]. OMeaca, PLiteuopotis. Platonic Political Pht05ophy in Late Antsqstity (Oxford: Ow
ford University Press, 0003).

tt rests on a positive evaluarion of nature and the world, including

fcaderP body. For Gregory, each Christian person
is a member of the body
hwTan
single, well-ordered organism affiliated with God. Therefore,
f the huych, a
egorys philosopher as leader was called to act altruistically on behalf of
to accept that duty voluntarily.
thers, and
Gregorys words, it is the philosophers principal ergon, or duty, to
possible state of purification which implies the closest pos
each the highest
of the divine. Such closeness is both spatial as well as eth
approalmatiori
ible
the philosopher, the nearer to God, and the closer he will be
purer
the
ical:
originator of the chain that links God, the Good, nature, and man.
o the
philosopher has reached the highest possible degree of purity, he
once the
according to the principles of aikelOsis, voluntarily accept the yoke
then,
must
so that he can bring those farther away from the supreme good,
leadership
of
f God, closer to God. He is thus making them, too, God. The philosopher as
leader embraces and then hands down to those in his care the kind of good
6,.that is something not merely sown by nature, but also cultivated by choice
(probair&5) and by the back-and-forth motions of the free will.27 The true
philosophers and lovers of god are defined by their disavowal of self in pref
erence to kinship with the divine: divinizarion is only possible at the cost of
selfeffaeement. However, such voluntary seW-effacement is the first act in a se
quence that, first, affiliates the philosopher with the divine, and then, through
1his mediating agency, also all in his care with the divine.
Such were the central tenets of Gregorys definition of the philosopher as
uhysician of the soul, elaborated in Oration 2. Because, as philosopher and phy
sidan, Gregory had progressed higher than the multitude in [his] virtue and
oikei oils pros theon, he now had to become active and show his mettle by altru
.isrically taking on the yoke of servitude: to guide others to greater kinship with
the divine also, body and soul. His means to achieve this end were his words
(or. 1.3 and 91). Gregorys most powerfulpharinakon, the words with the great
est healing effect but also, if misused, the greatest potential to cause infinite
harm, were the words that circumscribed the Triniry and the Logos.
To bring home (eisoikisai) the Logos. Christ, in the hearts of men is what
the law our teacher (6 7rcct&cyt6y6c v6jsoc) intends for us; this the prophets in

tradition.25

sion when forced to return to the world and accept a posirion of leadership.
It certainly can be read as expressing the idea that the true philosophical life
cannot be lived other than in isolation and, correspondingly, Gregory has long
stood as paradigmatic for the traditional idea of tension between the Chris
tian philosophical ideal of ascetic retreat, or besychia, and the office of priest
or bishop.
Gregorys intense use of the language of oikezOsts redirects that empha.
sis. As is the case with the Neoplatonic philosophers, Dominic OMeara dis
cusses, in his Flatonopolis, Gregorys use of oikeOsis when describing his ideal philosophical life, indicating that for him philosophical return to the seW
implies leading others to the same ideals: the philosophical ideal is precisely
that of leadership of the olkoumene, conceptually as well as practically.26 Gregorys ideal philosophical life is an active, political philosophical life of engagea

99

07. Gregory of Nazianzus or. 1.17: tb &yailhv

aS Saes laSsos earno-sreipihzevuv. &)Z& scol wpsatpiaet
7Npyos1sosnn cal Tsi Sir Spi)iss rois nSreuuuIou esva)yu-sv.

I
100

5USANNA ELM

tend who mediate between the law and Christ; this Chtist intends, the
fi le
ment and the end of the spititual law.28 This is the intent of the divine thI
emptied. of the flesh taken on. This is the intention of the new minute
(
God and man, one thing out of two and both ptesent in one. This is why
has been mixed with the flesh through the son! as mediator and why tw0
atated realities (or. a.zaj, the divine and msttet, have been joined, beeau
the soul, acting as intetmediaty, is affiliated with both: so that everything
b
cause it has only one soutee, one father, strives toward the One.5
birth, passion. and resurrection (or. 2.2425) are the means God, our tescher
devised for our formation. and as a healing cure for our weakness.st Greg
ory is the servant of this healing cure: this is the medicine we, who sit above
others, serve and ofwhich we arc fellow-workers (or. a.a6).
As physician of the soul and as leader (that is, as priest) the true philos
opher reinforced the individual souls affiliation to, or kinship with, the dj,
vine, the Logos. by adhering to ethical demands that also affected the body
The physician of the soul must prescribe means that heal both because
soul is to the body what God is to the soul. The soul must educate the bodyso
that it will become her fellow-slave, affiliated to God (or. 2.57). Oikjo to
God affects both soul and body so that the chain linking body. soul, and God;
and the ethical demands strengthening that chain, are real, nor meraphorieaaj
This is the opposite of what Norman Russell has proposed.
Gregory shares with others of his time the notion that the physical boc
is essentially good and worthy of salvation. The idea of the physical body
and by analogy the cosmos as good was held widely by Christians and noo-i
Christians alike. Emperor Julian expressed it when he stressed that the sool,,
deified through the purifying rites and the ethical conduct required by the
myth of the Great Mother, also healed the body.32 After all, Julian and Gregory
.

uS. btst tesesywrtcoo vd1ma nAs:uTslc eta:

aaooB

vs viku.

u9. ilibtuben Nsb napel bib sias tn55 MacpbS9. buiepbS9, anrise passive of a,sakesassnsmi us nato
to dilu,e used mainly foe water and seine, which gives the passage a Eucharistic tone. Poe else eesttakty
in lambisehas, Porphyry. and Plutinus of the soul as mean between two eneemes, divine inteileec and ten
serial (human) body, seeJohn F Pinamoee andJohn El. Dillon, edt., J,onbhcbsoDedns,n,c Text, Tranak
riots and Commenears (Lesden: Beill, none), 1417, 303!.
o. Gregory 0f Naaianzs us. u.t3 Xpscebs. robes mv0501n Sadnic. tubes npuuistiSsiaa sup!.
robes ij can1 piIc, CiSc cui bubpwnsc. Sn i bp%civ cal 5 bsb bi4btepw
3!. Grognry of Naaianzas or. u.u5 ns:srw-yla tLs sjv napl ss rub Stub cvi nIl damsels1 inpala.
31. Peter Brown, The Body sod Buttery: liien, lyCeum, and Sexual Rensassciaeian in Early ChurN
.

- -

OF NAZIANZUS: INDIVIDUAL & COMMUNITY

501

that the well-ordered cosmos and irs manifestation, the oikonnsen

1ds frjieW
was theirs (to lead); there vas no reason to consider it any
Rowans.
fdse
even if it needed improvement.
!gbot in essence good
of philosophical leadership as olkeidsis pros the
notion
Gregorys
frdeed.
model.
Nor everyone, as he repeatedly stressed, was
elite
5senria11y
5j.
philosophical
required
heights. To do so required first and
the
ble to reach
well-established by Greek paidela. One had to be
qualifications
the
gesno5t
jborn. ideally into a philosophical marriage, and one had to be exceeding
Otherwise it would be impossible to grasp the fundamentals
frwdl educate&
fbat philos0Phy which would ensure purity. Purity, in sum, was nor the re
from the world, but of deep penetration into the depth of phil
5iit of retreat
(including a proper grasp of Aristotelian logic), for which
learning
osophical
precondition (but not, per se, the aim). As such an elite
good
a
was
reffeat
1uodel, Gregorys idea of leadership implied a dual ethics.
such a adual ethics, a term proposed by Norman Baynes, was already parr
fEosebius5 concepts, who noted two lawful modes of life in the Church,
aoe entirely set at variance with the entirety of common and accustomed
jays of all men, and fir only for the service of God in extremity of heavenly
csire, while for the other a second rank of piety has been accorded.33 This
dual ethics necessarily determined notions of salvation. In Eusebiuss words,
one is deprived of salvation, but the average man depends on the few con
on behalfof the whole humankind to the God who is in charge of cvecrated
I
yooe.
Gregory develops this concept of a dual ethics further to have to two
-

(New Yoek: Columbia University Peess, spSS). 17: An unaffected symbiosis of body and soul seas
aim buth of medicine and philosophical exhortation.
The body had its rightEd place in the $eat
alit uf being that linked man both to the gods and to the heasu Julianus imperatoc or. 7.I7Sbe uses
imseth cheats foe the deified state of the soul. Jolians imperial letter excluding Christians from public
enching. Si Bsdnz, b Wright) declared that riglst education eesuleed in a healthy cundieinn of the
nd, that is, one sehsch has understanding and tene beliefs: and that those who believed mistakenly in
..uioiaeiry solfeted from a disease of the mind and soul, ofwhich they ought tube cuced, even against
Iaeit will, as non cures the imane.... Poe we ought. I thought, to tmeh, but not to punish the dement
F (Kahm gxhsm Iv, Staitap xsb pevcltuns1. uS-ru cal rubcos beaavvu ids-Sai x).i1v blAb asyyvthpys
9atpov Snow rflcvnsabrq daub. cal ybp. slaus, bsbdweon, dli nbi
enisgtsv pys) rub hsss)xnuc). Reinte
annn mthec than fiarthee exclusion wasjulians aim.
33. froth05 dens. Be, iS:
xq-rs5 ieeispia 555 (lisa-s vevo1saGsjuSes vpdnaac bAss Sb fr
s nosy95 eai nsqSsn &nbvxus bvlipthnus bysayflc xupQixypivns, eui pd-ag r mU Stub Gapunei
pmveoa1ibsno taG bniy(lsii1s Spurns sbpaslau
radrns bedceysc edas(lein1 bnoepsjGg (laSpdc. Passage
[ted hyBaynes Thought-World:
ub.
Sty

...

SUSANNA ELM

101

implications. first, because of the fundamental linking of all men to cj

through divinely initiated kinship (oikeisis), everyone can be saved. M5j
perfection however, though desirable, is not expected from an average Chris
nan. The perfection of the philosopher-as-leader makes such ethical dema
on the less perfect superfluous. In a passage in Oratwn 4 against Jutian (or.
4.99), Gregory insists on the necessity of a two-tiered ethics and implies that
such an ethics is a distinguishing feature of Christian philosophy. In fact,
Gregory rebukes Julian for legislating [a set of ethical demands that] is be
yond the ability of each and every one thus privileging the chosen few who
can achieve such high ethical demands, while, by implication, condermsing
the many to having to forgo the salvation afforded the few (this, of course is
Gregorys polemical slanting). By contrast, Gregorys law enjoins necessity in
some of its aspects, those which must be upheld if the danger is to be avoided,
while in others, it involves free choice, so that, while those who uphold the law
win honor and reward, those who do not are not in any way endangercd.
Phrased differently, because of the ethical height reached by the few, the many
may be saved even if they cannot reach the level of the former. The power of
oikeidsis pros theon is that the select few can save all in their care because of
their voluntary submission to the needs of the many.
Oration 4 Gregorys presentation of the emperor Julian and his choice or
philosophical life provides additional nuances for Gregorys concept. Grego
ry first introduced his neologism thesis in Oration while denigrating thephilosophical models the Platonist emperor Julian had chosen as his ideals of
a true philosophical life. According to Gregory, these philosophers, Empedo:
des, Crates, Plato, and so on, revealed in their lives and deaths the fatal flaw
that also marred Julians notions. They strove for virtue, and for deification,d
because of self-interest, vainglory, and self-love. Hence, like Julian in his legis
lation, they perfected their own assimilation to the divine (homoidsis thea, the
term Julian also used, for example, in his oration against the Cynic Heradius)
without regard of the common good, indeed, by retreating from the comm0a
good into isolation and the shade of mere contemplation. Their lives, and
LrrLTa0[hIF
tfj garmpoc voaoOroiac tb am asOyK)Y IXEL Toic
Ot l
ou UvO683V 03f 1087 II & U)artt0U0I 3tl:, T:jaT3s

Gregory of N.,zi,mzus, or.4.99:

&

8083

UTOOOI clolluvot,..

4aiX&nouJL

an It

83, cm: Sons aSs cisicoop.

GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS: INDIVIDUAL & COMMUNITY

103

c ethics associated with these lives, made no allowance for those of lesser ap
Thus, in or. 4.59 Gregory ridicules Empedocless attempts at seffdeification
aby means of Sicilian craters Empedocles threw himself into the volcano Etna
disappear arid so suggest to his acolytes that he had been dei
w make his body
ruse
was
discovered because his sandal got caught on the craters
his
but
fied
Gregorys philosophers, by contrast, sought honor from God only, or, even
more than that, they embrace the kinship toward the beautiful for the sake of
the beautffil itseff35 Gregory proposes a distinct opposition between the
cisc of ones free will for oneselfand ones free will to choose renunciation of the
51f for the sake of the other: true philosophers and lovers of God choose volun
]y kinship with the divine through abnegation of self-interest to better af
filiate all with God.36
As a result, and in contrast to the famous philosophers of the past (and
the present in the person ofJulian), the ideal Christian philosophers know
no measure in their ascent and deification.37 In contrast to the familiar Pla
tonic idea of assimilation to the divine, their kinship with the divine, their
deification, embraced rather than rejected human nature. The embodied state
in effect, of immense value, because the miracle-working bodies of the
martyrs were the ultimate proof of the efficacy of Christian thesis (or. 4.69).
,-Thus, Christian philosophers lose sight of their nature only where it is neces
sary to make oneself kin with God through chastity and mastery.38
Gregorys thesis, the tetos of Christian life, counters Empedocless failed
-self-deification f or. 4.59). Thus, Gregorys most succinct definition of what
means is the last sentence of Oration 4, in which he characterizes the up
ward dynamism of Christian life in opposition to the static, self-centered
whirling of pagan life that spins aimlessly around itself like a top (alluding
o Plato Republic, 436d): One of the beautiful things (t6iv Kc6iv) we have
chieved; another we hold on to; and still another we aim for; until arc reach
.

:-

33- Gregory of Nazjanzus, or. ..6o: -r, srphc iS az),Ss oinmi,,,o-ra yosrc,vTe
36. For the emergence of free will in Stoicism

IL rmSyh iS
and for Augustines own drvrlopmrncs of his notion
litre will, also greatly mfluroced by Stoicism
and, perhaps, by Gregory of Nazianzus, see Frede, Free
3148, 13374. See
also Kirchers remarks.
37- Gregory ofNazianzus, or. 471: 315837 a3rpcs
eiSrwv &va3doeo ci Stc306Li.
58. Gregory of Naaianzos,
O.4. 73: cdotouOo ft7s7 33naeOa7apivwv rij Sor0 oh 80 Orbv
mt &L(o enS nop-rlplo.

I
504

GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS: INDIVIDUAL & COMMUNITY

SUSANNA ELM

which we are born

the tetos of deification (iypL T0 rEou zl r Osthztwc) for
are
who
rate
advanced in Ur
at
any
us
of
those
led,
and to which we are propel
ing worthy of
someth
expect
and
)
idvotv
oi
lueT1K
(01
ys
T)1V
way of thihldng
.
4.111)

(or.
nimity
Gods magna
Conclusion
interaction of individual salvation and th
correct
the
of
Gregorys model
an elite model. It assumes and defendi
ally
essenti
doubt,
no
is,
common good
very few are capa
the division of man into the average and the very few. Only
as close as fluthem
brings
ble of achieving the height of personal purity that
of
classic phil..
the
height
with
d
equate
manly possible to God, a height that is
t
ethical
highes
the
ideals,
hence
and
eia,
osophical education required bypztid
d
require
life,
phical
philoso
retreat
true
the
few,
the
This highly purified life of
of that life and
and a focus on the seW, but in Gregorys Stoic understanding
plished if it
be
accom
only
could
ion
perfect
ual
individ
al,
,
person
that retreat
e man less
averag
the
ng
was extended outward to encompass all others, includi
of
sion
the purlsubmis
of
able to reach these heights. Only a voluntary act
of
all,
nity
could
commu
the
and
fled self to all others, to the comnion good
n
e,
commo
man.
the
averag
and
pher
philoso
achieve the salvation of both the
n
man
betwee
and
kinship
of
notion
ys
Gregor
of
That was the foundation
each
per
could
means
those
by
.
Only
divine
the
with
ion
God, of mans affiliat
ing God, had been
son become God. This affiliation with the divine, becom
become man if
prefigured and made real in the Trinity: why else had Christ
life such as
phical
philoso
the
not to make us God? (or. 31.14). Other forms of
represen
ical
polem
ys
Gregor
in
the one the EmperorJulian embraced, failed,
media
of
kind
the
for
e
provid
nor
did
they
e
tation, to achieve this aim, becaus
gap
the
ly
Precise
d.
entaile
notion
ys
Gregor
that
God
tion between man and
itated
necess
tol
hoipol
and
elite
phical
philoso
the
n
betwee
Gregory postulated
true way to deify
priestly mediation, and that mediation was in fact the only
sublimity in ap
all. Whereas Julians philosophical ideals strove merely for
ity in his way of1
sublim
ed
pearance, Gregory as priest and philosopher achiev
the the inurr
for
caring
by
de
life, so that he could truly educate the multitu
-

man (u;. 4.114).

few and the
While acknowledging the vast distance that separates the

505

Gregory nevertheless distributed the privileges of the few to all who

maY
by positing an individual who is nor a self-contained entity held
ere average
an absolute ethical standard, but a notion of an individual
to
otabl
became inclusive by becoming supra-indjvjdual. Hoipal
xically
parado
ho
the same body as the elites, parts of a single organism,
of
ers
memb
Ii Were
as
a
(and
consequence, they perceived God as their own). As
own
God5
, Gregorys conceptualization of the individual in his or
shown
have
tO
i hope
.
ive
fler relation to the collect was highly sophisticated Though it arose in a
t,
ns that surpassed
sed
eless
it
momen
concer
addres
neverth
cal
ecific histori
y
help
to
thus
might
why
explain
Gregor
and
notion of theOsis
t
at momen
ng.
y,
ully
enduri
all,
the
After
for
Gregor
powerf
philosopher as
50
became
all
others
only
degree
of
by
his
ement
to the same
from
advanc
differs
priest
goal shared by all. To qualify as priest, he had to have progressed farther than
others in their closeness to God (or. 1.91). But his advance benefited all oth
er
ers, because the closer to God the philosopher_as_lead progressed the better
n
n
, allowing the average
the
God
commo
e
and
betwee
people
mediat
he could
d
n
e
God:
God
the
place
and
becom
betwee
humans, engaging in
to
too,
jOan,
a contest on behalf of the latter while leading the chosen people toward, and
affiliating it to, the former,39

Works Cited
kyev, Ndar:on. St. Symeon the New Theologian and rue Orthodox Tradition. Oxford: 0xford University Press, soon.
.Zfjizn, iccheniesv. GrigoruaBogostova. St. Petersburg: AJerejia, zoos.
Baynes, Norman. The Thought-World of East Rome. Reprinted in Byzuasrine Studies and
Other Essays, edited by Norman Baynes, 5446. London: University of London, Ath

lone Press, 5960.

ees, Robert. Die Ojketos;slejyre tier Stoa it Rekonstruktion ihres Inhales. Wurzburg: Knig
shausen & Meumann, 5004.
Brown Peter. The Body and Society: Alen, I Vornen, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christi
anity. Nesv York: Columbia University Press, 1988.
Elm, Susar,na Sons ofHellenis,n fat/sec-s oft/se Church: EmperorJulian, Gregory ofNazian
Zitsa.idthe Iswn ofRome. Berkeley: University of California Press, zota.
39.

Grego ofNwianzus, or.

5.53:

,btpomy cat oitELthv0hy wcpicatov.

toc GcoO eat vSpthnwv lex6yovoc, iatp ys SOS us1icsQ, 56

o6

SUSANNA ELM

GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS: INDIVIDUAL & COMMUNITY

Finamore,John F., andJohn 1st. Dillon, eds. JambtichusDeAni,na. Text, TiwaLitron an,J
Coirmrentaiy. Leiden: Brill, ,.ooz.
Frede, Michael. A free I Viii: Origins ofthe Notion in Ancient Thought. Berkeley: University
ofChlifornia Press, zoi,.
Grucn, Erich. Rethinkingtbe Other in Antiquity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, zoio
Gurder, Gary M. Sympathy: Stoic Materialism and the Platonic Soul. In Neopiatonism and
Nature: Studies in Ptoti,,us nneads, edited by Michael F. Wagner, ;.i6. Albany
N.Y.: State University of New York Press, zoo;.
Hador, Pierre. Lapport du noplatonisme a Ia philosophic de a nature en Occident. In
Tnrdition und Gegenwart: EranosJahrbuch tg6S, 91131. Zurich: Rhein-Veelag, i97o.
Harper. Kyle. Slavery in the Late Roman World, .LD. 275425. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni
versity Press, tori.
Harden, Peregrine, and Nicholas Purcell. The Corrupting Sea: A St:i4 ofitleditenrinean His
tory. Oxford: Blackwell, zooo.
Katos, Demetrios S. Patladi us ofHetenopotis: The OrigenistAdrocate. Oxford: Oxford Uni
versity Press, ;oii.
Kerferd, Georg B. The Search for Personal Identity in Stoic Thought. 3rd/cnn of theJohn
RyianthLibratyss (197;): 17796.
Kitcher Philip. Challenges for Secularism. In Thejoy ofSecuLzrrsm: ii Essaysfor How PVc
Live Norc, edited by George Levine, 1456. Princeton: Princeton University Press,
iOir.
Konstanrinovst7, Julia. Evagrins Pontkus: The Making of:i Gnostic. Farnham, U.K.: Ashgare,
zoo 9.
Levine, George, ed. TheJoy ofSecubzrism: uEssaysfr How IVe Live Now. Princeton: Princ
eton University Press, ion.
Long, Anthony A. Hellenistic Philosophy: Stoics, Epicureans, Scepercs. London: Duckworth,

F. Imperial Ideas in the Roman flint: Representation, Circulation, Pane,.

Norefla Carlos
ibridge: Cambridge University Press, lot,.
oMeara DominicJ. Platonopolis: Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1003.
pdilcan,Jaroslaut The Christian Trattition: A History ofthe Development ofthe Doctrine.
Vol. .: The Spirit offastern Christianity 6ooI7oo). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 974.
pohlenz Max. Grundfrageii derstoischen Philosophic. Grtingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

1974.

Soul and Body in Stoicism. Phronesis 17 (198;): 3457.

Maslov, Boris R. OikeiOsis pros theon: Gregory of Nazianzus Concept of Divinization and
the Heteronomous Subject of Eastern Christian Penance. ZeitschrjftjbrAntikes Chris
tentum/JourualofAncient Cbristianity i6.; (in,;), 31143.
McGuckin,John. The Strategic Adaptation of Deification in the Cappadocians. In Partak
ers ofthe Divine Nature: The History and Development ofDelfcation in the christian
Thtdrtions, edited by MichaelJ. Christensen andJeffrey A. Wittung, 95114. Madison,
NJ.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, zoo.
1slrrki, Hubert. Homoiissis tbeO. Gin derptrtonischen Angleichung :ui Gottzur Gottithnlrchkeit
bei Gi-egor von Nyssa. Fribourg, Swierlarid: Paulusverlag.
Molac, Philippe. Dordeur et tr:irrfgunieion. Une lecture c/u chemineinentspirituel tie saint
GrigoiredeNazianze. Paris: Editions do Cerf, ;oo6.
Moreschini, Claudio. Filosofla e lettenituni in Gregorio diNazianzo. Milano: Vitae Pensrero,
997.

107

1940.

xeydam5Scht5 Gretchen. The Roman Stoics: Self Responsibility, andA//?ction. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1005.
Russell, Norman. The Doctrine ofDejfication in the Greek Patristic Tradition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. 1004.
Schwarta, Seth. Were theJews a i,icditerranean Society? Reciprocity and Solidarity in Ancient
Judaism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1009.
Spanneut Michel. Lestolcisme des Plies tIe tEglise. Dc Clement tIe Rome 4 clement
ddlexandrie. md ed. Paris: Editions du Seuil,
Tollefsen, Torstein. Theosis according to Gregory. In Gregory ofNazianzus: Images and Re
flections edited byjostein Borrnes and Tomas Hagg, 15770. Copenhagen: Museum
Tusculanum Press, ;oo6.
. The Christocentric Cosmology ofSt. Maximus the Confessor. Oxford: Oxford Univer
sity Press, ioo8.
_.Activity and Participation in LateAntique and Early christicrn Thought. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, ;oi;.
Winslow, Donald F. The Dynamics ofSalvation: A Study in Gregory ofNazianzus. Cam
bridge, Mass,: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1979.
Witmng,Jeffrey A. Resources on Theosis with Select Primary Sources in Translation. In
Partakers oft/se Divine Nature, The History and Development ofDe(flcation in the chris
tian Traditions, edited by Michael J. Christensen and Jeffrey A. Wittung, 194309.
Madison, NJ.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1007.