# Against Eunomius

- Author: [Basil of Caesarea](https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/authors/basil-of-caesarea/)
- Latin title: *Adversus Eunomium*
- Date: ca. 364 (approximate)
- Source: J.-P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Graeca 29 (Paris: Migne, 1857), reprinting the Benedictine edition of J. Garnier and P. Maran (Paris, 1721-1730), cols. 497-774

- Translation: Claude, from the original text, unless a passage says otherwise; each passage below gives the translator
- Work page: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/
- Passages: 54

## Against Eunomius 1.1

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-1/#p-1-1
- Source: PG 29:500
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil explains why he writes, names Aetius and Eunomius as the authors of the teaching that the Son is unlike the Father in essence, and exposes Eunomius's pose of writing an 'apology' when no accusers or court can be named.

### Greek text

Εἰ μὲν ἐβούλοντο πάντες, ἐφ᾽ οὖς τὸ ὄνομα Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ …ται, μηδὲν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου παρεγχειρεῖν, Α τῇ δὲ παραδόσει τῶν ᾿ἀποστόλων καὶ τῇ ἁπλότητι τῇς πίστεως ἐξαρχεῖσθαι, ὀὐδὲν ἂν ἡμῖν ἔδει λόγων ἐν τῷ παρόντι, ἀλλὰ καὶ νῦν ἂν πάντως ἣν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἔτιμήσαμεν σιωπὴν ἡσπασάμεθα - ἐπειδὴ δὲ ὁ ἐχθρὸς τῆς ἀληθείας προσθήκαις ἀεὶ τὸ κακὸν πλεονάζων, πρὸς οἷς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐπέσπειρε ξιζανίοις τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ Ἐκκλησίᾳ, καὶ νῦν εὑρὼν ὄργανα πᾶσαν ἀθρόω: αὐτοῦ τὴν τέχνην ὑποδεχόμενα, ἐν προσχήματι Χριστιανισμοῦ τὴν ἄρνησιν τῆς θεότητος τοῦ Μονογενοῦς παρεισάγει, τῇ ἔξωθεν ταύτῃ καὶ ματαίᾳ σοφίᾳ τὸ καθαρὸν καὶ ἁπλοῦν τῆς διδασκαλίας τοῦ θείου Πνεΐματος συνταράσσων, καὶ ἐν πιθανολογίᾳ τοὺς ἀκεραιοτέρους παρακρουόμενος· ἀναγκαίως καὶ διὰ τε τὴν ὑμετέραν τῶν ἐπιταξάντων ἀγάπην καὶ διὰ τὸ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν ἀσφαλὲς, ἕν τούτῳ τῆς ἀσθενείας ὑπεριδόντες, καίτοι παντελῶς ἀγύμναστοι τοῦ τοιούτου εἴδους τῶν λόγων ὄντες, κατὰ τὸ ἐπίχορηγηθὲν ἡμῖν παρὰ τοῦ Κυρίου τῆς γνώσεως μέτρον, τῇ τε ἀληθείᾳ συνίστασθαι, καὶ ἀπελέγχειν τὸ ψεῦδος ὑπεδεξάμεθα - ἡγούμενοι τριῶν ἀγαθῶν ἑνός γε πάντως μὴ ἁμαρτήσεσθαι - ἣ γὰρ τοῖς ἤδη προειλημμένοις ἀλεξητήριον τοῦ κακοῦ τὸν ἔλεγχον δώσειν" ἣ φυλακὴν μετρίαν παοέξειν τοῖς ὑγιαίνουσιν" ἣ πάντως γε αὐτοὶ τῶν ἐπὶ τῷ προελέσθαι τοῖς ελφοῖς ἡμῶν τὰ βέλτιστα μισθῶν ἐπιτεύξεσθα:. Ἔστι δὲ ὁ μὲν πρῶτος εἰπεῖν φανερῶς καὶ διδάξαι τολμήσας ἀνόμοιον εἶναι κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν τὸν μονογενῇ Υἱὸν τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρὶ, ὅσα γε ἡμεῖς ἴσμεν, ᾿λέτιος ὁ Σύρος, ὃν οὐχ ἐρῶ, ποδαποῖς τὸ ἐντετραμμένος ἐπιτηδεύμασι, ταῖς Ἐκκλησίαις τοῦ Θεοῦ προϊὼν εἰσεφθάρη, ἵνα μὴ δόξω λοιδορεῖν, τῶν ἐλέγχων ἀφέμενος " ὁ δὲ ἐκδεξάμενος τὴν ἀσέβειαν καὶ τελειώσας αὐτὴν Εὐνόμιος οὗτος ὁ Γαλάτης, ὃς, ἐκ τῶν αἰσχίστων ἑαυτῷ τὴν περιφάνειαν χτώμενος γὰρ δόξα, φησὶν, ἐν τῇ αἰσχύνῃ αὑτῶν), τὴν ἐκ τοῦ γράψαι ἃ μηδεὶς ἄλλος τετόλμηκε πώποτε φιλοτιμίαν τῶν ἀποκειμένων τοῖς εὐσεβέσιν ἀγαθῶν προτιμήσας, ὑπ᾽ ὀδόντα τέως λαλουμένην τὴν βλασφημίαν ἐπήρθη δημοσιεῦσαι τῷ λαμπρῷ τούτῳ συντάγματι, ἀρχηγὸς καὶ … “Ὃνπερ οὖν καὶ εὐθύνειν πρόκειται ἡμῖν ἐν τῷ παρόντι. Ἑνὸς ὃΣ κακοῦ. ἐν ἀμφοτέροις ὑπάρχοντος, δῆλον, ὡς ἐν τῷ μαθητῇ τῷ χατηρτισμένῳ καὶ ὁ διδάσκαλος συναπελεγχθήσεται, ὁ τὰ σπέρματα … ἡμῖν διὰ τῶν προσευχῶν ὑμῶν τοσαύτην λαῤεῖν τοῦ λόγου δύναμιν, ὥστε κατὰ τὸν ξηλωτὴν Φινεὲς τῇ μιᾷ πληγῇ τοῦ ἐλέγχου ἀμφοτέρων ὁμοῦ καθικέσθαι τῶν κατὰ τὴν εὐσέβειαν συμπεπλεγμένων ἀλλήλοις. Πολλὰ τοίνυν ἔχων αὐτὸν ἐν τούτῳ δεικνύναι τῷ λόγῳ Ψεύστην, ἀμαθῆ, ὑβριστὴν, εἴρωνα, βλάσφημον, τῶν μὲν ἄλλων τὴν μνήμην ἐν παρέργῳ θήσομαι, τὴν δὲ βλασφημίαν, ἣν εἰς τὸ ὕψος τῆς δόξης τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ἐλάλησε, τῶν ἐκ τῆς τέχνης προχαλυμμάτων ἀπογυμνώσας, ἐμφανῆ πᾶσι καταστῆσαι πει[ράσομαι]. Ἤδη δὲ βαδιοῦμαι πρὸς τοὺς ἐλέγχους, ἐξ αὖτῆς τῆς ἐπιγραφῆς τὴν ἀρχὴν ποιησάμενος, Πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ αὐτῷ πάντων χαχούργημα τὸ σχῆμα τοῦτο τῶν λόγων ἐπινενόηται, ἐν ἀπολογίας εἴδει τὴν διδασκαλίαν συνθέντι, ἵνα μὴ δόξῃ προηγουμένως ποιεῖσθαι τῶν δογμάτων τῆς ἀσεβείας τὴν ἔκθεσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἐπὶ τοὺς λόγους τούτους ἐληλυθέναι. Ἐσδούλετο μὲν γὰρ ἐκ παντὸς τρόπον τὸ πονηρὸν τοῦτο καὶ ἄθεον περιαγγεῖλαι κήρυγμα, καὶ εἰς μέσον ἐνεγκεῖν ἣν πάλαι συνέλαβε καὶ ὥδινε βλασφημίαν ἑώρα δὲ, ὅτι τὸ μὲν ἐκ τοῦ προφανοῦς ἂν διδασκάλου τάξει προχαθεσθῆναι, πρὸς τῷ λίαν φορτιχῷ καὶ προσάντει τοῖς ἀκούουσιν, ἔτι καὶ ἀπίθανον ἑαυτὸν καὶ ὕποπτον τοῖς πολλοῖς καταστήσει, ὡς δόξης ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπὶ τὸ νεωτερίζειν ἐληλυθότα " εἰ δὲ ἐν ἀπολογίας πλάσματι τοὺς λόγους ποιοῖτο, τῆς τε καινοτομίας τὸ ὕποπτον διαφεύξεσθαι, καὶ μᾶλλόν τι τούτῳ προσάξεσθαι τοὺς ἀκούοντας, φύσει πάντων ἀνθρώπων ταῖς εν̓νοίαις εἰωθότων τοῖς ἐλαττουμένοις πρὸστίθεσθαι. Διὰ τοῦτο κατηγόρους αἰτιᾶται καὶ συκοφάντας, κἀκείνοις τοῦ λόγου τὴν αἰτίαν προσάπτει. Ὥστε δὲ πᾶσιν αὐτοῦ γενέσθαι τὴν τέχνην καταφανῇ,, οὐδὲν χεῖρον αὐτῆς ἀκοῦσαι τοῦ προοιμίου τῆς λέξεως. Ἔχει δὲ οὕτως. ΕΥ̓ΝΟΜΙΟΣ. Τὸ μὲνοῦν συκοφαντεῖν καὶ διαβάλλειν τινὰς ἐξ ἀκολάστον γλώττης καὶ γνώμης ἀγνώμόνος, μοχθηρῶν καὶ φιλαπεχθημόνων ἔργον εἰδότες " τὸ δὲ τοὺς ἐκ διαβολῆς εἶναι δόξαντας πονηροὺς πάσῃ προθυμίᾳ πειρᾶσθα: τὸ ψεῦδος τοῖς ἐλέγχοις ἀποτρέπειν ἀνδρῶν σωφρόνων καὶ μετὰ τῆς; ἰδίας εὐθουλίας τὴν τῶν πολλῶν ἀσφάλειαν πολλοῦ ποιουμένων.. ΒΑΣΙΛΙΟΣ. Τὸ μὲν οὖν σχῆμα τοῦ λόγου τοιοῦτον, οἷον ἂν γένοιτο τοῦ μηδὲν ἁπλῶς μηδὲ ἀδόλως ποιοῦντος. Τό τε γὰρ περὶ τὴν καινοτομίαν ὕποπτον τῷ τῆς ἀπολογίας προκαλύμματι συσχιάζει, καὶ εὔνοιαν θηρᾶται παρὰ τῶν ἀκουόντων, ὡς τῇ ἀνάγκῃ τῆς διαβολῆς ἐπὶ τοὺς λόγους τούτους ἐλθών. Ἐλέγχεται δὲ αὐτοῦ ἡ περὶ τὴν ἀπολογίαν σκηνὴ, ὅτι τοῦ ἐγκλήματος, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ διαγωνίζεσθαι προσποιεῖται, εἰπεῖν οὐκ ἔχων, ἀπρόσωπον τὸ τῆς ἀπολογίας ὑπεισέρχεται δρᾶμα " οὐ διὰ μακροθυμίαν ὀνομαστὶ μνησθῆναι τῶν λελυπηκότων ἀπεχόμενος (πῶς γὰρ, ὅς γε τοσαύταις λοιδορίαις πλύνει τοὺς ἀντιλέγοντας), ἀλλὰ τοῦ ψεύδους τὸ περιφανὲς ὑφορώμενος, ἐπιφημίζειν ἑαυτῷ ὡρισμένα πρόσωπα κατηγόρων αἰσχύνεται. Εἰ γὰρ εἶχεν ὀνομάσαι τινὰς, εἶπεν ἂν πάντως καὶ διεδόησεν" εἰ καὶ μὴ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ὀργὴν ἐκπληρῶν, ἀλλὰ τὴν γε τῶν πολλῶν ἀσφάλειαν διοικούμενος " ὧν δὴ καὶ μάλιστα προνοεῖν ἐπαγγέλλεται. Λανθάνουσα γὰρ πονηρία τῆς … μὲν τοὺς συκοφάντας, ῥᾷον ἂν διεφύγομεν τὰς ἀκολάστους γλώσσας αὐτῶν καὶ τὰς ἀγνώμονας γνώμας" αὐτοῖς γὰρ χρήσομαι τοῦ σοφωτάτου τοῖς ῥήμασιν. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ τότε, δι᾽ ἣν δήποτε αἰτίαν, ἀπεσιώπησε, νῦν ἐρωτάσθω, νῦν ἀποχρινέσθω" τίνες οἱ κατήγοροι οἱ, τῷ προλαβεῖν ταῖς διαβολαῖς, ἀναγκαίαν αὐτῷ τὴν ἀπολογίαν κατασκευάζοντες; ἐκ ποίας οἰκουμένης ἐλθόντες; τίνες οἱ δικασταὶ, ἐφ᾽ ὧν διατίθεται τὸν ἀγῶνα; ἐν ποίῳ δικαστηρίῳ τὴν γραφὴν ταύτην ὑπεισῆλθε; ποῦ γῆς ἣ θαλάττης συγχροτηθέντι; Τί γὰρ ἂν καὶ εἴποιεν; Ἔν Σελευκείᾳ; ᾿Αλλὰ σιωπήσαντες ἑάλωσαν, οἵ γε, προκαλουμένων πολλάκις τῶν συνελθόντων εἰς τὰς ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐπιφερομένων εὐθύνας, οὐχ ἀπήντησαν ἐφ᾽ οἷς δὴ καὶ κατεκρίθησαν τήνικαῦτα. Κοινὸς γὰρ … τὴν κοινωνίαν τῆς ἀσεθδείας, ὥσπερ τι μέλος νενο… … οὐδὲν ἐχεῖ ἀπολογίας ἔδει καὶ λόγων. Τοὺς γὰρ ἐκ «ἧς βασιλικῆς αὐλῆς, καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν τοὺς τὰ μέγιστα δυναμένους ἑαυτῶν ποιησάμενοι, ἐκ πολλοῦ τοῦ περιόντος τοῖς πράγμασι προσεφέροντο" αὐτοὶ καὶ κατήγοροι, καὶ δικασταὶ, καὶ δήμιοι, καὶ πάντα ὄντες ὅσα ἑβούλοντο, ὅτε, τῶν ἐπισκόπων τοὺς μὲν ἐχθδάλλοντες, τοὺς δὲ ἐγχαθιστῶντες, τοῖς δὲ τὸν περὶ τοῦ ζῇν ἐπιχρεμῶντες κίνδυνον, αὐτοὶ τὰς πόλεις ἐν ἀλλήλοις κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν πολλὴν διελάγχανον " καὶ ὁ μέν τις τῶν ἐν Συρίᾳ πόλεων ἐκπεσὼν, τὴν Κωνσταντινούπολιν, ὡς ἐπὶ τυραννίδα, αὐτὸς δὲ οὗτος ὁ ἄμαχος καὶ δεινὸς λογογράφος ἄθλον τῆς ἀσεβείας τὴν Κύζικον ἀπηνέγκατο" Θεοσεδίῳ δὲ μετὰ τοὺς ἐπὶ ταῖς ἀῤῥήτοις βλασφημίαις ἐλέγχους ἡ Ἐκκλησία Σάρδεων προ… Κίλικας, καὶ πάντας ὅσους ἐν κύκλῳ φερόμενον τὸ κακὸν ἐπενείματο. Ποίας οὖν ἀπολογίας ἔτι καιρὸς ἣν τότε; ᾿Αλλ᾽, οἶμαι, οὐδὲ βουλομένῳ δυνατὸν ψεύσασθαι. “Ὥστε παντὸς ἀληθέστερον, ὅτι τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ λόγου μηχάνημα αὐτῷ πρὸς τὴν ἀπάτην ἐστίν. Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν εἰς τοσοῦτον. Ὁ δὲ, μικρὸν προελθὼν, σκέψασθε οἷα γράφει. Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἄχρηστον ἴσως πρὸ τῶν ἐλέγχων τῆς ἀσεβείας ὀλίγα τοῦ περὶ αὐτὸν τύφου παραδηλῶσαι. ΕΥ̓͂Ν. Αἰτοῦμαι δὲ πρὸ πάντων ὑμᾶς, τούς τε νῦν ἀκουσομένους καὶ τοὺς εἰς ὕστερον ἐντευξομένους, μὴ τῷ πλήθει διακρίνειν ἐθέλειν τῆς ἀληθείας τὸ ψεῦδος, τῇ πλείονι μοίρᾳ τὸ κρεῖττον συνάπτον… 
…ροῦσθαι τὴν διάνοιαν, ἣ τῇ τάξει τῶν προλαθέντῶν τὸ πλέον νέμοντας, ἀποφράττειν τὰς ἀκοὰς τοῖς ὑστέροις. ΒΑΣ. Τί λέγεις; Μὴ νείμωμεν τὸ πλέον τοῖς προλαβοῦσι; μὴ αἰδεσθῶμεν τὸ πλῆθος τῶν τε νῦν ὄντων Χριστιανῶν, καὶ τῶν ὅσοι γεγόνασιν ἀφ᾽ οὗ κατηγγέλη τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον; μὴ λογισώμεθα τὸ ἀξίωμα τῶν ἐν παντοίοις χαρίσμασι διαφανέντων πνευματικοῖς, οἷς ἅπασιν ἐχθρὰν καὶ πολεμίαν τὴν πονηρὰν ὁδὸν ταύτην τῆς ἀσεδείας ἐχαινοτόμησας; ἀλλὰ μύσαντες ἀπαξαπλῶς τοὺς τῆς ψυχῆς ὀφθαλμοὺς, καὶ παντὸς ἀγίου μνήμην τῆς διανοίας ὑπερορίσαντες, σχολάζουσαν καὶ σεσαρωμένην τὴν ἑαυτοῦ καρδίαν ἕκαστος ταῖς παραγωγαῖς σου καὶ τοῖς σοφίσμασι φέροντες ὑποθῶμεν; Μεγάλης μέντ᾽ ἂν εἴης τῆς δυναστείας ἐπειλημμένος, εἴπερ ὧν ταῖς ποικίλαις ἑαυτοῦ μεθοδείαις ὁ διάβολος οὐχ ἐπέτυχε, τούτων σοι τυχεῖν ἐξ ἐπιτάγματος περιέσται" ἐάν περ, πεισθέντες σοι, τὴν ἐν παντὶ τῷ παρελθόντι χρόνῳ ὑπὸ τοσούτων ἁγίων κεκρατηκυῖαν … ὑμῶν ἐπινοίας. Τῷ δὲ οὐχ ἐξαρκεῖ μόνον τῶν νῦν ἀχουόντων τοὺς λογισμοὺς ὑφελέσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἀξιοῖ καὶ τοὺς ὕστερόν ποτε συνεσομένους τῷ λόγῳ τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχειν γνώμην. τῆς ἀλαζονείας ! τὸ καὶ εἰς ὕστερον οἴεσθαι αὐτῷ διαρκέσειν τὸν λόγον, καὶ ἀθάνατον εἰς τὸν ἐπιόντα χρόνον τὴν μνήμην αὑτοῦ φυλαχθήσεσθαι. Καὶ ταῦτα νῦν ἀπαυθαδιάζεται ὅ μετ᾽ ὀλίγα πρὸς τοὺς ἀκροωμένους διαθρυπτόμενος ὡς τύφου παντὸς ἀμελῶν, οὑτωσὶ λέγων τοῖς ἐν τῷ δράματι δικασταῖς. ΕΥ̓͂Ν. Πρὸς δὲ τούτοις μηδὲ ἡμῖν χαλεπαίνειν, εἰ, τύφου μὲν ἀμελήσαντες καὶ φόβον, τῆς δὲ παραυτίκα χάριτος καὶ ἀσφαλείας τὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν μελλόντων ἄδειαν προτιμήσαντες, καὶ πάσης ἐπιγείου χεχοπαθείας θανάτου τε προσκαίρου φοθερωτέραν τὴν κατὰ τῶν ἀσεβῶν ὡρισμένην ἀπειλὴν εἶναι …, παντὸς ἐπικαλύμματος γυμνὴν ἐκτιθέμεθα τὴν ἀλήθειαν. ΒΑΣ. Ποίας ἀλαζονείας ὑπερβολὴν ὁ κόμπος οὗτος τῶν λόγων οὐχ ὑπεραίρει; Καὶ πρόσεστι τῇ εἰρωνείᾳ καὶ ὕβρις κατὰ τῶν δικαζόντων " εἴπερ τῷ πρὸς τὰ καλὰ δυσχερῶς ἔχειν μόλις κατέχονται χαλεπαίνοντες ἀμελοῦντι μὲν αὐθαδείας καὶ τύφου, τῆς δὲ ἐν τῷ παρόντι ἀσφαλείας τὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν μελλόντων ἄδειαν προτιμῶντι, καὶ τοῦ προσκαίρου θανάτου φοδερωτέραν κρίνοντι τὴν εἰς ὕστερον κόλασιν. Τοῦτο δέ ἐστι τί; Μὴ χαλεπαίνετέ μοι, ὦ ἄνδρες, πρὸς αὐτὸ τὸ ἀκρότατον τῆς ἀρετῆς ἀνελ… καὶ ὑπερβάντι μὲν τὰ γήϊνα, πᾶσαν δὲ τὴν πολιτείαν εἰς οὐρανὸν μεταθέντι, Καινὸς οὗτος ἀλαζονείας τρόπος. Δι’ ὧν γὰρ ἀμελεῖν προσποιεῖται τοῦ τύφου, πρὸς τὴν ἐσχάτην φυσίωσιν ἑαυτὸν ὑπεραίρει. Εἰ γὰρ ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἐνδείκνυται συγγνώμης ἀξίως πράσσειν, τῆς εὐαγγελικῆς πολιτείας ἐστὶ τὰ κεφάλαια, εἰκάζειν ἀφίησιν ὁποῖόν τινα αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς χατωρθωμένοις ἡγεῖσθαι προσῆκε. Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ὡσανεὶ χαρακτῆρα τῆς ὅλης αὐτῆς προαιρέσεως ἔχοντα, πολλῶν ἀποσιωπηθέντων, ἱκανῶς εἴρηται, ἵνα δι᾽ ὧν μὲν ἐψεύσατο, τὸν πατέρα τοῦ ψεύδους ἐν αὐτῷ λαλοῦντα γνωρίσωμεν" ἐκ δὲ τῶν ἀλαζο… τοῦ ᾿Αποστόλου λέγοντος τὸν τυφωθέντα εἰς κρίμα ἐμπίπτειν τοῦ διαβόλου ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς δὲ λοιπὸν τοὺς ἐλέγχους τῆς ἀσεθδείας ἔλθωμεν.

### English translation (Claude)

If all those upon whom the name of our God and Savior Jesus Christ has been invoked had been willing to attempt nothing against the truth of the gospel, and to be content with the tradition of the apostles and the simplicity of the faith, there would be no need of any words from us at present; even now we would surely have kept to the silence that we have honored from the beginning. But the enemy of the truth always increases evil by additions. Besides the tares that he sowed in the church of God from the beginning, he has now found instruments that take in his whole craft at once, and under the pretext of Christianity he brings in the denial of the divinity of the Only-Begotten, confounding the purity and simplicity of the teaching of the divine Spirit with this outside and vain wisdom, and misleading the more innocent with plausible talk. We too, therefore, of necessity, both for the love of you who have charged us with this and for our own safety, have disregarded our weakness in this matter. Although we are wholly untrained in this kind of discourse, we have undertaken, according to the measure of knowledge supplied to us by the Lord, to stand with the truth and to refute the falsehood. We consider that we shall surely not miss at least one of three goods: either the refutation will give those already taken in a remedy against the evil, or it will provide a moderate safeguard for the healthy, or at any rate we ourselves will obtain the reward for having chosen what is best for our brothers.

The first, as far as we know, who dared to say openly and to teach that the only-begotten Son is unlike God the Father in essence was Aetius the Syrian. I will not say in what sort of practices he was brought up from the beginning, nor how, as he went on, he slipped corruptingly into the churches of God, lest I seem to be reviling him and to have dropped the refutations. The one who took over the impiety and brought it to completion is this Eunomius the Galatian. He has won notoriety for himself out of the most shameful things ("for their glory," it says, "is in their shame"); preferring the ambition of writing what no one else had ever dared to the goods laid up for the pious, he was carried away into publishing in this splendid treatise the blasphemy that until then had been spoken under the breath, [eager to be proclaimed] the leader and … This, then, is the man we propose to call to account at present. Since there is one evil in both of them, it is clear that in the fully trained disciple the teacher too will be refuted together with him, the one who [sowed] the seeds … May it be given to us, through your prayers, to receive such power of argument that, like the zealot Phinehas, with the one stroke of refutation we may strike down both together, intertwined as they are with one another in impiety. Although, then, I could show him in this treatise to be a liar, ignorant, insolent, a dissembler, and a blasphemer, I will mention the rest only in passing; but I will try to strip the blasphemy that he uttered against the height of the glory of the Only-Begotten of the coverings his craft supplies, and to make it plain to all.

[2] Now I will proceed to the refutations, beginning from the very title. His first piece of mischief was to devise this form for his discourse, composing his teaching in the shape of an apology, so as not to seem to be setting out the doctrines of impiety of his own accord, but to have come to these arguments under compulsion. He wanted by every means to proclaim this wicked and godless message and to bring into the open the blasphemy he had long ago conceived and labored with. But he saw that to sit openly in the place of a teacher, besides being very vulgar and offensive to the hearers, would also make him unconvincing and suspect to the many, as one who had come to innovate from a desire for glory; whereas if he composed his arguments in the fiction of an apology, he would escape the suspicion of innovation and would rather win the hearers over by it, since all people by nature are accustomed to side in goodwill with the party at a disadvantage. That is why he blames accusers and slanderers and attaches to them the cause of his discourse. To make his craft plain to all, nothing is better than to hear the preface of his text. It runs thus:

EUNOMIUS: "We know that to slander and accuse people out of an unbridled tongue and an unfeeling mind is the work of the wicked and the quarrelsome; but for those who have been thought wicked through slander to try with all eagerness to turn back the falsehood by refutations is the work of prudent men, who together with their own good counsel set great store by the safety of the many."

BASIL: Such, then, is the form of his discourse, as it would be from one who does nothing simply or without guile. He shades the suspicion of innovation under the cover of an apology, and he hunts for goodwill from the hearers, as one who came to these arguments under the necessity of the slander. But his staging of an apology is refuted by this: since he cannot name an accuser for the charge against which he pretends to contend, he goes into a drama of apology without characters. It is not out of long-suffering that he refrains from naming those who grieved him (how could it be, when he drenches his opponents in so much abuse?); rather, suspecting that his lie would be obvious, he is ashamed to attach definite persons to himself as accusers. For if he had been able to name any, he would certainly have named them and shouted them abroad, if not to satisfy his own anger, at least to provide for the safety of the many, which he claims to care for most of all. For a hidden wickedness … the slanderers, we would more easily have escaped their unbridled tongues and unfeeling minds (for I will use the very words of this wisest of men). But since at that time, for whatever reason, he kept silent, let him now be questioned; let him now answer. Who are the accusers who, by getting in first with slanders, made the apology necessary for him? From what part of the world did they come? Who are the judges before whom he sets out his contest? In what court did he enter this suit? Where on land or sea was it convened? What, indeed, could they say? At Seleucia? But there they were convicted by their silence: although the assembled bishops summoned them many times to answer for the charges brought against them, they did not appear, and for this they were condemned on the spot. For common … because of their communion in impiety, like a diseased limb … there was no need there of apology and arguments. For having made their own the members of the imperial court and the most powerful of the rest, they dealt with affairs from a position of great superiority. They themselves were accusers and judges and executioners and whatever else they wished, when they expelled some bishops, installed others, and hung the danger of death over others, and divided the cities among themselves with great license. One of them, ousted from the cities of Syria, seized Constantinople as if for a tyranny; this invincible and clever speechwriter himself carried off Cyzicus as the prize of his impiety; and to Theosebius, after the refutations [of his defense] of the unspeakable blasphemies, the church of Sardis was [given] … the Cilicians, and all the regions upon which the evil spread as it moved around. What occasion for an apology was there then? Yet I think that not even someone who wished to could lie about this. So it is truer than anything that the form of his discourse is a device for deceit. So much for this.

A little further on, look at what he writes. For it is perhaps not useless, before the refutations of his impiety, to point out a few things about his conceit.

[3] EUNOMIUS: "Above all I ask you, both those who will hear now and those who will read later, not to want to distinguish falsehood from truth by numbers, joining the better to the larger share … … [nor to cloud] your judgment [with dignities], nor, by giving more weight to the order of those who came first, to stop your ears to those who come later."

BASIL: What are you saying? Are we not to give more weight to those who came first? Are we not to respect the multitude of the Christians now living and of all who have lived since the gospel was proclaimed? Are we not to take account of the dignity of those who have shone in spiritual gifts of every kind, against all of whom you have opened up this wicked road of impiety as a hostile and warring thing? Instead, are we to shut the eyes of our souls once and for all, banish from our minds the memory of every saint, and each of us lay his own heart, empty and swept clean, under your deceptions and sophisms? You would indeed have seized great power, if what the devil did not achieve by his manifold wiles you could achieve by command; if, persuaded by you, [we were to rank] the [tradition] that has prevailed through all past time under so many saints … your invention. It is not enough for him to steal away the thoughts of those now listening; he also expects those who will one day come upon his treatise to hold the same opinion. What arrogance! To think that his discourse will last into the future, and that his memory will be kept immortal for time to come! And this he now says presumptuously, though a little later, putting on airs before his hearers as if he cared nothing at all for conceit, he speaks thus to the judges in his drama:

EUNOMIUS: "Besides this, do not be harsh with us if, caring nothing for conceit and fear, and preferring immunity in the future to immediate favor and safety, [and judging] the threat appointed against the impious more fearful than every earthly hardship and temporal death, we set out the truth stripped of every covering."

BASIL: What excess of arrogance does this boast of words not surpass? And to the dissimulation is added insolence against the judges, if, because they find the good hard to bear, they can scarcely be restrained from being harsh toward one who cares nothing for presumption and conceit, who prefers immunity in the future to safety in the present, and who judges the punishment hereafter more fearful than temporal death. What does this amount to? "Do not be harsh with me, gentlemen, for having climbed to the very summit of virtue, having passed beyond earthly things and transferred my whole way of life to heaven." This is a new kind of arrogance. With the very words by which he pretends to care nothing for conceit he lifts himself up to the utmost pride. For if the things for which he shows that he deserves indulgence are the chief points of the gospel way of life, he leaves us to guess what sort of man he must think himself in his achievements. These things, then, which bear the stamp, as it were, of his whole purpose, have been said sufficiently, though much has been passed over in silence, so that by his lies we may recognize the father of lies speaking in him, and from his boasting … since the Apostle says that the one who is puffed up falls into the condemnation of the devil. Now at last let us come to the refutations of his impiety.

### Scripture references

- Phil 3:19: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 13:25: allusion, high confidence
- Num 25:7: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 12:44: allusion, high confidence
- Eph 6:11: allusion, medium confidence
- John 8:44: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Tim 3:6: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- This staged passage holds chapters 1 and 2 of Book 1 and the opening of chapter 3 (marked [2] and [3]). Lines lost in the scan are marked … (after 'the leader and', after 'the seeds', in the account of Seleucia and Constantinople, and after 'the church of Sardis'); Migne's Latin translation and notes are removed by logged corrections. Words in square brackets supply the evident sense of a broken line.
- Phil 3:19 is quoted; the tares recall Matt 13:25; Phinehas is Num 25:7-8.
- The quotations are from Eunomius's Apology. 'At Seleucia' refers to the council of 359; the unnamed council where the speakers carried everything is that of Constantinople (360). The one 'ousted from the cities of Syria' who took Constantinople is Eudoxius; the 'speechwriter' given Cyzicus is Eunomius; Theosebius received the see of Sardis. Basil's account is polemical and is translated as written.
- Continuation of chapter 3. The opening words of Eunomius's sentence are lost in the scan (marked …), as is a line after 'so many saints' and one after 'from his boasting'. A Migne footnote quoting the church historians on Eudoxius, and Migne's Latin, are removed by logged corrections.
- Matt 12:44 (the house swept clean), Eph 6:11 (the devil's wiles), John 8:44 (the father of lies), and 1 Tim 3:6 (quoted).

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 1.1 (PG 29:500; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-1/#p-1-1).

## Against Eunomius 1.4

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-4/#p-1-4
- Source: PG 29:502
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil exposes how Eunomius praises the Fathers' creed and then 'corrects' it, mocks his proof that God is unbegotten, argues that 'Father' is the better name, and begins his account of conceptualization (epinoia).

### Greek text

Πίστιν ἐκτίθεται πρῶτον ἐξ ἁπλῶν καὶ ἀδιορίστων λέξεων συγκειμένην, ἧ ἐχρήσαντο καί τινες τῶν Πατέρων, οὐχὶ πρὸς ζητήσεις ὑποκειμένας ἀποτεινόμενοι, ἀλλ᾽ ἁπλῶς οὕτως ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν ἐν ἁπλότητι καρδίας διαλεγόμενοι. ΕἾ τε καὶ “Ἄρειος, ὥς φασι, σοφιζόμενος τὸν ᾿Αλέξανδρον, ταύτην αὐτῷ προετείνατο (καὶ γὰρ τοῦτο λέγουσιν), ἀλλ᾽ ὁμοῦ μὲν ταύτην ὡς ὀμολογοῦσαν τῇ ἑαυτοῦ γνώμῃ προΐσχεται διὰ δύο προφάσεις " μίαν μὲν, ὥστε τὴν τῆς καινοτομίας ὑπόνοιαν ἐκφυγεῖν, ἐν τῷ τὴν τῶν Πατέρων πίστιν ὡς ὀρθῶς ἔχουσαν ἀποδέχεσθαι" ἑτέραν δὲ, τοῦ πάντας ἀπροοράτως ταῖς πάγαις αὑτοῦ τῶν σοφισμάτων περιπεσεῖν τῇ ἁπλότητι τῶν ῥημάτων τούτων καταπιστεύσαντας. Ὁμοῦ δὲ κἀκεῖνο συνεῖδεν, ὅτι καὶ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γνώμην εὐπροσώπως αὐτῷ παρεισαγαγεῖν ὑπάρξει, ἐξηγουμένῳ δῆθεν τὰ τῶν Πατέρων, καὶ μάλιστα μὲν λήσεσθαι ἀσεβῶν· εἰ δ᾽ ἄρα καὶ φωραθείη, ἀναίτιος εἶναι δόξειν, ὡς οὐδὲν οἴκοθεν οὐδὲ παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ τι λέγων, ἀλλ᾽ ἀλλοτρίας γενόμενος διανοίας ἐξηγητής. Ἐν ᾧ δὴ καὶ γελοιότατόν τι παθὼν οὐχ ἐπήσθετο. Ἐπαινέσας γὰρ αὐτὴν πολλὰ καὶ μεγάλα, μικρὸν ὑποβὰς, τοῖς αἰσχίστοις πάλιν ὀνείδεσι περιβάλλει. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἵνα σαφέστερον ὃ λέγω γένηται, κατὰ μέρη τὸν λόγον διελόμενος ἐξετάσω. Καὶ πρῶτόν γε τὴν πίστιν ἣν προτείνεται καταμάθωμεν, αὐτὰς τὰς ἐκείνου φωνὰς παραθέμενοι. ΕΥ̓͂Ν. Τὴν δὲ κρατοῦσαν, φησὶν. ἄνωθεν παρὰ τῶν Πατέρων εὐσεβῆ παράδοσιν, ὥσπερ τινὰ γνώμονα καὶ κανόνα προεχθέμενοι, ἀκριβεῖ τούτῳ χρησώμεθα κριτηρίῳ πρὸς τὴν τῶν λεγομένων ἐπίκρισιν. … ΕΥ̓͂Ν. Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν Πατέρα παντοκράτορα, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα. καὶ εἰς ἕνα μονογενῆ Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, Θεὸν Λόγον, τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα. καὶ εἰς ἕν Πνεῦμα ἅγιον, τὸ παράκλητον. ΒΑΣ. Εἶτα εὐθὺς ἐπισυνάπτει. ΕΥ̓͂Ν. Ἡ μὲν οὖν ἁπλουστέρα πίστις καὶ κοινὴ πάντων, ὅσοις τὸ δοκεῖν ἣ τὸ εἶναι Χριστιανοῖς ἐπιμελὲς, ὡς ἐν ἐπιδρομῇ κεφαλαιωδέστερον εἰπεῖν, αὕτη. ΒΑΣ. Περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς ἐν οἷς εἶπεν ἐναντιότητος καὶ τῆς ἀναισχύντου μάχης τῶν εἰρημένων πρὸς ἄλληλα μικρὸν ὕστερον ἐροῦμεν. Ἐκεῖνο δὲ προ… …οἷς ἄνω λόγοις πάνυ σοβαρῶς ἡμῖν ἐπαγγελλόμενος …θειαν. Ἐνταῦθα τοίνυν που γέγραπται" Πιστεύομὲν τὴν ἀγεννησίαν οὐσίαν εἶναι τοῦ Θεοῦ τῶν ὅλων, ἣ, πιστεύομεν ἀνόμοιον κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν εἶναι τὸν Μονογενῆ τῷ Πατρί. Ταῦτα γὰρ ἔγραψεν ἂν, εἴπερ, ὡς ὑπέσχετο, μηδενὶ παραπετάσματι δολερῷ τὸ ἑαυτοῦ φρόνημα συνεσκίαζεν, ᾿Αλλ᾽, οἶμαι, πᾶσιν ἐπιβούλως τοῖς λόγοις χρώμενος, τὰ μὲν παρ' ἑαυτοῦ σιωπᾷ, ἵνα μὴ ἀγυμνάστοις ταῖς ἀκοαῖς προσβάλλων ἀπίθανον ἑαυτὸν καὶ δυσπαράδεκτον … τὴν δὲ τῶν Πατέρων πίστιν προβάλλεται, ἢ διὰ τὴν μεσότητα τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ ῥημάτων οὔτε τι ἐναντίωμα πρὸς τὴν ὅλην τοῦ λόγου αὐτῷ κατασκευὴν παρέξειν ἔμελλε, καὶ ἀκολουθήσειν ῥᾳδίως ἐν ἐξηγήσεως εἴδει μετάγοντι τὸν λόγον ἐφ᾽ ἃ προήρηται. Ὡς δὲ ἀληθῆ ταῦτα, δῆλον αὐτόθεν. Ἐκθέμενος γὰρ αὑτὴν, εὐθὺς ἐπιπηδᾷ τῇ ἐξηγήσει, προφάσει χρώμενος ἄλλῃ τέ τινι, καὶ ὅτι οὐχ ἐξαρχεῖ πρὸς τὴν διάλυσιν τοῦ ἐγκλήματος. Τίνος οὖν ἕνεκεν αὐτὴν προέβαλον, ἀλλ' οὐχ εὐθὺς ἐπ’ ἐκείνους ἦλθες τοὺς λόγους, οἷ καὶ τὸ ἀκριβὲς εἶχον, καὶ ἐξαιρεῖσθαί σε τῶν ἐγκλημάτων ἔμελλον; Νῦν δὲ προτείνεται μὲν ὡς ἀσφαλὲς κριτήριον, διορθοῦται δὲ πάλιν, ὡς οὐδὲν ὑγιὲς ἔχουσαν. Τοῦτο δὲ παντὶ γνώριμον, ὅτι, ὥσπερ ἀγκίστρῳ πρὸς θάνατον ἕλκοντι, τῷ ἑαυτοῦ φρονῇματι τὸ ἁπλοῦν τῆς πίστεως, οἷόν τι δέλεαρ, πε… …τεροι ἀφυλάκτως τῷ κακῷ τῆς ἀσεβείας …σιν. Ὡς ἂν δὲ μὴ δόξειεν ἄνευ ἀνάγκης τῇ ἐπιδιορθώσει τῆς πίστεως ἐγχειρεῖν, ἣν αὐτὸς ἀπεσέμνυνε ταῖς ὑπερβολαῖς τῶν ἐπαίνων, ταύτην, ὥσπερ ἐπιλαθόμενος τῶν ἑαυτοῦ λόγων, σκέψασθε πῶς δια… ΕΥ̓͂Ν. Ἡ μὲν οὖν ἁπλουστέρα καὶ κοινὴ πάντων “πίστις ὅσοις τὸ δοκεῖν ἣ τὸ εἶναι Χριστιανοῖς ἔπιμελὲς, ὡς ἐν ἐπιδρομῇ κεφαλαιωδέστερον εἰπεῖν, αὕτη. ΒΑΣ. Εἰπέ μοι, ἡ εὐσεβὴς τῶν Πατέρων παράδοσις, καὶ ὁ χανὼν, ὡς αὐτὸς ὠνόμασας, καὶ ὁ γνώμων, καὶ τὸ ἀσφαλὲς κριτήριον, νῦν ὄργανον ἀπάτης, καὶ τέχνη σχηματισμοῦ, καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα πάλιν προσαγορεύεται; Εἰ γὰρ οὐχὶ τοῖς ὄντως οὖσι Χριστιανοῖς ἐφαρμόζει, ἀλλὰ τοῖς τὸ δοκεῖν πρὸ τοῦ εἶναι τετιμηκόσι, τί ἄλλο περὶ αὐτῆς ὑπολαμβάνειν ἣ ταῦτα προσῆκε; Τίς ἂν οὖν, μὴ παντελῶς παραπαίων, τὸν κανόνα τοῦ εὐθέως τοῖς τὴν ψυχὴν διαστρόφοις …ζειν εἴποι, καὶ τὸν γνώμονα τῆς ἀληθείας τοῖς ἐχθροῖς τῆς ἀληθείας; Οἱ γὰρ τὸ ὀνομάζεσθαι Χριστιανοὶ πρὸ τοῦ ἀληθῶς εἶναι τετιμηκότες, ἐπὶ τῇ τῶν πολλῶν ἀπάτῃ τὸν σχηματισμὸν τοῦτον ὑποδυόμενοι, πόῤῥω πάσης εὐθύτητος καὶ ἀληθείας εἰσίν. Οὔτε οὖν διεστραμμένον κατευθυνθήσεται, ὡς τοῦ Ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ λόγος, οὔτε τὰ τῆς ἀληθείας κριτήρια τοῖς τὸ ψεῦδος κατὰ τὸν βίον ἡρημένοις ἁρμόσει, ὅπερ … ᾿Αλλὰ δι᾽ ἃς εἶπον αἰτίας εἰς οὕτω προδήλους ἐναντιότητας ὑπενέχθη, ἵνα οἷς μὲν ἐπαινεῖ τὴν πίστιν κοινωνεῖν τοῖς Πατράσι τῆς εὐσεβείας δόξῃ, οἷς δὲ λαμβάνεται πάλιν αὐτῆς, τὴν ὁδὸν ἑαυτῷ πρὸς τὴν ἐξήγησιν ὑπανοίξῃ. Διὰ τοῦτο τὴν αὐτὴν καὶ κανόνα λέγει, καὶ προσθήκης φησὶν ἀκριβεστέρας δεῖσθαι. Τοῦτο δὲ αὐτὸ καὶ τῆς ἐσχάτης ἀμαθείας σημεῖον ἔστω, εἴ τῳ καὶ τοῦτο φίλον παρεξετάζειν. Ὁ γάρ τοι χανὼν, ὦ σοφώτατε, καὶ ὁ γνώμων, ἕως ἂν μηδὲν ἐνδέῃ τοῦ χανὼν εἶναι καὶ γνώμων, οὐδεμίαν προθήκην εἰς ἀκρίβειαν ἐπιδέχεται. Κατὰ γὰρ τὸ ἐλλεῖπὸν ἡ πρόσθεσις. ᾿Ατελεῖς δὲ ὑπάρχοντες, οὐδὲ τῶν προσηγοριῶν τούτων ὑγιῶς ἂν ἔτι τυγχάνοιεν. Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν εἰς τοσοῦτον. “Ηδη δὲ καὶ οὗς ἐκτίθεται περὶ Θεοῦ λόγους ἐπισκεψώμεθα. ΕΥ̓͂Ν. Εἷς τοίνυν, φησὶ, κατά τε φυσικὴν ἔννοιαν καὶ κατὰ τὴν τῶν Πατέρων διδασκαλίαν ἡμῖν ὡμολόγῆται Θεὸς, μήτε παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ μήτε παρ᾽ ἑτέρου γενόμενος. Ἑκάτερον γὰρ αὐτῶν ἐπίσης ἀδύνατον, … προϋπάρχειν, καὶ τὸ ποιούμενον τοῦ ποιοῦντος εἶναι δεύτερον. Μήτε δὲ αὐτὸ ἑαυτοῦ πρότερον ἣ ὕστερον εἶναι δύνασθαι, μήτε ἕτερόν τι πρὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Ἦ γὰρ ἂν ἐκεῖνο πρὸ τοῦ δευτέρου τὸ τῆς θεότητος ἔσχεν ἀξίωμα. ΒΑΣ. Τίνος οὖν ἕνεκεν πᾶσαν αὐτοῦ ταύτην παρεθέμην τὴν λέξιν; Ἵνα καταφανὴς ἡ ἀδολεσχία τοῦ ἀνδρὸς, ἧ χρῆται παρὰ πάντα τὸν λόγον, γένηται. Εἰπὼν γὰρ αὐτὸς ἐναργὲς ὑπάρχειν ταῖς κοιναῖς πάντων ἐννοίαις τὸ εἶναι τὸν Θεὸν ἀγέννητον, ἀποδείξεις τούτου κομίζειν ἡμῖν ἐπιχειρεῖ, παραπλήσιον ποιῶν, ὥσπερ ἂν εἴ τις ἐν σταθερᾷ μεσημβρίᾳ τοὺς ἐῤῥωμένους τὰς ὄψεις λόγῳ διδάσκειν βούλοιτο φανότατον εἶναι τῶν κατ᾽ οὐρανὸν ἀστέρων τὸν ἦλιον. Εἰ δὲ ὁ τὰ τῇ αἰσθήσει γνώριμα λόγῳ δεικνὺς καταγέλαστος, ὁ τὰ ταῖς κοιναῖς προλήψεσιν ὡμολογημένα διδάσκων πῶς οὐχὶ τῆς ἴσης παρανοίας ὑπεύθυνος : Πολλῷ γὰρ δήπου ταῦτα τῶν διὰ τῆς ὄψεως φαινομένων τοῖς σωφρονοῦσι πιστότερα. Εἰ μὲν οὖν ἣν τις ὁ κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας ταύτης ἀναισχυντῶν, καὶ τὸν ἀγέννητον ἣ παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ ἣ παρ᾽ ἑτέρου γεγεννῆσθαι διατεινόμενος, εἶχεν ἄν τινα τυχὸν συγγνώμην ἡ ματαιότης τῶν λεγομένων “ εἰ δὲ οὐδεὶς μέχρι σήμερον οὔτε τῶν ἔξω τοῦ λόγου τοῦ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς, οὔτε τῶν ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἐπαναστάντων τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, εἰς περὶ τῆς ἀγεννησίας τοῦ ἀγεννήτου " τέ κέρδος ἐκ τῶν λόγων τούτων, οὐ συνορῶ. Ἢ τῶν ᾿Αριστοτέλους ὄντως ἡμῖν καὶ Χρυσίππου συλλογισμῶν ἔδει πρὸς τὸ μαθεῖν, ὅτι ὁ ἀγέννητος οὐ γεγέννηται, οὔτε αὐτὸς ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, οὔτε ὑφ᾽ ἑτέρου; καὶ οὔτε πρεσβύτερος, οὔτε νεώτερος αὐτός ἐστιν ἑαυτοῦ; Τί οὖν αὐτῷ ταῦτα βούλεται; Δοκεῖ μοι ὁμοῦ μὲν τοῖς ἀκολούθοις ἐγκαλλωπίζεσθαι, ὡς δὴ πυκνός τις καὶ περιττὸς τὴν διάνοιαν, καὶ ὀξὺς μὲν ὑπιδέσθαι τὸ ἄτοπον, ὀξύτερος δὲ διαλῦσαι τὸ φωραθὲν, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐναβρύνεσθαι τῇ τῶν λόγων στροφῇ, καὶ περὶ τὴν ἀπόδειξιν λεπτουργεῖν τοῦ μήτε ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ μήτε ὑφ᾽ ἑτέρου τὸν ἀγέννητον γεγεννῆσθαι. "Ἔπειτα μέντοι οὐδὲ ἐνταῦθα τῆς ἑαυτοῦ τέχνης ἐπιλανθάνεται" ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῇ τῶν ὁμολογουμένων διατριβῇ, ὥσπερ στοιχεῖά τινα πρὸς τοὺς ἑξῆς λόγους ἑαυτῷ παρεμβάλλει. Οὐ γὰρ ἀργῶς αὑτῷ ἐκεῖνο ἔχει, ὅτι δεῖ, κατὰ ἀλήθειαν, τὸ ποιοῦν … Υἱοῦ λόγοις προδιωμολογημένον ἔχῃ, τὸ ὕστερον προσγεγενῆσθαι τῷ Πατρὶ τὸν Υἱὸν, εἴπερ τὸ ποιοῦν ἔστι τοῦ γινομένου πρεσβύτερον" τούτῳ δὲ ὡς ἐπόμενον λάβῃ, τὸ ἐκ μὴ ὄντων τὸν Υἱὸν γεγεννῆσθαι. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ὁ μὲν τῆς εἰς τὸν Υἱὸν ἀσεβείας ἔλεγχος ἐν τοῖς οἰκείοις τόποις ἀναμεινάτω. Ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ τὴν τοῦ ἀγεννήτου προσηγορίαν, κἂν τὰ μάλιστα δοκῇ ταῖς ἐννοίαις ἡμῶν συμβαίνειν, ἀλλ᾽ οὖν ὡς οὐδαμοῦ τῆς Γραφῆς κειμένην, καὶ πρῶτον στοιχεῖον οὖσαν τῆς βλασφημίας αὐτῶν, σιωπᾶσθαι ἂν δικαίως ἀξίαν εἶναι φήσαιμι, τῆς Πατρὸς φωνῆς ἴσον δυναμένης τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ, πρὸς τῷ καὶ τὴν περὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἔννοιαν συνημμένως ἑαυτῇ διὰ τῆς σχέσεως συνεισάγειν. Ὁ γὰρ ὄντως Πατὴρ καὶ μόνος ἐξ οὐδενός ἐστιν ἑτέρου" τὸ δὲ, ἐξ οὐδενὸς, ταυτόν ἐστι τῷ, ἀγέννητος. Οὐ τοίνυν ἀγέννητον προσαγορευτέον μᾶλλον ἡμῖν ἣ Πατέρα, εἴ γε μὴ μέλλοιμεν εἶναι σοφώτεροι τῶν διδαγμάτων τοῦ Σωτῆρος, εἰπόντος: Πορευθέντες, βαπτίζετε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου. Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν εἰς τοσοῦτον. Ἡμεῖς δὲ τὰ συνεχῇ τοῦ λόγου διασκεψώμεθα. Ὀλίγον γὰρ προελθὼν, καὶ οἷον συγκεφαλαιούμενος αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ τὰ εἰρημένα, οὔτω γράφει. ΕΥ̓͂Ν. Ἆρ᾽ οὖν, εἰ μήτε αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ, μήτε ἕτερόν τι αὐτοῦ προὐπάρχειν δέδεικται, πρὸ δὲ πάντων αὐτὸς, ἀκολουθεῖ τούτῳ τὸ ἀγέννητον " μᾶλλον δὲ αὐτό ἐστιν οὐσία ἀγέννητος. ΒΑΣ. Ἣν τοίνυν ἐν τούτοις ἐφωράσαμεν …γίαν συνιδεῖν μὲν, οἶμαι, καὶ πάνυ ῥάδιον τῷ καὶ μικρὸν ἐπιστήσαντι, ἐμφανῆ δὲ ποιῆσαι τοῖς πολλοῖς οὐχ εὐμαρές. Πλὴν ἀλλὰ πειρατέον, τὴν ἐλπίδα θεμένους ἐπὶ τὸν διδόντα ῥῆμα τοῖς εὐαγγελιζομένοις, δυνάμει πολλῇ. Εἰπὼν, ὅτι, εἰ μήτε αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ, μήτε ἕτερόν τι αὐτοῦ προϋπάρχει, ἀκολουθεῖ αὐτῷ τὸ ἀγέννητον εἶτα συνιδὼν, ὅτι ἐκ τῆς τῶν τεθέντων ἀκολουθίας πρὸς τὸ ἐναντίον αὐτῷ περιῆλθεν ὁ λόγος (εἰ γὰρ ἀκολουθεῖ τῷ Θεῷ τὸ ἀγέννητον, ἔξωθεν αὐτῷ παρέπεται δηλονότι. Τὸ δὲ ἔξωθεν τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐχ οὐσία αὐτοῦ ἐστιν. Ἐκ δὲ τούτων οἰχήσεται διαρρυὲν αὐτῷ τὸ σκαιώρημα), ἵνα δὲ μὴ τοῦτο πάθῃ, τὶ ποιεῖ; Βραχὺ φροντίσας τοῦ γέλωτος, ὃν ἐπὶ τῷ τὰ ἀνακόλουθα λέγειν ὑπέχειν ἔμελλε, τῇ ἐπιδιορθώσει ἀπήγαγε τὸν λόγον πρὸς ἃ ἐβούλετο, εἰπών" Μᾶλλον δὲ αὐτό ἐστιν οὐσία ἀγέννητος. Τοῦτο δὲ οὐδεμίαν μὲν ἔχει ὁμολογίαν πρὸς τὰ προάγοντα " "πῶς γὰρ καὶ ἑπόμενον αὐτῷ τὸ ἀγέννητον ὁ Θεὸς … λόγῳ περιεχόμενον; ὅμως γε μὴν οὐκ ἐᾷ παντελῶς αὐτῷ διαφθαρῆναι τὸ σόφισμα. Εἰ γὰρ, εἰπὼν, ὅτι ἀκολουθεῖ αὐτῷ τὸ ἀγέννητον, ἐνταῦθα τὸν λόγον ἔστησεν, οὐχ ἂν εἶχεν ὅπως ἣ τὴν ἀγεννησίαν οὐσίαν λέγῃ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῶν ὅλων, ἣ ἀλλοτρίως ἔχοντα κατ᾽ αὐτὴν τὴν οὐσίαν τὸν μονογενῆ Υἱὸν ἐπιδείξῃ, οὐδενὸς δυναμένου τῶν ἔξωθεν ἑπομένων, Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ τὴν κατ᾽ αὐτὴν τὴν οὐσίαν οἰκειότητα διιστᾶν. Νῦν δὲ τῷ ἐπαγαγεῖν, Μᾶλλον δὲ αὐτό ἐστιν οὐσία ἀγέννητος, ἐνεδείξατο, ὅτι αὐτὸ, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ὁ Θεὸς, ἀγεννησία ἐστί" τοῦτο δὲ ὅσον αὐτῷ δρόμον ἀεὶ πρὸς τὴν ἐγχείρησιν τῆς ἀσεβείας μικρὸν τῷ λόγῳ προελθὼν ἐπιδείξω. "Ἔστι δ᾽ ἄρα, ὃ μὲν ἐξ ἀρχῆς εἴπεν, ἐκ τῆς τῶν πραγμάτων ἀληθείας κατὰ τὸ ἀκόλουθον τῶν δεδομένων ἀναφανέν ὃ δὲ τελευταῖον ἐπέθηκεν, ἐκ τοῦ φρονήματος τοῦ αἱρετικοῦ προσερρίφη, ἀναισχυντότατα πάντων τοῦ λογογράφου πρὸς τὴν ἐπιδιόρθωσιν τοῦ λόγου μεταπηδήσαντος. Πῶς γὰρ τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ ἀκολουθεῖ τῷ Θεῷ, καὶ ταυτόν ἐστιν αὐτῷ, πᾶσιν ὄντος προδήλου, ὅτι τὸ ἀκολουθοῦν ἕτερόν ἐστι παρὰ τὸν οὗ ἐστιν ἐπακολούθημα; Ὃ δὲ, ὥσπερ ὁδοῦ τινος λαβόμενος, ἐκ τοῦ καθ' ὑφαρπαγὴν αὐτῷ προληφθέντος λόγον, πρὸς τὴν κατασκευὴν ἐντεῦθεν χωρεῖ τοῦ τὴν ἀγεννησίαν οὐσίαν εἶναι τοῦ Θεοῦ τῶν ὅλων, ἵνα, τούτου δειχθέντος, ὁμολογούμενον ἔχῃ τὸ ἀνόμοιον κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν εἶναι τὸν Μονογενῆ͵ τῷ Πατρί. Σκοπεῖτε δὲ ἃ φησιν. ΕΥ̓͂Ν. ᾿Αγέννητον δὲ λέγοντες, οὐχ ὀνόματι μόνον, κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν ἀνθρωπίνην, σεμνύνειν οἰόμεθα δεῖν, ἐκτιννύναι δὲ αὐτῷ τὸ πάντων ἀναγκαιότατον ὄφλημα τῷ Θεῷ τὴν τοῦ εἶναι ὃ ἐστιν ὁμολογίαν. Τὰ γάρ τοι κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν λεγόμενα, ἐν ὀνόμασι μόνον καὶ προφορᾷ τὸ εἶναι ἔχοντα, ταῖς φωναῖς συνδιαλύεσθαι πέφυκεν. ΒΑΣ. ᾿Αναιρεῖ τὸ κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν θεωρεῖσθαι ἐπὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ ἀγέννητον, ἡγούμενος ἐντεῦθεν ῥᾳδίαν αὐτῷ τὴν ἐπιχείρησιν ἔσεσθαι τοῦ τὴν ἀγεννησίαν οὐσίαν εἶναι τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκ τούτου δὲ ἀναντιῤῥήτως δείξειν, ἀνόμοιον εἶναι κατ᾽ αὐτὴν τὴν οὐσίαν τὸν μονογενῆ Υἱὸν τῷ Πατρί, Διὰ τοῦτο προσπλέκεται τῷ ῥήματι τῆς ἐπινοίας, ὡς οὐδὲν σημαίνοντι τὸ παράπαν, ἀλλ' ἐν μόνῃ τῇ προφορᾷ τὴν ὑπόστασιν κεκτημένῳ" καὶ ἀνάξιον εἶναι Θεοῦ προσποιεῖται ταῖς ἐπινοίαις αὐτὸν ἀποσεμνύνειν, Ἐγὼ δὲ εἰ μὲν ἐπινοίᾳ θεωρητὸν ἣ μὴ τὸ ἀγέννητον, οὕπω διισχυρίζομαι πρὶν ἂν ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς τοῦ λόγου τῆς ἐξετάσεως διδαχθῶμεν. Αὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο, τί ποτέ ἐστιν ἡ ἐπίνοια, ἡδέως ἂν αὐτὸν ἐρωτήσαιμι - ἄρ᾽ οὐδὲν παντάπασι σημαίνει τὸ ὄνομα τοῦτο, καὶ ψόφος ἄλλως ἐστὶ διὰ τῆς γλώττης ἐκπίπτων; ᾿Αλλὰ τὸ τοιοῦτον οὐχὶ ἐπίνοια, παράνοια δ' ἂν μᾶλλον καὶ φλυαρία προσαγορεύοιτο. Εἰ δὲ συγχωροίη σημαίνειν μέν τι τὴν ἐπίνοιαν, ψευδὲς δὲ τοῦτο παντελῶς καὶ ἀνύπαρκτον, ὡς ἐν ταῖς μυθοποιίαις κενταύρων δή τινων ἀναπλασμοὺς καὶ χιμαίρας, πῶς τὸ σημαινόμενον ψεῦδος τῷ ψόφῳ τῆς γλώττης συναφανίζεται, τῆς μὲν φωνῆς πάντως εἰς ἀέρα προχεομένης, τῶν δὲ ψευδῶν νοημάτων ἐναπομενόντων τῇ διανοίᾳ; Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐπειδάν ποτε ψευδῶν παντελῶς καὶ διακένων ἢ ἐν ταῖς καθ᾽ ὕπνον φαντασίαις, ἣ ἄλλως ἐν τοῖς ματαίοις τοῦ νοῦ κινήμασιν ἡ ψυχὴ πληρωθεῖσα, παρακατάσχῃ τῇ μνήμῃ, εἶτα διὰ τῆς φωνῆς ἐξαγγεῖλαι προέληται, ὁμοῦ τῷ προενεχθέντι λόγῳ συνηφανίσθη καὶ τὰ φαντάσματα. Πολλοῦ γὰρ ἂν ἄξιον ἦν τὰ ψευδῆ λέγειν, εἴπερ ἡ φύσις τοῦ Ψεύδους τοῖς λαλουμένοις συνδιεφθείρετο" ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ἔχον ἐστὶ φύσιν τοῦτό γε. Ὑπόλοιπον δ᾽ ἂν εἴη δεικνύναι, πῶς μὲν ἡ συνήθεια, καὶ ἐπὶ ποίων πραγμάτων τῇ ἐπινοίᾳ χρῆται" πῶς δὲ τὰ θεῖα λόγια τὴν χρῆσιν αὐτῆς παρεδέξατο. Ὁρῶμεν τοίνυν, ὅτι ἐν μὲν τῇ κοινῇ χρήσει τὰ ταῖς ἀθρόαις ἐπιβολαῖς τοῦ νοῦ ἁπλᾶ δοκοῦντα εἶναι καὶ μοναχὰ, ταῖς δὲ κατὰ λεπτὸν ἐξετάσεσι ποικίλα φαινόμενα, καὶ πολλὰ ταῦτα τῷ νῷ διαιρούμενα, ἐπινοίᾳ μόνῃ διαιρετὰ λέγεται.
Οἷον, τὸ σῶμα ἁπλοῦν μὲν εἶναί φησιν ἡ πρώτη ἔντευξις, ποικίλον δὲ ὁ λόγος ἐπιὼν δείκνυσι, τῇ ἐπινοίᾳ αὐτὸ εἰς τὰ ἐξ ὧν σύγχειται διαλύων, καὶ χρῶμα, καὶ σχῆμα, καὶ ἀντιτυπίαν, καὶ μέγεθος, καὶ τὰ λοιπά. Πάλιν τὰ ἀνυπόστατα μὲν παντελῶς, κατὰ δὲ ἀναζωγράφησίν τινα τῆς ἐννοίας καὶ φαντασίαν μόνην ἀνατυπούμενα, ὡς ὅσα οἱ μυθοποιοὶ καὶ ζωγράφοι πρὸς τὴν τῶν ἐντυγχανόντων ἔκπληξιν τερατεύονται κατ' ἐπίνοιαν καὶ ταῦτα θεωρητὰ ὑπὸ τῆς συνηθείας λέγεται. Ὧν οὐδενὸς ἐπιμνησθεὶς οὗτος, ἢ ἀμαθῶς ἣ κακούργως, περὶ τῆς τῶν ἀνυπάρκτων ἐπινοίας μόνης ἡμῖν ἐφιλοσόφησε " καὶ οὐδὲ ταύτην ὡς ἔχει φύσεως ἐξηγούμενος. Οὐ γὰρ σημαίνειν μέν τι τὴν ἐπίνοιαν, ψευδὲς δὲ τοῦτο, φησίν" ἀλλὰ παντελῶς ἄσημον εἶναι τὸ ὄνομα, καὶ ἐν μόνη τῇ ἐκφωνήσει τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἔχειν. Καίτοι τοσοῦτον ἀπέχει τοῦ κατὰ τῶν ματαίων μόνων καὶ ἀνυποστάτων φαντασιῶν τὸ ὄνομα τοῦτο τῆς ἐπινοίας κεῖσθαι, ὥστε μετὰ τὰ πρῶτον ἡμῖν ἀπὸ τῆς αἰσθήσεως ἐγγινόμενον νόημα τὴν λεπτοτέραν καὶ ἀκριβεστέραν τοῦ νοηθέντος ἐπενθύμησιν ἐπίνοιαν ὀνομάζεσθαι - ὅθεν ἡ συνήθεια καλεῖ ἐπιλογισμὸν, εἰ καὶ μὴ οἰκείως. Οἷον τοῦ σίτου νόημα μὲν ἁπλοῦν ἐνυπάρχει πᾶσι, καθὸ φανέντα γνωρίζομεν" ἐν δὲ τῇ ἀκριβεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ ἐξετάσει, θεωρία τε πλειόνων προσέρχεται, καὶ προσηγορίαι διάφοροι τῶν νοηθέντων σημαντικαί. Τὸν γὰρ αὐτὸν σῖτον νῦν μὲν καρπὸν λέγομεν, νῦν δὲ σπέρμα, καὶ πάλιν τροφήν καρπὸν μὲν, ὡς τέλος τῆς παρελθούσης γεωργίας" σπέρμα δὲ, ὡς ἀρχὴν τῆς μελλούσης" τροφὴν δὲ, ὡς κατάλληλον εἰς προσθήκην τῷ τοῦ προσφερομένου σώματι. Τούτων ἕν ἕκαστον τῶν λεγομένων καὶ κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν θεωρεῖται, καὶ τῷ ψόφῳ τῆς γλώσσης οὐ συναπέρχεται" ἀλλὰ τῇ ψυχῇ τοῦ νενοηκότος ἐνίδρυται τὰ νοήματα, Καὶ ἀπαξαπλῶς, πάντα τὰ τῇ αἰσθήσει γνώριμα, καὶ ἁπλᾶ μὲν εἶναι τῷ ὑποκειμένῳ δοκοῦντα, ποικίλον δὲ λόγον κατὰ τὴν θεωρίαν ἐπιδεχόμενα, ἐπινοίᾳ θεωρητὰ λέγεται. Ἐγγὺς δὴ τοῦ τοιούτου τρόπου τῆς ἐπινοίας τὴν χρῆσιν καὶ παρὰ τοῦ θείου δεδιδάγμεθα λόγου. Τὰ μὲν οὖν ἄλλα παρήσω, πολλὰ ἔχων εἰπεῖν, ἑνὸς δὲ μόνου τοῦ καιριωτάτου μνησθήσομαι. Ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐν τοῖς περὶ ἑαυτοῦ λόγοις, τὴν φιλανθρωπίαν τῆς θεότητος καὶ τὴν ἐξ οἰκονομίας χάριν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις παραδηλῶν, ἰδιώμασί τισι τοῖς περὶ αὐτὸν θεωρουμένοις ἀπεσήμαινε ταύτην, θύραν ἑαυτὸν λέγων, καὶ ὁδὸν, καὶ ἄρτον, καὶ ἄμπελον, καὶ ποιμένα, καὶ φῶς, οὐ πολυώνυμός τις ὥν' οὐ γὰρ πάντα τὰ ὀνόματα εἰς ταυτὸν ἀλλήλοις φέρει. Ἄλλο γὰρ τὸ σημαινόμενον φωτὸς, καὶ ἄλλο ἀμπέλου, καὶ ἄλλο ὁδοῦ, καὶ ἄλλο ποιμένος. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἕν ὧν κατὰ τὸ ὑποκείμενον, καὶ μία οὐσία καὶ ἁπλῇ καὶ ἀσύνθετος, ἄλλοτε ἄλλως ἑαυτὸν ὀνομάζει, ταῖς ἐπινοίαις διαφερούσας ἀλλήλων τὰς προσηγορίας μεθαρμοζόμενος. Κατὰ γὰρ τὴν τῶν ἐνεργειῶν διαφορὰν, καὶ τὴν πρὸς τὰ εὐεργετούμενα σχέσιν, διάφορα ἑαυτῷ καὶ τὰ ὀνόματα τίθεται. Φῶς μὲν γὰρ ἑαυτὸν τοῦ κόσμου λέγει, τό τε ἀπρόσιτον τῆς ἐν τῇ θεότητι δόξης τῷ ὀνόματι τούτῳ διασημαίνων, καὶ ὡς τῇ λαμπρότητι τῆς γνώσεως τοὺς κεκαθαρμένους τὸ ὄμμα τῆς ψυχῆς χαταυγάζων" ἄμπελον δὲ, ὡς τοὺς ἐν αὐτῷ κατὰ τὴν πίστιν ἐῤῥιζωμένους ἐπ᾽ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν καρποφορίαις ἐκτρέφων᾽ ἄρτον δὲ, ὡς οἰκειοτάτη τροφὴ λογικοῦ τυγχάνων, τῷ διαχρατεῖν τὴν σύστασιν τῆς ψυχῆς, καὶ τὸ ἰδίωμα αὐτῆς διασώζειν, ἀναπληρῶν ἀεὶ παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ τὸ ἐνδέον, καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἐξ ἀλογίας ἐγγινομένην ἀῤῥωστίαν οὐχ ἐῶν ὑποφέρεσθαι. Καὶ οὕτως ἄν τις τῶν ὀνομάτων ἕκαστον ἐφοδεύων ποικίλας εὕροι τὰς ἐπινοίας ἑνὸς ἑκάστου τοῦ χατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν τοῖς πᾶσιν ὑποκειμένου. Τίς οὖν οὕτω τὴν γλῶσσαν πρὸς. βλασφημίαν ἠκόνηται, ὥστε τολμῆσαι εἰπεῖν ταῖς φωναῖς τὰς ἐπινοίας ταύτας συνδιαλύεσθαι; Τί οὖν ἄτοπον οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῶν ὅλων λαμβάνεσθαι τινα κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν, καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο πρῶτον, περὶ οὗ ὁ σύμπας ἡμῖν κεκίνηται λόγος; Εὑρήσομεν γὰρ οὐδαμῶς ἑτέρως λεγόμενον τὸ ἀγέννητον. Ἄφθαρτον γὰρ καὶ ἀγέννητον εἶναι τὸν Θεὸν τῶν ὅλων λέγομεν, κατὰ διαφόρους ἐπιβολὰς τοῖς ὀνόμασι τούτοις προσαγορεύοντες. “Ὅταν μὲν γὰρ εἰς τοὺς κατόπιν αἰῶνας …σχοντες τὴν ζωὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀγέννητον αὐτὸν λέγομεν ὅταν δὲ τοῖς ἐπερχομένοις αἰῶσι τὸν νοῦν ἐπεκτείνωμεν, τὸν ἀόριστον καὶ ἄπειρον, καὶ οὐδενὶ τέλει καταληπτὸν προσαγορεύομεν ἄφθαρτον. Ὡς οὖν τὸ ἀτελεύτητον τῆς ζωῆς ἄφθαρτον, οὕτω τὸ ἄναρχον αὐτῆς ἀγέννητον ὠνομάσθη, τῇ ἐπινοίᾳ θεωρούντων ἡμῶν ἑκάτερα. Τίς οὖν ἀντερεῖ λόγος καὶ ἐπινοεῖσθαι τῶν ὀνομάτων τούτων ἑκάτερον, καὶ ὁμολογίαν εἶναι τοῦ κατ᾽ ἀλήθειαν τῷ Θεῷ προσόντος; Ὃ δὲ ὡς μαχόμενα ταῦτα καὶ ἀσύμβατα παντελῶς ἀπ᾽ ἀλλήλων διίστησι" τὸ, τὶ κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν τὶ λέγεσθαι, καὶ τὸ ἀποπληροῦν τῷ Θεῷ τὴν τοῦ εἶναι ὅ ἔστιν ὁμολογίαν.

### English translation (Claude)

[4] First he sets out a faith composed of simple and undefined terms, which some of the Fathers too used, not aiming at questions under debate, but simply conversing among themselves in simplicity of heart. Even if Arius too, as they say, put it forward to Alexander with sophistical intent (for this too is said), he nevertheless puts it forward as agreeing with his own opinion, for two reasons: first, to escape the suspicion of innovation by accepting the faith of the Fathers as correct; second, so that all who trusted in the simplicity of these words might fall unawares into the snares of his sophisms. At the same time he also saw that he would be able to slip in his own opinion with a good face, as one supposedly explaining the teaching of the Fathers, and so above all escape notice as impious, or, if he were caught, be thought blameless, as saying nothing of his own or from himself, but only having become the interpreter of another's thought. In this he fell into something most ridiculous without noticing it. For after praising it greatly and at length, a little further down he heaps the most shameful reproaches on it again. But to make what I mean clearer, I will divide his discourse into parts and examine it. First let us learn the faith he puts forward, setting out his very words.

EUNOMIUS: "Setting forth beforehand the pious tradition that has prevailed from of old from the Fathers as a kind of gnomon and rule, let us use it as an exact criterion for judging what is said." …

EUNOMIUS: "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, from whom are all things; and in one only-begotten Son of God, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things; and in one Holy Spirit, the Paraclete."

BASIL: Then he immediately adds:

EUNOMIUS: "This, then, to speak summarily and in passing, is the simpler faith, common to all who care to seem or to be Christians."

BASIL: About the contradiction in what he has said and the shameless conflict of his statements with one another we will speak a little later. But this … who in his earlier words so pompously promised us [the bare] truth … Here, then, it ought to have been written: "We believe that ingeneracy is the essence of the God of the universe," or, "We believe that the Only-Begotten is unlike the Father in essence." He would have written this if, as he promised, he had not shrouded his own mind in any deceitful curtain. But, I think, since he uses his words treacherously in everything, he keeps silent about his own views, lest by assailing untrained ears he make himself unconvincing and hard to accept …; and he puts forward the faith of the Fathers, which, because of the neutrality of its words, would raise no objection to the whole construction of his discourse, and would easily follow him as he steered the argument, in the form of an explanation, toward what he had chosen. That this is true is plain at once. For having set it out, he immediately leaps to its explanation, using as a pretext, among other things, that it is not sufficient for refuting the charge. Why then did you put it forward, instead of coming at once to those arguments that were exact and would deliver you from the charges? As it is, he puts it forward as a safe criterion, and then corrects it again as having nothing sound in it. And this is known to everyone: as on a hook that drags to death, he [wraps] the simplicity of the faith around his own opinion like a bait, so that the simpler … may unguardedly [fall] into the evil of impiety. And so that he might not seem to undertake the correction of the faith without necessity, the very faith he extolled with excessive praise, look how, as if he had forgotten his own words, he [disparages] it:

EUNOMIUS: "This, then, to speak summarily and in passing, is the simpler faith, common to all who care to seem or to be Christians."

BASIL: Tell me: is the pious tradition of the Fathers, the rule, as you yourself named it, the gnomon and the safe criterion, now to be called an instrument of deceit, an art of pretense, and the like? For if it fits not those who are truly Christians but those who have valued seeming above being, what else ought one to suppose about it but this? Who, unless completely out of his mind, would say that the rule of what is straight [fits] those whose souls are twisted, and the gnomon of truth the enemies of the truth? For those who have valued being called Christians above truly being so, and who put on this pretense to deceive the many, are far from all straightness and truth. So neither will what is crooked be made straight, as the word of Ecclesiastes says, nor will the criteria of truth fit those who have chosen falsehood in their way of life …

[5] But for the reasons I mentioned, he was carried into such obvious contradictions, so that by praising the faith he might seem to share the piety of the Fathers, and by finding fault with it again he might open for himself the road to his explanation. That is why he calls the same thing a rule and also says that it needs a more exact addition. Let this too be a sign of the utmost ignorance, if anyone cares to look into this as well. For a rule, most wise sir, and a gnomon, so long as they lack nothing of being a rule and a gnomon, admit no addition for the sake of exactness, since addition is made for what is lacking. And if they are incomplete, they would no longer rightly bear these names. So much for this. Now let us also examine the arguments he sets out about God.

EUNOMIUS: "There is, then," he says, "one God, acknowledged by us both according to natural notions and according to the teaching of the Fathers, who came to be neither from himself nor from another. For each of these is equally impossible … must exist before, and what is made must be second to its maker. Nor can a thing be prior or posterior to itself, nor can anything else be prior to God; for then that thing would have had the dignity of divinity before the second."

BASIL: Why, then, have I quoted this whole passage of his? So that the idle chatter the man uses throughout his treatise might become plain. For though he himself said that it is evident to the common notions of all that God is unbegotten, he tries to bring us proofs of it. He does much the same as someone who at high noon wished to teach people with healthy eyes, by argument, that the sun is the brightest of the stars in heaven. If one who shows by argument what is known to the senses is ridiculous, how is one who teaches what is agreed in our common preconceptions not guilty of the same folly? For surely, to sensible people, these are far more trustworthy than what appears to the sight. If, then, there were someone shamelessly opposing this truth and contending that the unbegotten had been begotten either from himself or from another, the vanity of what he says might perhaps have some excuse. But if to this day no one, either of those outside our teaching or of those from the church itself who have risen against the truth, [has raised a dispute] about the ingeneracy of the unbegotten, I do not see what gain there is in these arguments. Did we really need the syllogisms of Aristotle and Chrysippus to learn that the unbegotten was not begotten, neither by himself nor by another, and that he is neither older nor younger than himself? What, then, does he mean by these things? He seems to me, on the one hand, to be preening himself on his reasoning, as a shrewd man of surpassing intellect, quick to suspect an absurdity and quicker still to dissolve what he has detected, and for this reason to take pride in the twists of his arguments and to labor subtly over the proof that the unbegotten was begotten neither by himself nor by another. On the other hand, not even here does he forget his craft, but in his discussion of what is agreed he slips in for himself something like elements for the arguments that follow. For it is not idly that he holds that, in truth, what makes … so that in the arguments about the Son he may have it agreed in advance that the Son came into being after the Father, if indeed what makes is older than what comes to be; and that he may take it as a consequence of this that the Son was begotten from things that are not. But let the refutation of his impiety against the Son wait for its proper place. For my part, I would say that even the name "unbegotten," however much it may seem to agree with our notions, nevertheless deserves rightly to be passed over in silence, since it occurs nowhere in Scripture and is the first element of their blasphemy. The word "Father" has the same force as "unbegotten," and besides, through the relation, it brings in along with itself the notion of the Son. For he who is truly Father, and he alone, is from no other; and "from no one" is the same as "unbegotten." We should not, then, call him "unbegotten" rather than "Father," unless we mean to be wiser than the teachings of the Savior, who said, "Go, baptize in the name of the Father," not "of the unbegotten." So much for this. Let us examine what follows in his discourse. For a little further on, as if summing up for himself what he has said, he writes thus:

EUNOMIUS: "If, then, it has been shown that neither he himself nor anything else exists before him, but that he is before all things, the unbegotten follows upon this; or rather, it is itself unbegotten essence."

BASIL: The [knavery] we have caught here is, I think, very easy to see for anyone who pays even a little attention, but not easy to make plain to the many. Still, we must try, setting our hope on him who gives a word to those who proclaim good news with great power. Having said that if neither he himself nor anything else exists before him, the unbegotten follows upon him, he then saw that, by the logic of his premises, his argument had turned around against him (for if the unbegotten follows upon God, it clearly accompanies him from outside; and what is outside God is not his essence; and so his clumsy contrivance would melt away and be gone). To avoid this, what does he do? Caring little for the laughter he was going to incur for saying inconsistent things, he led his argument by a correction where he wanted it to go, saying, "or rather, it is itself unbegotten essence." This has no agreement with what precedes. For how could God, upon whom the unbegotten follows, … be contained in [one and the same] statement? Even so, he does not let his sophism be completely destroyed. For if, after saying that the unbegotten follows upon him, he had stopped his argument there, he would have had no way either to call ingeneracy the essence of the God of the universe or to show that the only-begotten Son is alien in his very essence, since nothing that follows from outside can break up the kinship of Father and Son in their very essence. But now, by adding, "or rather, it is itself unbegotten essence," he has indicated that the very thing that God is, is ingeneracy. How great a running start this gives him toward his attempt at impiety I will show when the argument has gone a little further. So then, what he said at first came to light from the truth of the matter, following from the premises; what he added at the end was tossed in from his heretical mind, the speechwriter leaping most shamelessly of all to correct his argument. For how can the same thing both follow upon God and be identical with him, when it is obvious to all that what follows is other than that of which it is the consequence? But he, as if he had found a road in the statement he had snatched by sleight of hand, proceeds from there to establish that ingeneracy is the essence of the God of the universe, so that, once this is shown, he may have it agreed that the Only-Begotten is unlike the Father in essence. Look at what he says:

EUNOMIUS: "When we say 'unbegotten,' we do not think we ought to honor him in name only, by human conceptualization, but to pay him the most necessary debt of all, the confession that he is what he is. For things said by conceptualization, having their existence in names and utterance only, naturally dissolve together with the sounds."

BASIL: He denies that "unbegotten" is contemplated in God by conceptualization, thinking that from this his attempt to prove that ingeneracy is the essence of God would be easy, and that from this he would show beyond contradiction that the only-begotten Son is unlike the Father in his very essence. That is why he attacks the word "conceptualization," as if it signified nothing at all but had its existence in utterance alone, and he pretends that it is unworthy of God to honor him with conceptualizations. For my part, whether or not "unbegotten" is contemplated by conceptualization I do not yet affirm, until we are taught by the examination of the argument itself.

[6] But this very thing, what conceptualization is, I would gladly ask him. Does this name signify nothing at all, and is it merely a noise falling from the tongue? But such a thing would be called not conceptualization but derangement and nonsense. If he grants that conceptualization signifies something, but that this is entirely false and nonexistent, like the fabrications of centaurs and chimeras in myths, how does the false thing signified vanish along with the noise of the tongue, when the sound is poured out into the air but the false notions remain in the mind? For when the soul has been filled with entirely false and empty images, whether in dreams or otherwise in the idle motions of the mind, and keeps them in memory and then chooses to report them aloud, the images do not vanish together with the spoken word. It would be worth a great deal to tell lies, if the nature of falsehood perished along with what is spoken; but this is not its nature. It remains to show how ordinary usage employs conceptualization and for what sort of things, and how the divine oracles have received its use. We see, then, that in common usage things that seem simple and single to the mind's comprehensive glance, but on detailed examination appear complex and are divided by the mind into many, are said to be divisible by conceptualization alone. For example, the first encounter says that a body is simple, but reason, going over it, shows it to be complex, resolving it by conceptualization into the things of which it is composed: color, shape, solidity, size, and the rest. Again, things that have no subsistence at all, but are only imprinted in the mind by a kind of mental picturing and imagination, such as the marvels that mythmakers and painters contrive to astonish those who meet them, are also said in common usage to be contemplated by conceptualization. Mentioning none of these, this man, whether from ignorance or from malice, has philosophized to us only about the conceptualization of things that do not exist, and not even this does he explain as it really is. For he does not say that conceptualization signifies something, though something false, but that the name is wholly without meaning and has its existence in the mere uttering. Yet the name "conceptualization" is so far from being applied only to vain and unsubstantial imaginings that, after the first notion arising in us from sense perception, the subtler and more exact reflection on what has been thought is called conceptualization; hence ordinary usage calls it "reckoning," though not properly. For example, a simple notion of grain is present in everyone, by which we recognize it when it appears; but in a precise examination of it the consideration of more aspects comes in, together with different designations that signify what has been thought. For the same grain we call now "fruit," now "seed," and again "food": fruit, as the end of the farming that is past; seed, as the beginning of the farming to come; food, as suited for growth to the body of the one who takes it. Each of these designations is contemplated by conceptualization, and it does not pass away with the noise of the tongue; rather, the notions are settled in the soul of the one who has thought them. In short, all things known by sense that seem simple in their substrate but admit a complex account when considered are said to be contemplated by conceptualization.

[7] We have been taught a use of conceptualization close to this kind by the divine word also. I will pass over the other examples, though I could mention many, and recall only the most pertinent. Our Lord Jesus Christ, in his words about himself, making known the love of the Godhead for humanity and the grace that comes to human beings from the economy, indicated it by certain distinctive features contemplated in him, calling himself door, and way, and bread, and vine, and shepherd, and light, though he is not a thing of many synonymous names; for not all the names carry the same meaning as one another. What "light" signifies is one thing, what "vine" signifies another, "way" another, "shepherd" another. But being one in substrate, one essence, simple and uncompounded, he names himself now in one way and now in another, fitting to his conceptualizations designations that differ from one another. For according to the difference of his activities and his relation to those who receive his benefits, he gives himself different names. He calls himself light of the world, signifying by this name both the inaccessibility of the glory in his Godhead, and that he illumines with the brightness of knowledge those who have purified the eye of the soul; vine, because he nourishes those rooted in him by faith to bear the fruit of good works; bread, because he is the most proper food of the rational creature, sustaining the constitution of the soul and preserving its distinctive character, always filling up from himself what is lacking and not letting it sink into the weakness that comes from irrationality. And so, if one goes through each of the names, one will find various conceptualizations of what is in essence one substrate for them all. Who, then, has so sharpened his tongue for blasphemy as to dare to say that these conceptualizations dissolve with the sounds? What is absurd, then, in taking some things in the God of the universe too according to conceptualization, and this very thing first of all, about which our whole discussion has been set in motion? For we shall find that "unbegotten" is said in no other way. We say that the God of the universe is incorruptible and unbegotten, addressing him by these names according to different ways of directing the mind. When we [direct our view] to the ages behind … the life of God, we call him unbegotten; when we stretch our mind forward to the ages to come, we call him incorruptible, the one who is unbounded and infinite and grasped by no end. As, then, the endlessness of his life was named incorruptible, so its being without beginning was named unbegotten, since we contemplate each of these by conceptualization. What argument, then, will deny both that each of these names is conceived by conceptualization and that it is a confession of what truly belongs to God? But he sets these apart from each other as conflicting and wholly incompatible: that something is said by conceptualization, and that it renders to God the confession that he is what he is.

### Scripture references

- 1 Cor 8:6: allusion, high confidence
- Eccl 1:15: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 28:19: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 68:11 (67:12 LXX): allusion, high confidence
- John 10:9: allusion, high confidence
- John 14:6: allusion, high confidence
- John 6:35: allusion, high confidence
- John 15:1: allusion, high confidence
- John 10:11: allusion, high confidence
- John 8:12: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Tim 6:16: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- This staged passage holds chapters 4 and 5 of Book 1 and the beginning of chapter 6 (marked [4]-[6]); its continuation is in staged 1.3. Lines lost in the scan are marked …; words in square brackets give the evident sense. Migne's Latin and his notes of variant readings are removed by logged corrections.
- ἐπίνοια is rendered 'conceptualization' (a notion formed by the mind's reflection); ἀγεννησία 'ingeneracy', ἀγέννητος 'unbegotten'.
- The creed Eunomius quotes echoes 1 Cor 8:6. Eccl 1:15 ('what is crooked cannot be made straight'), Matt 28:19 (quoted), and Ps 68:11 (LXX 67:12, 'the Lord will give a word to those who proclaim good news with great power').
- This staged passage completes chapter 6 and holds chapter 7 (marked [7]). Its opening repeats the end of staged 1.2 in a second copy of the scan page, together with Migne's notes; these are removed. The lines lost in this copy (the first sentence, 'For example … the first encounter', and two words about Christ's names) are restored from the duplicate copy of the same page in the scan (staged 1.11) by logged corrections.
- The names of Christ: John 10:9 (door), 14:6 (way), 6:35 (bread), 15:1 (vine), 10:11 (shepherd), 8:12 (light); 'inaccessible' recalls 1 Tim 6:16.
- 'Reckoning' renders ἐπιλογισμός.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 1.4 (PG 29:502; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-4/#p-1-4).

## Against Eunomius 1.8

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-4/#p-1-8
- Source: PG 29:528
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil exposes Eunomius's claim that calling 'unbegotten' God's essence is a debt of piety, showing that the same logic would make every divine name mean the same thing and would apply equally to the Son.

### Greek text

Καὶ γὰρ αὖ μηδὲ τοῦτο παρέλθωμεν, οἷον αὐτῷ … τῆς εὐλαβείας τὸ σχῆμα ἐπὶ καταστροφῇ τῶν ἀκουόντῶν ἐπινενόηται ἐν τῷ λέγειν, ΕΥ̓͂Ν, Μὴ κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν ἀνθρωπίνην σεμνύνειν τὸν Θεὸν τῇ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου προσηγορίᾳ, ἐκτιννύναι δὲ αὑτῷ τὸ πάντων ἀναγκαιότατον ὄφλημα, ἐν τῇ τοῦ εἶναι ὅ ἐστιν ὁμολογίᾳ. ΒΑΣ. Τίς ἂν λόγος ἀξίως τῆς σκολιότητος ταύτης τῶν τεχνασμάτων ἐφίκοιτο; Ἐκφοβεῖν τοὺς ἁπλουστέρους ἐπιχειρεῖ, ὡς μὴ ἀποδιδόντας τὰ ὀφειλόμενα τῷ Θεῷ, εἰ μὴ οὐσίαν εἶναι ὁμολογήσειαν τὸ ἀγέννητον, καὶ ὀφλήματος ἔκτισιν τὴν ἰδίαν ἀσέβειαν ὀνομάζει, ἵνα μὴ δόξῃ παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ τι λέγειν, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀναγκαίως τῷ Θεῷ ὀφειλόμενον ἐκπληροῦν. Καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς ἐνδείκνυται, ὅτι ἐν μὲν τῇ οὐσίᾳ τιθέμενοι τὰ ἀγέννητον, ἀνεύθυνοι ἀφεθήσονται " εἰ δὲ ἑτέρως κατὰ τὸν εὐσεβῆ τρόπον ὑπολαμβάνοιεν, ὡς ἐλλιπὲς τὸ ἔκτισμα, ἀπαραίτητον τὴν ὀργὴν ἐκδέξονται, Ἡδέως οὖν ἂν αὐτὸν ἐξετάσαιμι, τὴν εὐγνωμοσύνην ταύτην ὁμοίως ἐπὶ πάντων τῶν περὶ Θεοῦ λεγομένων φυλάσσει, ἣ κατὰ τοῦτο μόνον τὸ ῥῆμα; Εἰ μὲν γὰρ οὐδὲν ὅλως κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν θεωρεῖ, ἵνα μὴ δόξῃ ἀνθρωπίναις τὸν Θεὸν σεμνύνειν πάντα ὁμοίως οὐσίαν ὁμολογήσει τὰ ἐπιλεγόμενα τῷ Θεῷ. Πῶς οὖν οὐ καταγέλαστον, τὸ δημιουργικὸν οὐσίαν εἶναι λέγειν; ἢ τὸ προνοητικὸν πάλιν οὐσίαν; ἢ τὸ προγνωστικὸν πάλιν ὡσαύτως; καὶ ἁπαξαπλῶς, πᾶσαν ἐνέργειαν, οὐσίαν τίθεσθαι; Καὶ εἰ πάντα ταῦτα πρὸς ἕν σημαινόμενον τείνει, ἀνάγκη πᾶσα ταυτὸν ἀλλήλοις δύνασθαι τὰ ὀνόματα - ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν πολυωνύμων· ὅταν Σίμωνα καὶ Πέτρον καὶ Κηφᾶν τὸν αὐτὸν λέγωμεν. Οὐκοῦν ὁ ἀκούσας τὸ ἀναλλοίωτον τοῦ Θεοῦ, πρὸς τὸ ἀγέννητον ὑπαχθήσεται " καὶ ὁ ἀκούσας τὸ ἀμερὲς, πρὸς τὸ δημιουργικὸν ἀποφέρεται. Καὶ ταύτης τί ἂν γένοιτο τῆς συγχύσεως ἀτοπώτερον, ἀφελόμενον τὴν ἰδίαν σημασίαν ἑκάστου τῶν ὀνομάτων, ἀντινομοθετεῖν τῇ τε κοινῇ χρήσει καὶ τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ τοῦ Πνεύματος; Καίτοι ὅταν μὲν ἀκούσωμεν περὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὅτι πάντα ἐν σοφίᾳ ἐποίησε, τὴν δημιουργικὴν τέχνην αὐτοῦ διδασκόμεθα " ὅταν δὲ, ὅτι ἀνοίγει τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐμπιπλᾷ πᾶν ζῶον εὐδοκίας, τὴν διὰ πάντων κεχωρηκυῖαν πρόνοιαν ὅταν δὲ, ὅτι Ἔθετο σκότος ἀποκρυφὴν' αὐτοῦ, τὸ ἀόρατον τῆς αὐτοῦ φύσεως παιδευόμεθα. Πάλιν δὲ τὸ ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ Θεοῦ λεγόμενον, Ἐγώ εἶμι, καὶ οὐκ ἠλλοίωμαι, τὸ ἀεὶ ταυτὸν καὶ ἄτρεπτον τῆς θείας οὐσίας μανθάνομεν. Πῶς οὖν οὐχὶ μανία σαφὴς, μὴ ἴδιον σημαινόμενον ἑκάστῳ τῶν ὀνομάτων ὑποβεβλῆσθαι λέγειν, ἀλλὰ, παρὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν, πάντα ταυτὸν δύνασθαι ἀλλήλοις διορίζεσθαι τὰ ὀνόματα; “Ἔπειτα ἐὰν καὶ δῶμεν τοῦτο, οὐδ᾽ οὕτω πλέον αὐτοῖς οὐδὲ εἰς τὸν σκοπὸν περιέσται. Εἰ γὰρ πάντα ταῦτα, ἐπὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς λαμβανόμενα, τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ σημαίνει, τὸ ἀναλλοίωτον λέγω, καὶ τὸ ἀόρατον, καὶ τὸ ἄφθαρτον, παραπλησίως δηλονότι καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς Υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ, οὐσίας ἔσται δηλωτικά, ᾿Αόρατον γὰρ, καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον, καὶ ἄφθαρτον, καὶ ἀμερῆ, καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα πάντα. καὶ τὸν μονογενῆ Υἱὸν ὀνομάζομεν. Καὶ οὕτω τὸ σοφὸν αὐτοῖς εἰς τὸ ἐναντίον περιελεύσεται. Οὐ γὰρ μᾶλλον διὰ τὸ ἐν μιᾷ προσηγορίᾳ διάφορον ἀνόμοιον κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν ἀποδεικνύειν ἕξουσιν, ἢ διὰ τὴν ἐν τοῖς πλείοσι κοινωνίαν ὅμοιον ὁμολογεῖν ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀνάγκης τῶν δεδομένων ἐκβιασθήσονται. Εἰ δὲ λέγοι ἐπὶ μόνης τῆς τοῦ ἀγεννήτου φωνῆς τῇ εὐλαβείᾳ ταύτῃ κεχρῆσθαι, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἄλλων ἀφυλάκτως ἔχειν " πάλιν αὐτὸν ἐρωτήσωμεν, τίς ἡ ἀποκλήρωσις, τοσούτων ὄντων τῶν περὶ Θεοῦ λεγομένων, ἐν ἑνὶ τούτῳ μόνῳ τὴν ἀκρίβειαν ἐπιδείκνυσθαι, καὶ ἐν ἑνὶ τούτῳ ἀποπληροῦντα αὐτῷ τὴν τοῦ εἶναι ὅ ἔστιν ὁμολογίαν, ἐν …νεῖν μὴ παραιτεῖσθαι; Ὁ γὰρ πλειόνων ὀφειλέτης οὐ μᾶλλον εὐγνώμων ἐν τῇ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀποδόσει ἣ ὑπερβάλλων ἀγνωμοσύνῃ ἐν τῇ τῶν πλειόνων ἀποστερήσει. Οὕτω μὲν οὖν, ὡς τὰ πανοῦργα τῶν θηρίων, ταῖς ἑαυτοῦ τέχναις ἁλίσκεται, οἷς λανθάνειν ἐπιχειρεῖ, τούτοις πλέον διελεγχόμενος.

### English translation (Claude)

[8] Let us not pass over this either: what sort of … show of reverence he has devised for the ruin of his hearers, when he says:

EUNOMIUS: "Not to honor God by human conceptualization with the name 'unbegotten,' but to pay him the most necessary debt of all, in the confession that he is what he is."

BASIL: What words could do justice to the crookedness of these tricks? He tries to frighten the simpler people, as if they were not paying God what is owed unless they confess that "unbegotten" is essence; and he calls his own impiety the payment of a debt, so that he may seem to say nothing of his own, but to be fulfilling what is necessarily owed to God. And he indicates to the rest that if they place "unbegotten" in the essence they will be let go without being called to account, but that if they understand it otherwise, in the pious way, they will receive inexorable wrath, as though the payment fell short. I would gladly ask him, then, whether he keeps this scrupulousness equally in all that is said of God, or only for this one word. For if he contemplates nothing at all by conceptualization, lest he seem to honor God with human [conceptualizations], he will confess that everything said of God is equally essence. How then is it not ridiculous to say that "creative" is essence, or again that "provident" is essence, or "foreknowing" likewise, and in short to make every activity essence? And if all these tend toward one meaning, the names must all have the same force as one another, as with things that have several names, when we call the same man Simon and Peter and Cephas. So the one who hears that God is unchangeable will be led to "unbegotten," and the one who hears that he is without parts will be carried off to "creative." What could be more absurd than this confusion: to take away from each of the names its proper meaning, and to legislate against both common usage and the teaching of the Spirit? Yet when we hear of God that he made all things in wisdom, we are taught his creative art; when we hear that he opens his hand and fills every living thing with good pleasure, we learn the providence that reaches through all things; when we hear that he made darkness his hiding place, we are instructed in the invisibility of his nature. Again, from the words spoken in the person of God, "I am, and I have not changed," we learn the ever-sameness and immutability of the divine essence. How is it not plain madness to say that no proper meaning underlies each of the names, but that, against their force, all the names are to be defined as meaning the same thing? Then, even if we grant this, they will gain nothing more toward their aim. For if all these, when taken of God the Father, signify his essence (I mean "unchangeable," "invisible," "incorruptible"), they will clearly in the same way indicate essence in the case of the only-begotten Son of God as well. For we also name the only-begotten Son invisible, unchangeable, incorruptible, without parts, and everything of the kind. And so their cleverness will turn around to the opposite. For they will not be more able to prove him unlike in essence because of a difference in one designation than they will be forced, by the very necessity of their premises, to confess him like because of the sharing in many. But if he should say that he uses this reverence only for the word "unbegotten" and is unguarded about the rest, let us ask him again: what is this arbitrary choice, when so many things are said of God, to show exactness in this one alone, and while rendering him in this one the confession that he is what he is, not to refuse to … in the others? For one who owes many debts is no more to be thanked for paying one than he is surpassingly ungrateful for withholding the many. So, like the cunning among beasts, he is caught by his own tricks, refuted all the more by the very means by which he tries to escape notice.

### Scripture references

- Ps 104:24 (103:24 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 145:16 (144:16 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 18:11 (17:12 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Mal 3:6: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:42: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 8 of Book 1. A line lost after 'what sort of' and a word lost in 'not to refuse to …' are marked …. 'As though the payment fell short' translates a damaged reading taken as ἐλλιπὲς τὸ ἔκτισμα (logged correction); the sense is uncertain. Migne's Latin and variant notes are removed by logged corrections.
- Ps 104:24 (LXX 103:24), Ps 145:16 (LXX 144:16), Ps 18:11 (LXX 17:12), Mal 3:6; Simon, Peter, Cephas: John 1:42.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 1.8 (PG 29:528; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-4/#p-1-8).

## Against Eunomius 1.9

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-4/#p-1-9
- Source: PG 29:529
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil traces Eunomius's argument about privation to Aristotle's Categories and shows that 'unbegotten' belongs with 'incorruptible,' 'invisible,' and 'immortal,' so that his reasoning would prove too much.

### Greek text

Τίνα δέ ἐστι τὰ ἑξῆς τοῦ λόγου σκοπεῖτε. Δείξας, ὡς οἴεται, ὅτι ἀδύνατόν ἔστιν ἐπινοίᾳ λαθεῖν τὸ ἀγέννητον, ἐπάγει" ΕΥ̓͂Ν. ᾿Αλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ κατὰ στέρησιν" εἴ γε τῶν κατὰ φύσιν αἱ στερήσεις εἰσὶ στερήσεις, καὶ τῶν ἕξεων δεύτεραι. ΒΑΣ. Ταῦτα δὲ, ὅτι ἐκ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου σοφίας περιλαλεῖ, ὑφ᾽ ἧς ἐχτραχηλισθεὶς, ταῖς τοιαύταις τῶν λόγων ἐπέθετο καινοτομίαις, οὐ χαλεπὸν ἐπιδεῖξαι. Ἀριστοτέλους γάρ εἰσιν, ὡς οἱ ἀνεγνωκότες εἴποιεν ἂν, ἐν ταῖς ἐπιγραφομέναις αὐτοῦ Κατηγορίαις, οἱ περὶ ἕξεως καὶ στερήσεως λόγοι, δευτέρας εἶναι λέγοντος τῶν ἕξεων τὰς στερήσεις. Ἡμῖν δὲ ἐξήρκει δείξασιν αὐτὸν οὐχ ἐκ τῆς διδασκαλίας τοῦ Πνεύματος, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τῆς σοφίας τῶν ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου λαλοῦντα, τὸ τοῦ ψαλμοῦ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐπιφθέγξασθαι, ὅτι Διηγήσαντό μοι παράνομοι ἀδολεσχίας, οὐχ ὡς ὁ νόμος σου, Κύριε" καὶ μαθόντας, ὅτι οὐχ ἐκ τῶν διδαγμάτων τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐστι τὰ λεγόμενα, τῆς αὐτοῦ φωνῆς ὑπομνησθῆναι, ὅτι “Ὅταν λαλῇ τὸ ψεῦδος, ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων λαλεῖ· καὶ τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ τοὺς πολλοὺς τῶν λόγων ἑαυτοῖς συντεμεῖν, ἐντεῦθεν πᾶσι καταφανὲς ποιήσαντας, ὅτι οὐδεμία ἡμῖν πρὸς αὑτοὺς κοινωνία. Τίς γὰρ συμφώνησις Χριστῷ πρὸς Βελίαρ; ἣ τίς μερὶς πιστῷ μετὰ ἀπίστου; Ἵνα δὲ μὴ δόξωμεν δι᾿ ἀπορίαν ἐλέγχων εἰς τὴν σιωπὴν καταφεύγειν, φέρε, καὶ περὶ τούτων βραχέα διαλεχθῶμεν. Πολλὰ, ὦ Εὐνόμιε, τῶν περὶ Θεοῦ λεγομένων κατὰ τὸν ὅμοιον ὁρῶμεν ἐκφερόμενα τύπον, οἷον ὁ ἄφθαρτος, ὁ ἀθάνατος, ὁ ἀόρατος. Τοῦ δὲ αὐτοῦ τύπου τιθέμεθα εἶναι καὶ τὸ, ἀγέννητος. Εἰ μὲν οὖν στερητικά τινες ὀνομάζουσι τὰ τοιαῦτα, οὐ πρὸς ἡμᾶς ὁ λόγος. Οὔτε γὰρ ἴσμεν τεχνολογίας λέξεων, οὔτε τοὺς εἰδότας ζηλοῦμεν. Πλὴν γε δὴ ὅτι οὗπερ ἂν τεθῶσιν αἱ λοιπαὶ φωναὶ ἃς ἀπηριθμησάμεθα, τοῦ αὑτοῦ εἶναι φήσομεν καὶ τὴν τοῦ, ἀγεννήτου, προσηγορίαν. Ὡς τοίνυν τὸ ἄφθαρτον τὸ μὴ προσεῖναι τῷ Θεῷ φθορὰν σημαίνει " καὶ τὸ ἀόρατον τὸ ὑπερβαίνειν αὐτὸν πᾶσαν τὴν διὰ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν κατάληψιν καὶ τὸ ἀσώματον τὸ μὴ ὑπάρχειν αὐτοῦ τριχῇ διαστατὴν τὴν οὐσίαν - καὶ τὸ ἀθάνατον τὸ μηδέποτε διάλυσιν αὐτῷ προσγενήσεσθαι " οὕτω φαμὲν καὶ τὸ, ἀγέννητον, δηλοῦν τὸ γέννησιν αὐτῷ μὴ προσεῖναι. Εἰ μὲν οὖν μηδὲν τούτων στερητικὸν τῶν ὀνομάτων, οὐδὲ ἐκεῖνο. Εἰ δὲ ἐπ᾽ ἐκείνων δίδως τὸ κατὰ στέρησιν λέγεσθαι, ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ ἀγεννήτου προσηγορίας οὐ συγχωρεῖς, εἰπέ, τίνος μὲν ἕξεως προλαβούσης στέρησιν ἐμφαίνει τὸ ἄφθαρτον; πῶς δὲ οὐχὶ τὸ ἴσον αὐτῷ δύναται τὸ ἀγέννητον; ᾿Αλλὰ περὶ μόνην ταύτην τὴν λέξιν κακοτεχνεῖ, διότι ἐντεῦθεν αὐτῷ αἱ ἀφορμαὶ τῆς ἀσεβείας ἤρτηνται. Ἵνα δὲ σαφὲς αὐτοῦ τὸ τέχνασμα γένηται, οὕτω ποιήσατε " οὗς ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου γυμνάσει λόγους, ὅτι οὔτε κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν ἀνθρωπίνην, οὔτε κατὰ στέρησιν εὔλογόν ἐστι περὶ Θεοῦ λέγεσθαι, τούτους μετενεγκόντες ἐπ᾽ ἄλλου τινὸς τῶν περὶ Θεοῦ λεγομένων, σκοπεῖτε, Εὑρήσετε γὰρ ἑκάστῳ ἀκριβῶς ἐφαρμόζοντας. Καὶ, εἰ βούλεσθε, ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀφθάρτου ταῦτα λέγωμεν, αὐτὴν αὐτοῦ τὴν λέξιν μετακομίσαντες. Ἄφθαρτον δὲ λέγοντες, οὐ κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν ἀνθρωπίνην σεμνύνειν οἰόμεθα δεῖν" ἀποτιννύναι δὲ αὐτῷ τὸ πάντων ἀναγκαιότατον ὄφλημα, τὴν τοῦ εἶναι ὅ ἐστιν ὁμολογίαν " ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ κατὰ στέρησιν " εἴ γε τῶν κατὰ φύσιν αἱ στερήσεις εἰσὶ στερήσεις, καὶ τῶν ἕξεων δεύτεραι. Τί μᾶλλον ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου πρέπει ταῦτα φιλοσοφεῖν ἢ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀφθάρτου, καὶ ὅλως ἐφ᾽ ἐκάστης φωνῆς τῆς κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τύπον ἐκφερομένης; ᾿Αλλ᾽ οὐδὲν τῶν ἄλλων αὐτῷ πρὸς τὴν ἀσέβειαν συνεργεῖ. Διὸ τῶν λοιπῶν οὐδὲ μέμνηται, καίτοι μυρίων ὄντων τῶν περὶ Θεοῦ λεγομένων.

### English translation (Claude)

[9] Look at what comes next in his argument. Having shown, as he thinks, that "unbegotten" cannot be taken by conceptualization, he adds:

EUNOMIUS: "Nor indeed by privation, since privations are privations of what belongs to nature, and are posterior to the possessions."

BASIL: That he chatters about this out of the wisdom of the world, by which he was thrown headlong and took to such innovations in argument, is not hard to show. For the discussions of possession and privation belong to Aristotle, as those who have read him would say, in the work entitled the Categories, where he says that privations are posterior to possessions. For us it would have been enough, having shown that he speaks not from the teaching of the Spirit but from the wisdom of the rulers of this age, to say to him the words of the psalm, "The lawless have told me idle tales, but not as your law, O Lord"; and, having learned that what he says is not from the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ, to remember his own word, "When he speaks the lie, he speaks from his own"; and in this way to cut short most of the argument for ourselves, making it plain to all from this that we have no fellowship with them. For what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion has a believer with an unbeliever? But lest we seem to take refuge in silence for want of refutations, come, let us discuss these things briefly too. Many of the things said of God, Eunomius, we see expressed in the same form, for example "incorruptible," "immortal," "invisible." We take "unbegotten" also to be of the same form. If, then, some call such terms privative, our argument is not with them; for we neither know the technicalities of words nor envy those who do. Only this we shall say: wherever the other words we have listed are placed, there also belongs the designation "unbegotten." As, then, "incorruptible" signifies that corruption does not belong to God, and "invisible" that he surpasses … every apprehension through the eyes, and "incorporeal" that his essence is not extended in three dimensions, and "immortal" that dissolution will never befall him, so we say that "unbegotten" also shows that begetting does not belong to him. If, then, none of these names is privative, neither is that one. But if you grant that those are said by way of privation, but do not concede it in the case of the designation "unbegotten," tell me: of what prior possession does "incorruptible" show the privation? And how does "unbegotten" not have the same force as it? But he plays his tricks about this one word alone, because on it the starting points of his impiety depend. To make his trick plain, do this: take the arguments he exercises on "unbegotten," that it is reasonable to say it of God neither by human conceptualization nor by privation, carry them over to another of the things said of God, and look: you will find them fitting each one exactly. If you like, let us say them of "incorruptible," carrying over his very wording: "When we say 'incorruptible,' we do not think we ought to honor him by human conceptualization, but to pay him the most necessary debt of all, the confession that he is what he is; nor indeed by privation, since privations are privations of what belongs to nature and are posterior to the possessions." Why is it more fitting to philosophize in this way about "unbegotten" than about "incorruptible," and in general about every word expressed in the same form? But none of the others helps him toward his impiety; that is why he does not mention the rest, though the things said of God are countless.

### Scripture references

- Ps 119:85 (118:85 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- John 8:44: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 6:15: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 2:6: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Aristotle, Cat. 10 (Aristotle (works)): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 9 of Book 1. A line is lost after 'he surpasses' (marked …); Migne's Latin and notes are removed by logged corrections. The same chapter appears a second time in the scan (staged 1.15-1.16), with the same gap.
- Aristotle, Categories 10 (possession and privation). Ps 119:85 (LXX 118:85) is quoted in its Septuagint form; John 8:44; 2 Cor 6:15; 'the rulers of this age' is 1 Cor 2:6.
- 'Possession' renders ἕξις (state, having), the counterpart of στέρησις, 'privation'.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 1.9 (PG 29:529; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-4/#p-1-9).

## Against Eunomius 1.10

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-10/#p-1-10
- Source: PG 29:529
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil explains that no single name expresses God's nature; some names affirm what belongs to God and others deny what does not.

### Greek text

Ἔχει δὲ οὕτως. Ἕν μὲν οὐδέν ἐστιν ὄνομα ὃ πᾶσαν ἐξαρκεῖ τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ φύσιν περιλαβὸν, ἱκανῶς ἐξαγγεῖλαι· πλείω δὲ καὶ ποικίλα κατ᾽ ἰδίαν ἕκαστον σημασίαν, ἀμυδρὰν μὲν παντελῶς καὶ μικροτάτην, ὡς πρὸς τὸ ὅλον, ἡμῖν γε μὴν ἐξαρκοῦσαν τὴν ἔννοιαν συναθροίζει, Ἐν τοίνυν τοῖς περὶ Θεοῦ λεγομένοις ὀνόμασι, τὰ μὲν τῶν προσόντων τῷ Θεῷ δηλωτικά ἐστι, τὰ δὲ τὸ ἐναντίον, τῶν μὴ προσόντων. Ἐκ δύο γὰρ τούτων οἱονεὶ χαρακτὴρ τις ἡμῖν ἐγγίνεται τοῦ θεοῦ, ἔκ τε τῆς τῶν ἀπεμφαινόντων ἀρνήσεως καὶ ἐκ τῆς τῶν ὑπαρχόντων ὁμολογίας. Οἷον, … ἑαυτοῖς ἣ τοῖς ἀκούουσιν, ὅτι Μὴ οἴου φθορᾷ τὸν Θεὸν ὑποκεῖσθαι καὶ ὅταν ἀόρατον, ὅτι Μὴ ὑπολάβῃς αὑτὸν τῇ διὰ τῶν ὄψεων αἰσθήσει καταλαμβά…
… τὸν προσγίνεσθαι τῷ Θεῷ. Οὕτω δὴ καὶ ὅταν ἀγέννητον, ὅτι Μηδεμιᾶς αἰτίας μήτε ἀρχῆς ἐξῆφθαι τὸ εἶναι τοῦ Θεοῦ νομίσῃς. Καὶ ὅλως, ἐξ ἑκάστου τούτων διδασκόμεθα μὴ εἰς ἀπρεπεῖς ἐννοίας ἐν ταῖς περὶ Θεοῦ ὑπολήψεσι καταπίπτειν. Οὐκοῦν ἵνα τὸ ἐξαίρετον ἰδίωμα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπιγνῶμεν, ἀπαγορεύομεν ἀλλήλοις ἐν τοῖς περὶ Θεοῦ λόγοις, μὴ καταφέρειν τὰς διανοίας εἰς ἃ μὴ δεῖ, ἵνα μήποτε οἰηθῶσιν ἕν τῶν φθαρτῶν, ἢ ἕν τῶν ὁρατῶν, ἣ ἕν τῶν γεννητῶν τὸν Θεὸν ὑπάρχειν οἱ ἄνθρωποι. Ὥστε διὰ τούτων γε ἀπάντων τῶν ἀπηγορευμένων ὀνομάτων, οἱονεὶ ἀπάρνησίς τίς ἔστι τοῦ ἀλλοτρίου, διαρθρουμένης ἡμῶν τῆς διανοίας, καὶ τὰς περὶ τῶν μὴ προσόντων αὐτῷ ὑπολήψεις ἀποτιθεμένης. Πάλιν, ἀγαθὸν λέγομεν τὸν Θεὸν, καὶ δίκαιον, καὶ δημιουργὸν καὶ κριτὴν, καὶ ἄλλα ὅσα τοιαῦτα. Ὡς οὖν ἐπ᾽ ἐκείνων ἀθέτησίν τινα καὶ ἀπαγόρευσιν τῶν ἀλλοτρίων τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐσήμαινον αἱ φωναὶ, οὕτως ἐνταῦθα θέσιν καὶ ὕπαρξιν τῶν οἰκείων τῷ Θεῷ καὶ πρεπόντως περὶ αὑτὸν θεωρουμένων ἀποσημαίνουσιν. Ἐκ τοίνυν ἑκατέρου τοῦ εἴδους τῶν προσηγοριῶν διδασκόμεθα, ἣ περὶ τῶν προσόντων, ὅτι πρόσεστιν, ἣ περὶ τῶν μὴ προσόντων, ὅτι μὴ πρόσεστι. Τό γε μὴν ἀγέννητον τῶν μὴ προσόντων ἐστὶ σημαντικόν" δηλοῖ γὰρ τὸ μὴ προσεῖναι γέννησιν τῷ Θεῷ. Τοῦτο δὲ εἴτε ἀφαιρετικὸν, εἴτε ἀπαγορευτικὸν ἢ ἀρνητικόν τι τοιοῦτον βούλοιτό τις προσαγορεύειν, οὐ διοισόμεθα. Ὅτι δὲ οὐ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων τῷ Θεῷ σημαντικόν ἐστι τὸ ἀγέννητον, ἀρκούντως οἶμαι δηλοῦσθαι τοῖς εἰρημένοις. Ἡ δὲ οὐσία οὐχ ἕν τι τῶν μὴ προσόντων ἐστὶν, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸ τὸ εἶναι τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὅπερ ἐν τοῖς μὴ οὖσι καταριθμεῖν παρανοίας ἐστὶ τῆς ἀνωτάτω. Εἰ γὰρ ἡ οὐσία ἐν τοῖς μὴ οὖσι, σχολῇ γε ἂν ἄλλο τι τῶν λεγομένων εἴη. Δέδεικται δὲ τὸ ἀγέννητον τοῖς μὴ προσοῦσι συντεταγμένον ὥστε ψευδὴς ὁ τιθέμενος τῆς οὐσίας αὐτῆς εἶναι τὴν …

### English translation (Claude)

[10] The matter stands thus. There is no one name that suffices to embrace the whole nature of God and to declare it adequately; but many and varied names, each with its own meaning, gather for us a notion that is entirely dim and very slight compared with the whole, yet sufficient for us. Of the names said of God, some indicate what belongs to God, others the opposite, what does not belong. For from these two something like an impression of God arises in us: from the denial of what is incongruous and from the confession of what exists. For example, … to ourselves or to our hearers, "Do not suppose that God is subject to corruption"; and when [we say] "invisible," "Do not suppose that he is grasped by the sense of sight …" … to accrue to God. So too when [we say] "unbegotten," [we mean], "Do not think that the being of God depends on any cause or beginning." And in general, from each of these we are taught not to fall into unfitting notions in our conceptions of God. So, in order to recognize the exceptional property of God, we forbid one another, in our discourses about God, to bring our minds down to what we should not, so that people may never think that God is one of the corruptible things, or one of the visible, or one of the begotten. So through all these prohibitive names there is, as it were, a denial of what is foreign, as our mind is given articulate shape and puts away its conceptions of what does not belong to him. Again, we call God good, and just, and creator, and judge, and other such things. As in the former case the words signified a kind of rejection and prohibition of what is foreign to God, so here they indicate the positing and existence of what is proper to God and fittingly contemplated in him. From each kind of designation, then, we are taught either, about what belongs, that it belongs, or, about what does not belong, that it does not belong. Now "unbegotten" signifies one of the things that do not belong: it shows that begetting does not belong to God. Whether one wishes to call this ablative, or prohibitive, or negative, or something of the kind, we will not quarrel. That "unbegotten" does not signify any of the things that belong to God has, I think, been shown sufficiently by what has been said. But essence is not one of the things that do not belong; it is the very being of God, and to count this among the things that are not is the height of madness. For if essence is among the things that are not, hardly could anything else said of him be anything. It has been shown that "unbegotten" is ranked with the things that do not belong; so the one who asserts that [ingeneracy] is his very essence is speaking falsely …

### Translation notes

- Chapter 10 of Book 1 begins here and continues in staged 1.8. Lines are lost after 'For example' and at the end of the passage (marked …); Migne's Latin and notes are removed by logged corrections.
- Continuation of chapter 10. The opening words are lost in the scan (marked …), and the last sentence breaks off; the end of the chapter is not in the scan. 'Indicate' (ἀποσημαίνουσιν) is restored from the duplicate copy of this page in the scan (staged 1.18), where this copy has only its first letters.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 1.10 (PG 29:529; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-10/#p-1-10).

## Against Eunomius 1.11

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-10/#p-1-11
- Source: PG 29:529
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil answers Eunomius's argument by elimination that God is 'unbegotten essence,' granting that God's essence is unbegotten but denying that 'unbegotten' is the essence.

### Greek text

Ὁ δὲ, ὡς ἐπ᾽ ἀτόπῳ τῷ κατὰ στέρησίν τι λέγεσθαι περὶ Θεοῦ δυσχεραίνων, ἐπὶ τὸ εὐσεβέστερον δῆθεν καταφεύγει, τὸ εἰς αὐτὴν τὴν οὐσίαν … πρὸς τὸ κεφάλαιον, οὕτω γράφει" ΕΥ̓͂Ν. Οὐκοῦν, εἰ μήτε κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν, μήτε κατὰ στέρησιν, μήτε ἐν μέρει (ἀμερὴς γὰρ), μήτε ἐν αὐτῷ ὡς ἕτερον (ἁπλοῦς γὰρ), μήτε παρ᾽ αὐτὸν ἕτερον (εἷς γὰρ καὶ μόνος ἀγέννητος), αὐτὸ ἂν εἴη οὐσία ἀγέννητος. ΒΑΣ. Ἤγαγε τὸν λόγον ἐφ᾽ ἃ ἐβούλετο, καὶ πανταχόθεν τὸ ἀγέννητον ἀποσπάσας, εἰς αὐτὴν συνήλασεν, ὡς ᾧετο, τὴν οὐσίαν - εἰπὼν περὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῶν ὅλων, ὅτι αὐτὸ ἄν εἴη οὐσία ἀγέννητος. Ἐγὼ δὲ τὴν μὲν οὐσίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀγέννητον εἶναι καὶ αὐτὸς ἂν φαίην, οὐ μὴν τὸ ἀγέννητον τὴν οὐσίαν. Ἔπειτα μέντοι κἀκείνῳ προσέχειν ἄξιον, ὅτι τὸ ἀμερὲς καὶ τὸ ἁπλοῦν, ταυτὸν ὑπάρχον κατὰ τὴν ἔννοιαν (ἀμερές τε γάρ ἐστι τὸ μὴ ἐκ μερῶν συγκείμενον, καὶ ἁπλοῦν ὡσαύτως τὸ μὴ ἐκ πλειόνων τὴν σύστασιν ἔχον), οὗτος ὡς διαφέροντα τῷ ὑποκειμένῳ διίστησιν ἀπ᾽ ἀλλήλων. Εἶτα ἀπαγορεύει μὴ δεῖν καταμερίζειν τὸν Θεὸν, μηδὲ τὸ μέν τι αὐτοῦ ἀγέννητον, τὸ δὲ γεννητὸν ὑποπτεύειν" μηδ᾽ αὖ ἐγκεῖσθαι ὡς ἕτερον ἐν ἑτέρῳ νομίζειν αὐτῷ τὸ ἀγέννητον. Τούτων δὲ τὸ μάταιον ἀποκνῶ διελέγχειν. Ἔοικε γάρ πως συνεξομοιοῦσθαι τῷ ματαιολογοῦντι ὁ ἀντιλέγων. Διόπερ, οἶμαι, ὁ σοφὸς παρεγγυᾷ Σολομὼν μὴ ἀποκρίνασθαι τῷ ἄφρονι κατὰ τὴν ἐκείνου ἀφροσύνην. Τοὺς γὰρ μήτε εἰρημένους μήτε λεχθέντας ποτὲ λόγους ὑπὸ διαίρεσιν ἤγαγεν, ἵνα δόξῃ ἐν πολλοῖς τοῖς ἀπηριθμημένοις, καθ᾽ ἕνα μόνον τρόπον, οἰκείως ἐξευρίσκειν λεγόμενον τὸ ἀγέννητον. Ἡμῖν δὲ ἴσως πλείονος ἔδει λόγου πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ψεύδους παράστασιν, καὶ πρὸς τὸ δεῖξαι, ὅτι περ οὐχ οὐσία Θεοῦ τὸ ἀγέννητον, εἴπερ τὰ ἐν τῇ διαιρέσει παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀπηριθμημένα μὴ σαφῶς ἐξελήλεγκτο. Εἰ γὰρ ἰσχυρῶς εἶχεν ὁ λόγος αὐτῷ, ὅτι οὔτε κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν οὔτε κατὰ στέρησιν λαμβάνεται τὸ ἀγέννητον, οὐδ᾽ οὕτω μὲν ἂν πάντως ἀκολουθίαν εἶχε τὸ συναγόμενον. Τίς γὰρ ἡ ἀνάγκη, ὑπὸ ἕν τῶν ἀπηριθμημένων τὴν ἀγεννησίαν πεσεῖν; Οὐ μὴν ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ αὐτὸς ὡς ἀναγκαίως συνημμένον τοῖς προάγουσιν ἐπιφέρει τὸ, Οὐκοῦν εἰ μήτε κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν, μήτε κατὰ στέρησιν, μήτε κατὰ ἄλλον τινὰ τῶν ἀπηριθμημένων τρόπον, αὑτὸ ἂν εἴη οὐσία ἀγέννητος " οὕτως ἡμεῖς ἀντιστρέψαντες εἴπωμεν, ὅτι Οὐκοῦν ἐπειδὴ κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν θεωρεῖται, καὶ στερητικόν ἔστι τὸ ὄνομα, οὐχὶ οὐσία τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ ἀγέννητον. Ἕως γὰρ οὐχ … τὴν ἰσχὺν ἀποδίδωσιν, οὐδεμίαν αὐτῷ χώραν ἕξει τὸ συναγόμενον.

### English translation (Claude)

[11] But he, objecting as if it were absurd that anything should be said of God by way of privation, takes refuge in what is supposedly more pious, the placing [of the unbegotten] in the very essence … pressing on to the main point, he writes thus:

EUNOMIUS: "Therefore, if [it is] neither by conceptualization, nor by privation, nor as a part (for he is without parts), nor in him as something other (for he is simple), nor alongside him as something other (for he is one and alone unbegotten), it would itself be unbegotten essence."

BASIL: He has brought his argument where he wanted, and having dragged "unbegotten" away from every side, he has driven it, as he thought, into the essence itself, saying of the God of the universe that "it would itself be unbegotten essence." For my part, I too would say that the essence of God is unbegotten, but not that the unbegotten is the essence. Then it is also worth noticing that "without parts" and "simple," though they are the same in concept (for what is not composed of parts is without parts, and likewise what does not have its constitution from many things is simple), he separates from each other as if they differed in their substrate. Then he forbids us to divide God up, or to suspect that one part of him is unbegotten and another begotten, or to think that the unbegotten lies in him as one thing in another. I shrink from refuting the vanity of these things; for somehow the one who answers comes to resemble the one who talks vanities. That, I think, is why the wise Solomon advises not to answer a fool according to his folly. For he subjected to division arguments that were never stated or ever said by anyone, so that, among the many things he enumerated, he might seem to find that "unbegotten" is properly said in one way only. Perhaps we would need a longer argument to establish the falsehood and to show that "unbegotten" is not the essence of God, if the items listed by him in his division had not already been clearly refuted. For even if his argument were strong that "unbegotten" is taken neither by conceptualization nor by privation, not even so would his conclusion follow at all. For what necessity is there that ingeneracy fall under one of the items he listed? Nevertheless, since he himself infers, as necessarily connected with the premises, "Therefore, if neither by conceptualization nor by privation nor in any other of the ways listed, it would itself be unbegotten essence," let us turn it around and say, "Therefore, since it is contemplated by conceptualization and the name is privative, the unbegotten is not the essence of God." For so long as … gives it its force, his conclusion will have no place at all.

### Scripture references

- Prov 26:4: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 11 of Book 1. Lines are lost after 'in the very essence' and near the end (marked …); Migne's Latin and notes of variant readings are removed by logged corrections. The same chapter appears again in the scan (staged 1.19-1.20).
- Prov 26:4.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 1.11 (PG 29:529; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-10/#p-1-11).

## Against Eunomius 1.12

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-10/#p-1-12
- Source: PG 29:529
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil rebukes the claim to know God's essence, citing David, Isaiah, and Paul, and challenges the Eunomians to say what even the essence of the earth is.

### Greek text

Ὅλως δὲ, τὸ οἴεσθαι τοῦ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεοῦ αὐτὴν τὴν οὐσίαν ἐξευρηκέναι, πόσης ὑπερηφανίας ἐστὶ καὶ φυσιώσεως ; Σχεδὸν γὰρ καὶ αὐτὸν ἀποκρύπτουσι τῇ μεγαληγορίᾳ τὸν εἰπόντα - Ἐπάνω τῶν ἄστρων θήσομαι τὸν θρόνον μου" οἵ γε οὐχὶ ἀστέρων, ἣ οὐρανοῦ κατατολμῶσιν, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὴν ἐμβατεύειν τοῦ Θεοῦ τῶν ὅλων τὴν οὐσίαν …ται. Ἐξετάσωμεν γὰρ αὐτὸν, πόθεν αὐτῆς φασιν ἐν περινοίᾳ γεγενῆσθαι. Ἆρ᾽ ἐκ τῆς κοινῆς ἐννοίας; Ἀλλ᾽ αὕτη τὸ εἶναι τὸν Θεὸν, οὐ τὸ τί εἶναι ἡμῖν ὑποβάλλει. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἐκ τῆς διδασκαλίας τοῦ Πνεύματος; Ποίας; ἣ τῆς ποῦ κειμένης; Οὐχ ὁ μὲν μέγας Δαβίδ, ᾧ τὰ ἄδηλα καὶ τὰ κρύφια τῆς ἑαυτοῦ σοφίας ἐδήλωσεν ὁ Θεὸς, φανερῶς ὁμολογεῖ τῆς γνώσεως τὸ ἀπρόσιτον, λέγων: Ἐθαυμαστώθη ἡ γνῶσίς σου ἐξ ἐμοῦ, ἐκραταιώθη" οὐ μὴ δύνωμαι πρὸς αὑτήν; Ἡσαῖας δὲ, ὁ ἐν θεωρίᾳ τῆς δόξης τοῦ Θεοῦ γενόμενος, τί περὶ τῆς θείας οὐσίας ἐδήλωσεν ἡμῖν; ὃς γε ἐν τῇ περὶ Χριστοῦ προφητείᾳ διαμαρτύρεται λέγων" Τὴν γενεὰν αὖτοῦ τίς διηγήσεται; Τί δὲ τὸ σκεῦος τῆς ἐκλογῆς Παῦλος, ὁ λαλοῦντα ἔχων ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὸν Χριστὸν, ὁ ἕως τρίτου ἁρπαγεὶς οὐρανοῦ, ὁ τὰ ἄῤῥητα ἀκούσας ῥήματα, ἃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἀνθρώπῳ λαλῆσαι, τίνα ἡμῖν περὶ οὐσίας Θεοῦ διδασκαλίαν ἀφῆκεν; ὅς γε ὅτε εἰς ἰλιγγιάσας πρὸς τὸ τῆς θεωρίας ἀδιεξόδευτον, ἐκείνην ἐξεβόησε τὴν φωνήν" Ὦ βάθος πλούτου καὶ σοφίας καὶ γνώσεως Θεοῦ " ὡς ἀνεξερεύνητα τὰ κρίματα αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἀνεξιχνίαστοι αἱ ὁδοὶ αὐτοῦ ! Εἰ δὲ ταῦτα τοῖς εἰς τὸ τῆς Παύλου γνώσεως μέτρον ἐφθακόσιν ἀνέφικτα, πόσος ὁ τῦφος τῶν ἐπαγγελλομένων εἰδέναι τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν οὐσίαν; Οὖς ἠδέως ἂν ἐρωτήσαιμι περὶ τῆς γῆς ἐφ᾽ ἧς ἑστᾶσι, καὶ ἀφ᾽ ἧς γεγόνασι, τί ποτε λέγουσι; τίνα αὐτῆς τὴν οὐσίαν ἀπαγγέλλουσιν ἡμῖν; ἵνα, ἐὰν ἄρα περὶ τῶν χαμαὶ καὶ ὑπὸ τοῖς ποσὶ κειμένων ἀναντιρρήτως ἡμῖν διαλεχθῶσι, τότε αὐτοῖς καὶ περὶ τῶν ἐπέκεινα πάσης ἐννοίας διατεινομένοις πιστεύσωμεν. Τίς οὖν τῆς γῆς ἡ οὐσία; ποῖος τρόπος τῆς καταλήψεως; Ἀποκρινάσθωσαν … αἴσθησις; καὶ εἰ μὲν τὴν αἴσθησιν φήσουσι, ποία τῶν αἰσθήσεών ἔστι καταληπτή; Ὁράσει; Ἀλλὰ χρωμάτων ἐστὶν ἀντιληπτικὴ αὕτη. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἁφῇ; Καὶ αὕτη σκληρότητος καὶ ἀπαλότητος, καὶ θερμοῦ καὶ ψυχροῦ, καὶ τῶν τοιούτων ἐστὶ διακριτικὴ, ὧν οὐδὲν ἄν τις οὐσίαν εἴποι, μὴ εἰς ἔσχατον παρανοίας ὑπενεχθείς. Περὶ γεύσεως δὲ καὶ ὀσφρήσεως τί χρὴ καὶ λέγειν; ὧν ἡ μὲν χυμῶν, ἡ δὲ ἑτέρα τῶν ἀτμῶν τὴν ἀντίληψιν ἔχει. ᾿Ακοὴ δὲ ψόφων ἐστὶ καὶ φωνῶν αἱσθητικὴ, τῶν οὐδεμίαν ἐχόντων πρὸς τὴν γῆν οἰκειότητα. Λείπεται οὖν τῷ λόγῳ φάσκειν αὐτοὺς τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτῆς εὑρηκέναι. Ποίῳ τούτῳ; ποῦ τῆς Γραφῆς κειμένῳ; ὑπὸ τίνος τῶν ἁγίων παραδοθέντι;

### English translation (Claude)

[12] In general, how much arrogance and pride it is to think one has discovered the very essence of the God over all! Indeed, with their boasting they almost put in the shade the one who said, "I will set my throne above the stars"; for it is not the stars or heaven that they dare to assault, but the very essence of the God of the universe that they [claim] to penetrate. Let us examine him, then: from where does he say he has come to comprehend it? From the common notion? But that suggests to us that God is, not what he is. From the teaching of the Spirit? Which teaching? Where does it lie? Does not the great David, to whom God made known the hidden and secret things of his wisdom, plainly confess that knowledge is inaccessible, saying, "Your knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is too mighty, I cannot attain to it"? And Isaiah, who came to the vision of the glory of God, what did he make known to us about the divine essence? He who in his prophecy about Christ testifies, saying, "Who will declare his generation?" And what of the chosen vessel Paul, who had Christ speaking in him, who was caught up to the third heaven, who heard inexpressible words that it is not lawful for a man to speak: what teaching about the essence of God did he leave us? He who, when he grew dizzy before the impassability of contemplation, cried out that famous cry, "O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" If these things are beyond the reach of those who have attained the measure of Paul's knowledge, how great is the conceit of those who profess to know the essence of God? I would gladly ask them about the earth on which they stand and from which they came into being: what do they say it is? What essence of it do they report to us? Then, if they can discuss with us beyond dispute the things that lie on the ground beneath our feet, we may believe them also when they insist on what lies beyond all thought. What, then, is the essence of the earth? What is the way of grasping it? Let them answer … [Is it] sense perception? And if they say sense perception, by which of the senses is it grasped? By sight? But sight perceives colors. By touch? This too discerns hardness and softness, hot and cold, and the like, none of which anyone would call essence unless carried to the extreme of folly. What need is there to speak of taste and smell, of which one perceives flavors and the other vapors? Hearing perceives noises and sounds, which have no affinity with the earth. It remains, then, for them to say that they have found its essence by reason. What reason? Where does it lie in Scripture? By which of the saints was it handed down?

### Scripture references

- Isa 14:13: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 51:6 (50:8 LXX): allusion, high confidence
- Ps 139:6 (138:6 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Isa 53:8: quotation, high confidence
- Acts 9:15: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Cor 13:3: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Cor 12:2: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 11:33: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 12 of Book 1. A line is lost after 'Let them answer' (marked …); Migne's Latin and scripture references are removed by logged corrections. The chapter appears again in the scan (staged 1.21).
- Isa 14:13; Ps 51:6 (LXX 50:8); Ps 139:6 (LXX 138:6); Isa 53:8; Acts 9:15; 2 Cor 13:3; 2 Cor 12:2-4; Rom 11:33.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 1.12 (PG 29:529; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-10/#p-1-12).

## Against Eunomius 1.13

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-10/#p-1-13
- Source: PG 29:529
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil notes that Moses did not inquire into the essence of the earth and that God did not reveal even his name to the patriarchs, so that claiming to know God's essence is the height of conceit.

### Greek text

Ὁ μέν γε περὶ τῆς κτίσεως ἡμῖν διαλεχθεὶς, τοσοῦτον ἡμᾶς ἐδίδαξεν, ὅτι Ἕν ἀρχῆ ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν" ἡ δὲ γῆ ἣν ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος " ἐξαρκεῖν ἡγούμενος τὸν ποιήσαντα αὐτὴν καὶ διακοσμήσαντα διαγγεῖλαι· τίς δὲ ἢ οὐσία ταύτης περιεργάζεσθαι, ὡς μάταιον καὶ ἀνωφελὲς τοῖς ἀκούουσι παρῃτήσατο. Εἰ τοίνυν μήτε τῇ ἐκ τῆς αἰσθήσεως μαρτυρίᾳ, μήτε τῇ ἐκ τοῦ λόγου διδασκαλίᾳ, ἢ γνῶσις αὐτῆς βεβαιοῦται, πόθεν ἔτι φήσουσι τὴν κατάληψιν αὐτῆς ἐσχηκέναι; Τὸ μὲν γὰρ ὅσον αὐτῆς αἰσθητὸν, ἣ χρῶμά ἐστιν, ἣ ὄγκος, ἣ βάρος, ἣ κουφότης, ἢ πυκνότης, ἣ χαυνότης, ἣ ἀντιτυπία, ἣ ἁπαλότης, ἢ ψυχρότης, ἢ θερμότης, ἣ αἱ κατὰ τοὺς χυμοὺς ποιότητες, ἢ αἱ κατὰ σχῆμα διαφοραί: ὧν οὐδὲν ἂν οὐσίαν εἴποιεν οὗτοι, οὐδὲ εἰ πάντα ῥᾳδίως λέγοιεν. Λόγῳ δὲ πάλιν οὐδενὶ γέγονε θεωρητὴ τῶν σοφῶν καὶ μακαρίων ἀνδρῶν " ποῖος οὖν ἔτι τρόπος τῆς γνώσεως ὑπολείπεται; ᾿Αποκρινάσθωσαν ἡμῖν οἱ περιφρονοῦντες μὲν πάντα τὰ ἐν ποσὶ, διαβαίνοντες δὲ τὸν οὐρανὸν, καὶ πάσας τὰς ὑπερχοσμίους δυνάμεις, αὐτῇ δὲ τῇ πρώτῃ οὐσίᾳ διὰ τοῦ νοῦ συναπτόμενοι. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἔοικεν ὁ τῦφος πάντων εἶναι τῶν ἐν ἀνθρώποις παθῶν χαλεπώτατον, καὶ ὄντως τῷ τοῦ διαβόλου κρίματι περιβάλλειν, οἷς ἂν προσγένηται. Ὅθεν καὶ οὗτοι οὐδὲ τῆς γῆς, ἣν καταπατοῦσι, τὴν φύσιν, ἥτις ἐστὶν, ἐπιστάμενοι, αὐτὴν ἐμβατεύειν τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ τῶν ὅλων ἀλαζονεύονται. Καὶ τοῖς μὲν ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ ὁ Θεὸς, τῷ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ τῷ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ τῷ Ἰακὼβ, ὧν, διὰ τὸ εἰς πᾶσαν ἀρετὴν τελεῖν, καὶ τὸ Θεὸς ὀνομάζεσθαι, ὥς τι ἐξαίρετον καὶ πρέπον τῇ ἑαυτοῦ μεγαλειότητι, προετίμησε, λέγων ἑαυτὸν Θεὸν Ἀβραάμ, καὶ Θεὸν Ἰσαὰκ, καὶ Θεὸν Ἰακώβ· Τοῦτο γάρ μού ἐστιν ὄνομα αἰώνιον, φησὶ, καὶ μνημόσυνον γενεῶν" γενεαῖς. Τούτοις τοίνυν οὐδὲ τὸ ὄνομα ἑαυτοῦ ἐδήλωσεν ὁ Θεὸς, ἤπου γε τὴν οὐσίαν ἥτις ἐστὶν ἀπεκάλυψεν. ᾿Εγὼ γὰρ, φησὶ, Κύριος " καὶ ὤφθην πρὸς Ἀβραάμ, καὶ Ἰσαὰκ, καὶ ᾿Ιακὼβ, Θεὸς ὧν αὐτῶν" καὶ τὸ ὄνομά μου οὐκ ἐδήλωσα αὐτοῖς" ὡς μεῖζον δηλονότι ἣ ὥστε ἀνθρωπίνῃ ἀκοῇ χωρηθῆναι.
Εὐνομίῳ δὲ, ὡς ἔοικεν, οὐ τὸ ὄνομα μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὴν αὐτοῦ τὴν οὐσίαν ὁ Θεὸς ἐνεφάνισε " καὶ τὸ τοσοῦτον ἀπόῤῥητον, ὃ μηδενὶ τῶν ἁγίων ἐφανερώθη, αὐτὸς ἐν βίβλοις γράφων δημοσιεύει καὶ ἐκλαλεῖ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἀπερισκέπτως. Καὶ τὰ μὲν ἐν ἐπαγγελίαις ἀποκείμενα ἡμῖν ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν γνῶσίν ἐστιν ἀνθρωπίνην, καὶ ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ θεοῦ ὑπερέχει πάντα νοῦν " αὐτὴν δὲ τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐ καταδέχεται ὑπὲρ πάντα νοῦν καὶ ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν γνῶσιν ἀνθρώπων εἶναι.

### English translation (Claude)

[13] The one who gave us an account of creation taught us only this much: "In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth; and the earth was invisible and unformed." He thought it enough to declare who had made it and set it in order, but he declined to busy himself with what its essence is, as vain and unprofitable for his hearers. If, then, the knowledge of it is confirmed neither by the testimony of the senses nor by the teaching of reason, from where will they still say they have gained their grasp of it? For as much of it as is perceptible is either color, or bulk, or weight, or lightness, or density, or porousness, or resistance, or softness, or cold, or heat, or the qualities belonging to flavors, or the differences of shape; and none of these would they call essence, however readily they talk about everything. Nor, again, has it become contemplatable by any argument of the wise and blessed men. What way of knowing, then, still remains? Let them answer us, these men who despise everything at their feet, but pass beyond heaven and all the powers above the world and join themselves by the mind to the first essence itself. But it seems that conceit is the most grievous of all human passions, and truly casts those in whom it arises into the condemnation of the devil. That is why these men, who do not know even the nature of the earth they tread underfoot, what it is, boast that they penetrate the very essence of the God of the universe. His saints Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, because they had reached every virtue, God honored above others with the name of God, as something exceptional and befitting his own majesty, calling himself the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob ("for this is my eternal name," he says, "and my memorial for generations of generations"). To these, then, God did not make known even his name, much less reveal what his essence is. "I am the Lord," he says, "and I appeared to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, being their God, and my name I did not make known to them"—clearly because it is too great to be contained by human hearing. But to Eunomius, it seems, God has manifested not only his name but his very essence; and this ineffable secret, so great that it was disclosed to none of the saints, he himself publishes, writing it in books and blurting it out to all people without a thought. The things laid up for us in the promises are beyond all human knowledge, and the peace of God surpasses every mind; but he does not allow that the very essence of God is beyond every mind and beyond all human knowledge.

### Scripture references

- Gen 1:1: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:2: quotation, high confidence
- Exod 3:15: quotation, high confidence
- Exod 6:2: quotation, high confidence
- Exod 6:3: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Tim 3:6: echo, medium confidence
- Phil 4:7: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 13 of Book 1; it continues in staged 1.23. In the scan this passage is followed by a second copy of the pages holding chapters 6-7 (= staged 1.3); that duplicate, and Migne's Latin and notes, are removed by logged corrections. The opening of the chapter also appears in staged 1.22.
- Gen 1:1-2; Exod 3:15; Exod 6:2-3, quoted in the Septuagint form; 'the condemnation of the devil' recalls 1 Tim 3:6.
- End of chapter 13. The opening of this staged passage repeats the end of staged 1.11 together with Migne's notes; these are removed by logged corrections. 'Mind' renders νοῦς (the printed text has γοῦν once, corrected).
- Phil 4:7.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 1.13 (PG 29:529; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-10/#p-1-13).

## Against Eunomius 1.14

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-10/#p-1-14
- Source: PG 29:535
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil argues that God's essence is known only to the Son and the Spirit, that we know God from his activities, and that reading the biblical images of God literally leads to absurd notions of his essence.

### Greek text

Οἷμαι δὲ οὐχ ἀνθρώπους μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσαν λογικὴν φύσιν ὑπερβαίνειν αὐτῆς τὴν κατάληψιν. Λογικὴν δὲ νῦν τὴν ἐν τῇ κτίσει λέγω. Υἱῷ γὰρ μόνῳ γνωστὸς ὁ Πατὴρ, καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι" ὅτι Οὐδεὶς οἷδε τὸν Πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ Υἱός - καὶ, Τὸ Πνεῦμα πάντα ἐρευνᾷ, καὶ τὰ βάθη τοῦ Θεοῦ. οὐδεὶς γὰρ οἶδε, φησὶ, τὰ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου εἰ μὴ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐδεὶς ἔγνωκεν εἰ μὴ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Τί οὖν ἐξαίρετον τῇ γνώσει τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ἣ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος καταλείψουσιν, εἴπερ αὐτοὶ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτῆς ἔχουσι τὴν κατάληψιν; Οὐ γὰρ δὴ, τῆς δυνάμεως, καὶ τῆς ἀγαθότητος, καὶ τῆς σοφίας τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Μονογενεῖ τὴν θεωρίαν προσνείμαντες, σύμμετρον ἑαυτοῖς θήσονται τῆς οὐσίας τὴν κατανόησιν. Πᾶν γάρ που τὸ ἐναντίον, εἰκὸς αὐτὴν μὲν τὴν οὐσίαν ἀπερίοπτον εἶναι παντὶ, πλὴν εἰ τῷ Μονογενεῖ καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι - ἐκ δὲ τῶν ἐνεργειῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀναγομένους ἡμᾶς, καὶ διὰ τῶν ποιημάτων τὸν ποιητὴν ἐννοοῦντας, τῆς ἀγαθότητος αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς σοφίας λαμβάνειν τὴν σύνεσιν. Τοῦτο γάρ ἔστι τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὃ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ὁ Θεὸς ἐφανέρωσεν. Ἐπεί γε ὅσα παρὰ τοῖς θεολόγοις περὶ οὐσίας Θεοῦ ἀναγεγράφθαι δοκεῖ τροπολογίαις τισὶν ἣ καὶ ἀλληγορίαις, πρὸς ἑτέρας ἐννοίας οἱ λόγοι φέρουσιν. Ὥστε εἴ τις ἀβασανίστως κατὰ τὴν πρόχειρον ἐκδοχὴν ψιλῷ παρίστασθαι φιλονεικοίη τῷ γράμματι, πρὸς Ἰουδαϊκοὺς καὶ γραώδεις μύθους ἐκτραπεὶς, πτωχὸς παντελῶς τῶν ἀξίων περὶ Θεοῦ νοημάτων καταγηράσει. Πρὸς γὰρ τῷ ὑλικὴν τινα ἐννοεῖν τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ κατὰ τοῦτο τοῖς ἀθέοις τῶν Ἑλλήνων συμφέρεσθαι, ἔτι καὶ ποικίλην καὶ σύνθετον ὑπολήψεται ταύτην. Ἠλέκτρινον μὲν τὸ ἀπὸ ὀσφύος ἕως ἄνω τὸν Θεὸν εἶναι τοῦ προφήτου διηγουμένου, ἐκ πυρὸς δὲ συμθεύλῃσθαι τὰ κάτω" ὁ δὲ μὴ πρὸς ὑψηλοτέρας ἐννοίας ἀναβαίνων … διὰ τοῦ γράμματος, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτοῦ που ταῖς σωκτικαῖς ἐγχαταυένων ὑπογραφαῖς, καὶ τοιαύτην τοῦ …
… Θεοῦ τὴν οὐσίαν παρὰ τοῦ Ἱεζεκιὴλ διδαχθεὶς, πάλιν πῦρ εἶναι τὸν Θεὸν παρὰ τοῦ Μωσέως ἀκούσεται, καὶ παρὰ τοῦ σοφοῦ Δανιὴλ πρὸς ἄλλας ὑπολήψεις ἀπενεχθήσεται" καὶ οὕτως οὐ ψευδεῖς μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ μαχομένας ἀλλήλαις ἐκ τῶν Γραμμάτων εὑρεθήσεται τὰς φαντασίας ἀναλεγόμενος. Ἀφεμένοις οὖν τῆς κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν πολυπραγμοσύνης ὡς ἀνεφίκτου, τῇ ἁπλῇ παραινέσει τοῦ ᾿Αποστόλου πειστέον, λέγοντος " Πιστεῦσαι γὰρ δεῖ πρῶτον, ὅτι ἔστι Θεὸς, καὶ τοῖς ἐκζητοῦσιν αὐτὸν μισθαποδότης γίνεται. Οὐ γὰρ ἡ τοῦ τί ἔστιν ἐξερεύνησις, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ τοῦ ὅτι ἔστιν ὁμολογία τὴν σωτηρίαν ἡμῖν παρασκευάζει. Ἐπεὶ οὖν ἀπερινόητος ἀνθρώπου φύσει καὶ ἄῤῥητος παντελῶς ἡ οὐσία τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀποδέδεικται, λειπόμενόν ἐστι περὶ τῆς ἀγεννησίας αὐτῆς τί τέ ἐστι, καὶ πῶς ἐπιθεωρεῖται τῷ Θεῷ τῶν ὅλων διεξελθεῖν.

### English translation (Claude)

[14] I think that comprehension of it surpasses not only human beings but every rational nature; and by rational nature I mean here the rational nature within creation. For the Father is known to the Son alone and to the Holy Spirit: "No one knows the Father except the Son"; and, "The Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For no one knows," it says, "the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him; and no one has known the things of God except the Spirit who is from God." What, then, will they leave as exceptional to the knowledge of the Only-Begotten or of the Holy Spirit, if they themselves have comprehension of his very essence? For surely they will not assign to the Only-Begotten the contemplation of the power, goodness, and wisdom of God, and set down for themselves an understanding of the essence that is proportionate to themselves! Quite the opposite: it is likely that the essence itself is beyond the view of all except the Only-Begotten and the Holy Spirit, while we, being led up from the activities of God and thinking of the maker through the things made, receive an understanding of his goodness and wisdom. For this is "what can be known of God," which God has made manifest to all people. For whatever the theologians seem to have written about the essence of God in figures or allegories, the words point to other meanings. So if anyone, without testing, insists on standing by the bare letter in its ready sense, he will turn aside to Jewish and old wives' fables and grow old utterly poor in notions worthy of God. For besides conceiving of the essence of God as something material, and in this agreeing with the godless among the Greeks, he will also suppose it to be varied and composite, since the prophet describes God as of electrum from the loins upward and as [made up] of fire below. And the one who does not ascend to higher notions … through the letter, but stays somewhere there among its sensible outlines, and such a … … having been taught by Ezekiel that the essence of God is such, will hear again from Moses that God is fire, and will be carried off to other conceptions by the wise Daniel; and so, gathering up his imaginings from the Scriptures, he will be found to hold notions not only false but in conflict with one another. Letting go, then, of prying into the essence as something beyond reach, we must obey the simple exhortation of the Apostle, who says, "For one must first believe that God exists, and that he rewards those who seek him." For it is not the investigation of what he is, but the confession that he is, that prepares salvation for us. Since, then, it has been shown that the essence of God is incomprehensible to human nature and entirely ineffable, it remains to go through the question of ingeneracy: what it is, and how it is contemplated in the God of the universe.

### Scripture references

- Matt 11:27: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 2:10: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 2:11: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 1:19: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 1:20: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Tim 4:7: allusion, medium confidence
- Titus 1:14: allusion, medium confidence
- Ezek 1:27: allusion, high confidence
- Deut 4:24: allusion, high confidence
- Dan 7:9: allusion, medium confidence
- Heb 11:6: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 14 of Book 1; it continues in staged 1.25. A line is lost after 'higher notions', and the passage breaks off at the end (marked …). The words rendered 'sensible outlines' and 'stays' are damaged in the scan (σωκτικαῖς ἐγχαταυένων) and are translated by sense; 'made up of' renders the damaged συμθεύλῃσθαι. Migne's Latin and notes are removed by logged corrections.
- Matt 11:27; 1 Cor 2:10-11; Rom 1:19-20; old wives' and Jewish fables: 1 Tim 4:7, Titus 1:14; electrum and fire: Ezek 1:27 (8:2).
- End of chapter 14. The opening words are lost in the scan (marked …), and Migne's notes are removed by logged corrections.
- God as fire: Deut 4:24; Daniel's vision: Dan 7:9-10; Heb 11:6.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 1.14 (PG 29:535; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-10/#p-1-14).

## Against Eunomius 1.15

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-10/#p-1-15
- Source: PG 29:535
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil argues that 'unbegotten' answers how God is, not what he is, using Luke's genealogy, which names origins rather than essences.

### Greek text

Εὑρίσκομεν οὖν λογιζόμενοι, ὅτι οὐχ ἐν τῇ τοῦ τί ἔστιν ἀνερευνήσει ἡ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου ἡμῖν ἕννοια ὑποπίπτει, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον, ἵνα βιασάμενος εἴπω τὸν λόγον, ἐν τῇ τοῦ ὅπως, ἐστίν. Ἐξετάζων γὰρ ἡμῶν ὁ νοῦς, εἰ ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς ἑαυτοῦ τινα αἰτίαν ὑπερκειμένην ἔχει, εἶτα οὐ δυνάμενος ἐπινοεῖν οὐδεμίαν, τὸ ἄναρχον αὐτοῦ τῆς ζωῆς ἀγέννητον προσηγόρευσεν. Ὥς γὰρ ἐν τοῖς περὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων λό. ὅταν λέγωμεν ὅτι, δεῖνα ἐκ τοῦδε γέγονεν, οὐ τὸ τί ἐστιν ἑκάστου, ἀλλὰ τὸ ὅθεν γέγονε διηγούμεθα" οὕτω καὶ ἐν τοῖς περὶ Θεοῦ ἡ ἀγέννητος φωνὴ οὐ τὸ τί, ἀλλὰ τὸ μηδαμόθεν αὐτοῦ σημαίνει. Οὕτω δ᾽ ἂν σαφέστερον ὃ λέγω γένοιτο. Ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς Λουκᾶς, τὴν κατὰ σάρκα γενεαλογίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκτιθέμενος, καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν τελευταίων ἐπὶ τοὺς πρώτους ἀναποδίζων, ἤρξατο μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰωσήφ· εἰπὼν δὲ τοῦτον μὲν τοῦ Ἡλεὶ, τὸν δὲ τοῦ Ματθὰν, καὶ οὕτω κατὰ ἀνάλυσιν πρὸς τὸν ᾿Αδὰμ τὴν ἐξήγησιν ἐπανάγων, εἶτα ἐλθὼν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἄνω, καὶ εἰπὼν ὅτι ὁ Σὴθ ἐκ τοῦ ᾿Αδὰμ, ὁ δὲ ᾿Αδὰμ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐνταῦθα τῆς ἀναβάσεως ἔληξεν" οὐχὶ τὰς οὐσίας τῶν ἀπηριθμημένων δηλῶν ἐν τῇ διηγήσει τῆς ἑκάστου γενέσεως, ἀλλὰ τὰς προσεχεῖς ἀρχὰς ἀφ' ἧς ἕκαστος γέγονεν ἐκτιθέμενος. Ὥσπερ οὖν ἐκεῖνος εἶπεν, ὅτι ὁ …
…μεν, ὁ δὲ Θεὸς ἐκ τίνος; Ἆρα οὐχὶ πρόχειρόν ἔστιν ἐν τῇ ἑκάστῳ διανοίᾳ, ὅτι ἐξ οὐδενός; Τὸ δὲ ἐξ οὐδενὸς τὸ ἄναρχόν ἐστι δηλονότι" τὸ δὲ ἄναρχον τὸ ἀγέννητον. Ὡς οὖν ἐπὶ ἀνθρώπων οὐχ ἦν οὐσία τὸ ἔκ τινος, οὕτως οὐδὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῶν ὅλων οὐσίαν ἐστὶν εἰπεῖν τὸ ἀγέννητον ὅπερ ἴσον ἐστὶ τῷ ἐξ οὐδενός. Ὃ δὲ τὸ ἄναρχον οὐσίαν εἶναι λέγων παραπλήσιον ποιεῖ, ὥσπερ ἂν εἴ τις, ἐρωτώμενος, τίς ἡ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ οὐσία, καὶ τίς ἡ φύσις αὐτῷ; ὁ δὲ ἀποκρίνοιτο, μὴ ἐκ συνδυασμοῦ ἀνδρὸς καὶ γυναικὸς, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τῆς θείας χειρὸς διαπλασθῆναι. ᾿Αλλ᾽ οὐχὶ τὸν τρόπον τῆς ὑποστάσεως ἐπιζητῶ, φήσειεν ἄν τις, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τὸ ὑλικὸν ὑποκείμενον" ὃ πολλοῦ δέω μανθάνειν διὰ τῆς ἀποκρίσεως. Τοῦτο δὲ καὶ ἡμῖν συμβαίνει ἐκ τῆς τοῦ ἀγεννήτου φωνῆς τὸ ὅπως τοῦ Θεοῦ μᾶλλον ἣ αὐτὴν τὴν φύσιν διδασκομένοις.

### English translation (Claude)

[15] So, then, on reflection we find that the notion of the unbegotten does not fall under our inquiry into what he is, but rather, if I may force the expression, under the inquiry into how he is. For our mind, examining whether the God over all has some cause lying above himself, and then being unable to conceive of any, has called the beginninglessness of his life unbegotten. For just as in our accounts of human beings, when we say that so-and-so was born of so-and-so, we describe not what each is but where he came from, so also in speaking of God the word "unbegotten" signifies not what he is but that he is from nowhere. What I mean may become clearer this way. The evangelist Luke, setting out the genealogy according to the flesh of our God and Savior Jesus Christ, and going back from the last to the first, began from Joseph; and having said that he was the son of Heli, and Heli of Matthan, and so bringing his account back step by step to Adam, then coming to the earliest and saying that Seth was from Adam and Adam from God, he ended his ascent there. He was not showing the essences of those he listed in recounting the origin of each, but setting out the proximate beginnings from which each came to be. As, then, he said that … … and God from whom? Is it not readily present to everyone's mind that he is from no one? But "from no one" clearly means without beginning, and without beginning means unbegotten. As, then, in the case of human beings "being from someone" was not their essence, so too in the case of the God of the universe one cannot say that "unbegotten," which is equivalent to "from no one," is his essence. The one who says that being without beginning is essence does much the same as someone who, when asked what Adam's essence is and what his nature, should answer that he was not born of the union of man and woman but formed by the divine hand. "But I am not asking about the manner of his coming into existence," one might say, "but about the material substrate of man itself," and this I am far from learning from the answer. This is what happens to us too with the word "unbegotten": we are taught how God is rather than his very nature.

### Scripture references

- Luke 3:23: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 3:38: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 2:7: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 15 of Book 1; it continues in staged 1.27. The passage breaks off at the end (marked …); Migne's notes are removed by logged corrections.
- Luke 3:23-38. Basil's text names Heli's father 'Matthan'; Luke 3:24 has Matthat.
- End of chapter 15. The opening is lost in the scan (marked …); the lost words evidently completed the comparison with Luke's 'Adam from God'. Migne's notes are removed by logged corrections.
- Adam formed by God's hand: Gen 2:7.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 1.15 (PG 29:535; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-10/#p-1-15).

## Against Eunomius 1.16

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-10/#p-1-16
- Source: PG 29:535
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil explains 'unbegotten' as the mind's recognition that God's life has no beginning, and exposes Eunomius's use of the word to deny that the Father begets a Son who shares his nature.

### Greek text

Ὅλως δὲ εἴ τις βούλοιτο τὴν ἀλήθειαν τῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῶν λεγομένων καταμαθεῖν, ἑαυτὸν ἀνερευνάτω· ὅταν τι νοῆσαι τῶν περὶ Θεοῦ βουληθῇ, εἰ εἰς τὸ σημαινόμενον τοῦ ἀγεννήτου χωρεῖ. Ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ ὁρῶ, ὅτι, ὥσπερ τοῖς ἐπερχομένοις αἰῶσι τὴν διάνοιαν ἐπεκτείνοντες, ἀτελεύτητον λέγομεν τὸν οὐδενὶ πέρατι τὴν ζωὴν ὁριζόμενον " οὕτω καὶ εἰς τὸ ἄνω τῶν αἰώνων τοῖς λογισμοῖς ἀναβαίνοντες, καὶ οἷον εἴς τι πέλαγος ἀχανὲς ἐπὶ τὸ ἄπειρον τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ ζωῆς διακύπτοντες, οὐδεμιᾶς ἀρχῆς ἀφ᾽ ἧς γέγονε λαβέσθαι δυνάμενοι, ἀλλὰ τοῦ νοουμένου ἐξωτέραν ἀεὶ καὶ ὑπερεχπίπτουσαν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν ζωὴν ἐννοοῦντες, τοῦτο τὸ ἄναρχον τῆς ζωῆς ἀγέννητον προσειρήκαμεν. Αὕτη γὰρ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου ἣ ἔννοια, τὸ μὴ ἔχειν ἑτέρωθεν τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ εἶναι. Ὁ δὲ, ἐπειδὴ περὶ μόνον τὸν Θεὸν τῶν ὅλων τὸ ἀγέννητον θεωρεῖται, κακουργότατα πάντων εἰς τὴν κατὰ τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ἥρπασεν αὐτὸ βλασφημίαν. Τί γάρ φησι προϊών; ΕΥ̓͂Ν. ᾿Αγέννητος δὲ ὧν κατὰ τὴν προλαβοῦσαν ἀπόδειξιν, οὐκ ἄν ποτε πρόσοιτο γέννησιν, ὥστε τῆς ἰδίας μεταδοῦναι τῷ γεννωμένῳ φύσεως, ἐχφύγοι τε ἂν πᾶσαν σύγκρισιν καὶ κοινωνίαν τὴν πρὸς τὸ γεννητόν. ΒΑΣ. Ὢ τῆς ἀναισχύντου καὶ πονηρᾶς βλασφημίας Ὢ τοῦ κεκρυμμένου δόλου καὶ τῆς ποικίλης ῥᾳδιουργίας ! ὡς ἀκριβῶς ἐξ αὐτῆς τοῦ διαβόλου τῆς μεθοδείας φθέγγεται ! ᾿Ανόμοιον γὰρ βουλόμενος τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρὶ τὸν Μονογενῇ Υἱὸν καὶ Θεὸν ἐπιδεῖξαι, τὸ μὲν τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ὄνομα σιωπᾷ, ἁπλῶς δὲ περὶ ἀγεννήτου καὶ γεννητοῦ διαλέγεται" καὶ τὰ τῆς σωτηρίου πίστεως ὀνόματα κρύπτων, ψιλὰ παραδίδωσι τῆς βλασφημίας τὰ δόγματα " ἵνα, τῆς ἀσεβείας ἐν τοῖς πράγμασι γυμνωθείσης, εἶτα τῆς μεταβάσεως ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα γενομένης, αὐτὸς μὲν μηδὲν δόξῃ δύσφημον εἰρηκέναι, τῇ δὲ τοῦ λόγου ἀκολουθίᾳ κατεσκευασμένην ἔχῃ τὴν βλασφημίαν. ᾿Αγέννητος δὲ ὧν, φησὶν, ἐχφύγοι ἂν πᾶσαν σύγκρισιν καὶ κοινωνίαν τὴν πρὸς τὸ γεννητόν. Οὐχ εἶπεν, ὅτι Πατὴρ καὶ Υἱός " ἀλλ᾽, ᾿Αγέννητος καὶ γεννητός. Ἕν μὲν δὴ αὐτοῦ τοῦτο τοιοῦτον κακούργημα· ἕτερον δὲ ποῖον, σκοπεῖτε. ᾿Αγέννητος δὲ ὧν, φησιν, οὐκ ἄν ποτε πρόσοιτο γέννησιν " καὶ ἐπάγει, ὥστε τῆς ἰδίας μεταδοῦναι τῷ γεννωμένῳ φύσεως. Τὸ, οὐκ ἄν ποτε πρόσοιτο γέννησιν, δύο σημαίνει" ἕν μὲν, ὅτι τῇ ἰδίᾳ αὑτοῦ φύσει οὐχ ἐφαρμόζει γέννησις ἀδύνατον γὰρ ὑπὸ γέννησιν ἐλθεῖν τὴν ἀγέννητον φύσιν ) ἕτερον δὲ, ὅτι γεννῆσαι οὐ καταδέχεται. Οὗτος μὲν οὖν κατὰ τὸ δεύτερον σημαινόμενον ἐχρήσατο τῇ φωνῇ" συναρπάζει δὲ τοὺς πολλοὺς ἐκ τῆς προτέρας ἐννοίας. Ἐπεὶ ὅτι γε τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ κατασκευαζόμενον, σαφῶς τὸ ἐπιφερόμενον δείκνυσιν. Εἰπὼν γὰρ ὅτι, Οὐκ ἄν ποτε πρόσοιτο ἐπήγαγεν" ὥστε τῆς ἰδίας μεταδοῦναι τῷ γεννωμένῳ φύσεως. Τῇ γὰρ δευτέρᾳ ἐννοίᾳ τοῦτό ἔστιν ἀκόλουθον" ὅτι οὐ καταδέχεται γενέσθαι Πατὴρ, ἵνα μὴ μεταδῷ τῆς ἰδίας φύσεως τῷ γεννωμένῳ. Τίς ἂν γένοιτο τῆς ἀσεβείας ταύτης χαλεπωτέρα; τίς ἐλάλησε τοσαύτην ἀδικίαν εἰς τὸ ὕψος ποτέ;

### English translation (Claude)

[16] In general, if anyone wishes to learn the truth of what we are saying, let him examine himself, when he wishes to think anything about God, whether he arrives at the meaning of "unbegotten." For my part, I see this: when we stretch our thought forward to the ages to come, we call "endless" the one whose life is bounded by no limit; so also, when we go up in our reasonings to what is above the ages, and, as if peering into a vast sea, look into the infinity of the life of God, unable to grasp any beginning from which it arose, but always conceiving the life of God as lying further out than what is thought and overflowing it, we have named this beginninglessness of his life "unbegotten." For this is the notion of "unbegotten": not having the beginning of one's being from elsewhere. But he, since "unbegotten" is contemplated only in the God of the universe, has snatched it up, most villainously of all, for his blasphemy against the Only-Begotten. For what does he say as he goes on?

EUNOMIUS: "But being unbegotten, according to the preceding demonstration, he would never admit a begetting so as to share his own nature with the one begotten, and he would escape all comparison and fellowship with the begotten."

BASIL: O shameless and wicked blasphemy! O hidden deceit and manifold knavery! How exactly he speaks out of the very wiles of the devil! For wishing to show that the only-begotten Son and God is unlike God the Father, he keeps silent about the names of Father and Son and speaks simply of unbegotten and begotten; and hiding the names of the saving faith, he hands over the doctrines of his blasphemy bare, so that, once the impiety has been laid bare in the things themselves and then carried over to the persons, he himself may seem to have said nothing blasphemous, while having the blasphemy constructed by the logical sequence of the argument. "But being unbegotten," he says, "he would escape all comparison and fellowship with the begotten." He did not say "Father and Son," but "unbegotten and begotten." This is one piece of his villainy; now see what the other is. "Being unbegotten," he says, "he would never admit a begetting"; and he adds, "so as to share his own nature with the one begotten." The phrase "he would never admit a begetting" means two things: one, that begetting does not fit his own nature (for it is impossible for the unbegotten nature to come under begetting); the other, that he does not consent to beget. He used the expression in the second sense, but he carries off the many by the first notion. That this is what he is constructing, what follows shows clearly. For having said, "he would never admit," he added, "so as to share his own nature with the one begotten." This follows from the second notion: that he does not consent to become Father, so as not to share his own nature with the one begotten. What could be more grievous than this impiety? Who has ever spoken such wickedness against the height?

### Scripture references

- Ps 73:8 (72:8 LXX): allusion, high confidence
- Eph 6:11: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 16 of Book 1. Migne's notes are removed by logged corrections.
- 'Wickedness against the height': Ps 73:8 (LXX 72:8); 'wiles of the devil': Eph 6:11.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 1.16 (PG 29:535; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-10/#p-1-16).

## Against Eunomius 1.17

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-10/#p-1-17
- Source: PG 29:535
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil shows that if the Father has no comparison or fellowship with the Son, Christ's words that whoever sees him sees the Father would be false.

### Greek text

Ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ φοβοῦμαι, μὴ καὶ ἡμεῖς, ἐν τῷ τὰς ἀλλοτρίας ἀναλαμβάνειν βλασφημίας διὰ τοῦ στόματος, μολύνωμεν ἑαυτῶν τὴν διάνοιαν, καὶ τῆς κατακρίσεως αὐτοῖς κοινωνήσωμεν. Παραμυθεῖται δέ με τὸ ἐν τοῖς Εὐαγγελίοις, ὅτι καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον τὴν τῶν Ἰουδαίων εἰς τὸν Κύριον βλασφημίαν ἔγγραφον τοῖς μετὰ ταῦτα παραδοῦναι οὐ παρῃτήσατο, ἐκείνων στηλιτεῦον εἰς ἅπαντα χρόνον τὴν βλασφημίαν, οὐχὶ τῇ ἀχράντῳ δόξῃ τοῦ Μο… τοίνυν οὐχ ἄν ποτε πρόσοιτο γέννησιν, ὥστε τῆς ἰδίας μεταδοῦναι τῷ γεννωμένῳ φύσεως, οὐχ ἔστι μὲν Πατὴρ ὁ Θεὸς, οὐχ ἔστι δέ " ἀλλ᾽ ἄμεινον ἡμῖν … ἀφεῖναι ἀτελὲς τὸ βλάσφημον. Ὁ μὲν γὰρ οὐ προσήκατο γέννησιν" ὁ δὲ οὐ μετέλαβε τῆς τοῦ γεννήσαντος φύσεως. Εἶτα ἐπαγωνίζεται αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ καινὴν τῆς βλασφημίας τὴν παραμυθίαν ἐπινοῶν. οὐ τῷ εἰπεῖν τι μετανοίας ἐχόμενον, ἀλλὰ τοῖς δευτέροις φιλονεικῶν ἀποκρῦψαι τὰ φθάσαντα. Τί γὰρ ὑπέμεινε φθέγξασθαι; ΕΥ̓͂Ν. Ἐκφύγοι τε ἂν πᾶσαν σύγκρισιν καὶ κοινωνίαν τὴν πρὸς τὸ γεννητόν. ΒΑΣ. Εἰ δὲ μὴ σύγκρισίς ἐστι τῷ Υἱῷ πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα, μηδὲ κοινωνία πρὸς τὸν γεννήσαντα, ψευδεῖς μὲν οἱ ἀπόστολοι, ψευδῆ δὲ τὰ Εὐαγγέλια αὐτή τε ἡ ἀλήθεια, ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. ᾿Ἀλλ᾽ ἐγὼ μὲν πάλιν φρίσσω τὴν βλασφημίαν " παντὶ δὲ συνιδεῖν ῥάδιον. Εἰ γὰρ μηδεμίαν σύγκρισιν ἔχει πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα, πῶς ἔλεγε τῷ Φιλίππῳ - Τοσοῦτον χρόνον μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν εἰμι, καὶ οὐχ ἑὠρακάς με. Φίλιππε; καὶ, Ὁ θεωρῶν ἐμὲ θεωρεῖ τὸν πέμψαντά με; Τὸν γὰρ μήτε σύγκρισιν ἐπιδεχόμενον, μήτε κοινωνίαν τινὰ πρὸς αὐτὸν κεκτημένον, πῶς ἂν ἔδειξεν ἐν ἑαυτῷ ὁ Υἱός; Οὐ γὰρ διὰ τοῦ ἀνομοίου καὶ ἀλλοτρίου καταληπτόν ἐστι τὸ ἀγνοούμενον" ἀλλὰ τῷ οἰκείῳ πέφυκε τὸ οἰκεῖον ἐπιγινώσκεσθαι. Οὕτως ἐν μὲν τῷ ἀποσφραγίσματι ὁ τοῦ τυπώσαντος χαρακτὴρ καθορᾶται᾽ δι᾽ εἰκόνος δὲ ἡ γνῶσις τοῦ ἀρχετύπου γίνεται, συγκρινόντων ἡμῶν δηλονότι τὴν ἐν ἑκατέρῳ ταὐτότητα.

### English translation (Claude)

[17] For my part, I fear that we too, by taking others' blasphemies on our lips, may defile our own minds and come to share their condemnation. But I am comforted by what is in the Gospels: the Holy Spirit too did not decline to hand on in writing to those who came later the blasphemy of the Jews against the Lord, pillorying their blasphemy for all time, not [as a blasphemy] against the stainless glory of the Only-[Begotten] … If, then, he would never admit a begetting so as to share his own nature with the one begotten, God is not Father, and [the Son] is not … But it is better for us … to leave the blasphemy unfinished. For the one did not admit a begetting, and the other did not share in the nature of the one who begot him. Then he outdoes himself, devising a new consolation for his blasphemy, not by saying anything that has to do with repentance, but by striving to hide what went before with what follows. For what has he brought himself to utter?

EUNOMIUS: "And he would escape all comparison and fellowship with the begotten."

BASIL: But if the Son has no comparison with the Father, and no fellowship with the one who begot him, then the apostles are liars, the Gospels are liars, and the Truth himself, our Lord Jesus Christ. But again I shudder at the blasphemy; anyone can easily see it. For if he has no comparison with the Father, how did he say to Philip, "Have I been with you so long, and you have not seen me, Philip?" and, "He who sees me sees him who sent me"? How could the Son show in himself one who admits no comparison and has no fellowship with him? For what is unknown is not grasped through what is unlike and foreign; rather, what is akin is naturally recognized by what is akin. So in the impression of a seal the stamp of the one who sealed it is seen, and through an image comes the knowledge of the archetype, since we compare, clearly, the sameness in each.

### Scripture references

- John 14:9: quotation, high confidence
- John 12:45: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 17 of Book 1. Lines lost in the scan after 'the Only-[Begotten]', after 'is not', and after 'better for us' are marked …; Migne's Latin and notes are removed by logged corrections. Basil breaks off the blasphemous conclusion deliberately ('leave the blasphemy unfinished').
- John 14:9; John 12:45.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 1.17 (PG 29:535; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-10/#p-1-17).

## Against Eunomius 1.18

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-10/#p-1-18
- Source: PG 29:535
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil shows that Eunomius's denial of all comparison between Father and Son overturns the scriptural titles of the Son as seal, image, form of God, radiance, and stamp.

### Greek text

Ὥστε διὰ μιᾶς ταύτης βλασφημίας πάσας ἀθετεῖσθαι τὰς φωνὰς τὰς παρὰ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος εἰς τὴν τοῦ Μονογενοῦς δοξολογίαν παραδοθείσας τοῦ μὲν Εὐαγγελίου διδάσκοντος ὅτι, Τοῦτον ὁ Πατὴρ ἐσφράγισεν ὁ Θεός" τοῦ δὲ ᾿Αποστόλου" Ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου. Εἰκὼν οὐχ ἄψυχος, οὐδὲ χειρόκμητος, οὐδὲ τέχνης ἔργον καὶ ἐπινοίας" ἀλλὰ εἰκὼν ζῶσα, μᾶλλον δὲ αὐτὸ οὖσα ζωὴ, οὐχ ἐν σχήματος ὁμοιότητι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ οὐσίᾳ τὸ ἀπαράλλακτον ἀεὶ διασώζουσα. Ἐγὼ γὰρ καὶ τὸ, ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχειν, ἴσον δύνασθαι τῷ, ἐν οὐσίᾳ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχειν, φημί. Ὡς γὰρ τὸ, μορφὴν ἀνειληφέναι δούλου, ἕν τῇ οὐσίᾳ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν γεγεννῆσθαι σημαίνει - οὕτω δὲ καὶ τὸ, ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχειν, τῆς θείας οὐσίας παρίστησι πάντως τὴν ἰδιότητα. Ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ, φησὶν, ἑώρακε τὸν Πατέρα. Οὗτος δὲ ἀλλοτριῶν τοῦ Πατρὸς τὸν Μονογενῆ, καὶ παντελῶς ἀποσχίζων τῆς πρὸς αὐτὸν κοινωνίας, τὴν δι᾽ αὐτοῦ γενομένην τῆς γνώσεως ἄνοδον, τὸ ὅσον ἐπ’ αὐτῷ, διακόπτει. Πάντα ὅσα ἔχει ὁ Πατὴρ, ἐμά ἐστιν, ὁ Κύριός φησιν. Εὐνόμιος, δὲ οὐδεμίαν λέγει κοινωνίαν εἶναι τῷ Πατρὶ πρὸς τὸν ἐξ αὐτοῦ. Καὶ, Ὥσπερ ὁ Πατὴρ ζωὴν ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτῷ, οὕτως ἔδωκε καὶ τῷ Υἱῷ ζωὴν ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ. Τοῦτο παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ δεδιδάγμεθα τοῦ Κυρίου - παρὰ δὲ Εὐνομίου τί; Μηδεμίαν εἶναι σύγκρισιν τῷ γεννηθέντι πρὸς τὸν γεννήσαντα. Καὶ ἀπαξαπλῶς, διὰ μιᾶς ταύτης φωνῆς ἀναιρεῖ μὲν τὸν τῆς εἰκόνος λόγον, ἀθετεῖ δὲ τὸ ἀπαύγασμα εἶναι καὶ χαρακτῆρα τῆς ὑποστάσεως. Οὔτε γὰρ εἰκόνα δυνατὸν τοῦ ἀσυγκρίτου νοεῖσθαι, οὔτε ἀπαύγασμα εἶναι τοῦ ἀκοινωνήτου κατὰ τὴν φύσιν. Τῷ δὲ αὐτῷ εἴδει πάλιν τοῦ τεχνάσματος ἐπιμένει, τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ λέγων μὴ εἶναι πρὸς τὸ γεννητὸν σύγκρισιν" οὐχὶ τῷ Πατρὶ πρὸς τὸν ἐξ αὐτοῦ, ἵνα ἧνπερ ἂν ταῖς φωναῖς ταύταις ὑπάρχουσαν ἀντίθεσιν ἐπιδείξῃ, ταύτην ἐπ᾿ αὐτῆς τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ μετενέγκῃ.

### English translation (Claude)

[18] So by this one blasphemy all the sayings handed down by the Holy Spirit for the glorification of the Only-Begotten are set aside. The Gospel teaches, "Him has God the Father sealed"; and the Apostle, "who is the image of the invisible God": an image not lifeless, not made by hand, not a work of art and invention, but a living image, or rather, being life itself, preserving its exactness always, not in a likeness of shape but in the very essence. For I say that "being in the form of God" has the same force as "being in the essence of God." For as "having taken the form of a servant" signifies that our Lord was born in the essence of humanity, so also "being in the form of God" certainly presents the distinctive character of the divine essence. "He who has seen me," he says, "has seen the Father." But this man, estranging the Only-Begotten from the Father and cutting him off entirely from fellowship with him, cuts off, as far as it lies with him, the ascent to knowledge that comes through him. "All that the Father has is mine," says the Lord; but Eunomius says that the Father has no fellowship with the one who is from him. And, "As the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself." This we have been taught by the Lord himself; and by Eunomius what? That the begotten has no comparison with the begetter. In short, by this one statement he abolishes the account of the image and sets aside his being the radiance and the stamp of the hypostasis. For one cannot conceive an image of what admits no comparison, nor a radiance of what has no fellowship in nature. He persists again in the same kind of trick, saying that the unbegotten has no comparison with the begotten, not that the Father has none with the one from him, so that whatever opposition he shows to exist between these words he may transfer to the very essence of the Father and the Son.

### Scripture references

- John 6:27: quotation, high confidence
- Col 1:15: quotation, high confidence
- Phil 2:6: quotation, high confidence
- Phil 2:7: quotation, high confidence
- John 14:9: quotation, high confidence
- John 16:15: quotation, high confidence
- John 5:26: quotation, high confidence
- Heb 1:3: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 18 of Book 1. Migne's Latin and notes are removed by logged corrections.
- ὑπόστασις is rendered 'hypostasis' (here in the words of Heb 1:3).
- John 6:27; Col 1:15; Phil 2:6-7; John 14:9; John 16:15; John 5:26; Heb 1:3.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 1.18 (PG 29:535; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-10/#p-1-18).

## Against Eunomius 1.19

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-10/#p-1-19
- Source: PG 29:535
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil quotes Eunomius's denial that Father and Son share a common essence and explains the sense in which the church does confess one essence and one Godhead with distinct properties.

### Greek text

Ὅπως δὲ μὴ, πάσαις αὐτοῦ κατακολουθοῦντες ταῖς βλασφημίαις, καὶ ἕκαστον εὐθύνειν τῶν εἰρημένων ἐπιχειροῦντες, εἰς πολὺ μῆκος τὸν λόγον ἐκτείνωμεν " ὅσα μὲν καὶ πρόχειρον ἔχει τὴν ἀσέβειαν, καὶ αὐτόθεν φανερὰ τοῖς ἐντυγχάνουσίν ἔστι, παρήσομεν· ἃ δὲ λόγου τινὸς πρὸς τὸν ἔλεγχον δεῖται, ταῦτα παραθησόμεθα. Ποικίλως γὰρ τὸ πρὸς τὸν Υἱὸν ἀκοινώνητον τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσίας κατασκευάσας, καὶ πανταχόθεν, ὡς οἴεται, τὸ ἄτοπον ἐπιδείξας, ἐπάγει" ΕΥ̓͂Ν. Οὐ γὰρ δὴ τοῦτο ἂν εἴποιμεν, ὡς κοινὴ μὲν ἀμφοῖν ἡ οὐσία" τάξει δὲ καὶ τοῖς ἐκ χρόνου πρεσβείοις ὁ μὲν ἔστι πρῶτος, ὁ δὲ δεύτερος. Ἐπειδή γε δεῖ προσεῖναι ἐν τοῖς ὑπερέχουσι τὸ τῆς ὑπεροχῆς αἴτιον οὐ συνέζευκται δὲ τῇ οὐσίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐ χρόνος, οὐκ αἰὼν, οὐ τάξις. Ἢ τε γὰρ τάξις δευτέρα τοῦ τάττοντος " οὐδὲν δὲ τῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑφ᾽ ἑτέρου τέτακται. Ὅ τε χρόνος ἀστέρων ποιά τίς ἔστι κίνησις ἀστέρες δὲ οὐ τῆς ἀγεννήτου μόνον οὐσίας καὶ νοητῶν ἁπάντων, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν πρώτων σωμάτων γεγόνασιν ὕστεροι. Περὶ δὲ αἰώνων τί δεῖ καὶ λέγειν, τῆς Γραφῆς σαφῶς διαγορευούσης, πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων ὑπάρχειν τὸν Θεόν; ΒΑΣ. Ὑποθέμενος ἑαυτῷ κατὰ τὸν λόγον ἅπερ ἐβούλετο, καὶ τὰ ἀκόλουθα λαβὼν ταῖς ὑποθέσεσιν, εἶτα εἰς ἀτόπους ἐννοίας ἑαυτὸν ἐξωθῶν, ἀναγκαίαν ἐντεῦθεν οἴεται τὴν παραδοχὴν τῶν ἰδίων δογμάτων ἐπιδεικνύναι. Φησὶ γὰρ ὅτι, Οὐχ ἂν τοῦτο εἴποιμεν, ὡς κοινὴ μὲν ἀμφοῖν ἡ οὐσία - τάξει δὲ καὶ τοῖς ἐκ χρόνου πρεσβείοις ὁ μὲν ἔστι πρῶτος, ὁ δὲ δεύτερος. Εἰ μὲν οὖν τὸ κοινὸν τῆς οὐσίας οὕτω νοήσας εἶπεν, ὡς ἐξ ὕλης προϋπαρχούσης διανομήν τινα καὶ καταδιαίρεσιν εἰς τὰ ἀπ᾽ αὑτῆς νοεῖν, οὔτ᾽ ἂν αὐτοὶ καταδεξαίμεθα τὴν διάνοιαν ταύτην" μὴ γένοιτο! καὶ τοὺς λέγοντας, εἴ τινες καί εἶσιν, οὐδὲν ἔλαττον ἀσεβεῖν τῶν τὸ ἀνόμοιον λεγόντων ἀποφαινόμεθα εἰ δὲ οὕτω τις ἐκλαμβάνοι τὸ τῆς οὐσίας κοινὸν, ὡς τὸν τοῦ εἶναι λόγον ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοῖν θεωρεῖσθαι, ὥστε καὶ εἰ καθ᾽ ὑπόθεσιν φῶς ὁ Πατὴρ τῷ ὑποκειμένῳ νοοῖτο, φῶς καὶ τὴν τοῦ Μονογενοῦς οὐσίαν ὁμολογεῖσθαι, καὶ ὄνπερ ἄν τις ἀποδῷ ἐπὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς τὸν τοῦ εἶναι λόγον, τὸν αὐτὸν τοῦτον καὶ τῷ Υἱῷ ἐφαρμόζειν " εἰ οὔτω τὸ κοινὸν τῆς οὐσίας λαμβάνοιτο, δεχόμεθα " καὶ ἡμέτερον εἶναι τὸ δόγμα φήσομεν. Κατὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ θεότης μία" δηλονότι κατὰ τὸν τῆς οὐσίας λόγον τῆς ἑνότητος νοουμένης, ὥστε ἀριθμῷ μὲν τὴν διαφορὰν ὑπάρχειν, καὶ ταῖς ἰδιότησι ταῖς χαρακτηριζούσαις ἑκάτερον ἐν δὲ τῷ λόγῳ τῆς θεότητος τὴν ἐνότητα θεωρεῖσθαι.

### English translation (Claude)

[19] So that we may not draw out our discussion to great length by following all his blasphemies and trying to call each of his statements to account, we will pass over whatever has its impiety ready to hand and is plain at once to readers, and we will set out what needs some argument to refute it. Having established in various ways that the Son has no share in the Father's essence, and having shown, as he thinks, the absurdity from every side, he adds:

EUNOMIUS: "For we would certainly not say this: that the essence is common to both, but that in order and in seniority of time one is first and the other second. For in things that excel, the cause of the excelling must be present; but neither time nor age nor order is joined to the essence of God. For order is posterior to the one who orders, and nothing belonging to God has been ordered by another. And time is a certain motion of the stars; and the stars came into being later not only than the unbegotten essence and all intelligible things, but even than the first bodies. And what need is there even to speak of the ages, when Scripture plainly declares that God exists before the ages?"

BASIL: Having laid down for himself in his argument whatever he wished, and having taken what follows from his hypotheses, and then pushing himself into absurd notions, he thinks he shows from this that his own doctrines must be accepted. For he says, "We would not say this: that the essence is common to both, but that in order and in seniority of time one is first and the other second." If, then, he said this understanding the commonness of the essence as though one were to conceive a kind of distribution and division of a preexisting matter into the things that come from it, we ourselves would not accept this notion either (God forbid!), and we declare that those who say it, if there are any, are no less impious than those who say "unlike." But if one takes the commonness of the essence in this sense, that one and the same account of being is contemplated in both, so that if, by hypothesis, the Father is conceived as light in his substrate, the essence of the Only-Begotten is also confessed to be light, and whatever account of being one gives for the Father, the same also fits the Son: if the commonness of the essence is taken thus, we accept it and will say that the doctrine is ours. For it is in this way that the Godhead too is one, since the unity, clearly, is conceived according to the account of the essence; so that the difference lies in number and in the distinguishing properties that characterize each, while the unity is contemplated in the account of the Godhead.

### Scripture references

- Ps 55:19 (54:20 LXX): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 19 of Book 1. Migne's Latin and notes are removed by logged corrections. The quotation is from Eunomius's Apology.
- Basil distinguishes the 'commonness of essence' he rejects (a matter divided among those who come from it) from the one he accepts (one and the same account of being in Father and Son); the passage is translated as written.
- 'God exists before the ages' recalls Ps 55:19 (LXX 54:20).

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 1.19 (PG 29:535; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-10/#p-1-19).

## Against Eunomius 1.20

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-20/#p-1-20
- Source: PG 29:535
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil distinguishes natural order, such as that of a cause to what comes from it, from order by design, and grants that the Father is prior to the Son as cause but not in nature or time.

### Greek text

Διωρισμένου τοίνυν πῶς χρὴ τὸ κοινὸν τῆς οὑσίας ἐκδέχεσθαι, τὰ ἐφεξῆς ἐξετάσωμεν, τίνα συνάφειαν ἔχει πρὸς τὰ προάγοντα. Τάξει δὲ, φησὶ, καὶ τοῖς ἐκ χρόνου πρεσβείοις ὁ μὲν ἔστι πρῶτος, ὁ δὲ δεύτερος. Τίς ἡ ἀνάγκη ἐφ᾽ ὧν ἡ οὐσία κοινή, τάξει τε ὑποβεβλῆσθαι ταῦτα, καὶ χρόνου εἶναι δεύτερα; Οὐ γὰρ δυνατὸν τῇ ἑαυτοῦ εἰκόνι ἀχρόνως ἀπαυγασθείσῃ τὸν Θεὸν τῶν ὅλων μὴ ἐξ ἀϊδίου συνεῖναι, καὶ μὴ χρόνον μόνον, καὶ αἰώνων δὲ πάντων ἐπέκεινα τὴν συνάφειαν ἔχειν. Διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ ἀπαύγασμα εἴρηται, ἵνα τὸ συνημμένον νοήσωμεν, καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως, ἵνα τὸ ὁμοούσιον ἐκμανθάνωμεν. ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ τάξις ἡ μὲν φυσική τίς ἔστιν, ἡ δὲ κατ᾽ ἐπιτήδευσιν. Φυσικὴ μὲν, ὡς ἡ τῶν κτισμάτων κατὰ τοὺς δημιουργικοὺς λόγους διαταχθεῖσα καὶ ὡς ἡ τῶν ἀριθμητῶν θέσις, καὶ ὡς ἡ τῶν αἰτίων πρὸς τὰ αἰτιατὰ σχέσις, ἐκείνου προδιωμολογημένου τοῦ καὶ τῆς φύσεως αὐτῆς ποιητὴν εἶναι καὶ δημιουργὸν τὸν Θεόν - ἐπιτετηδευμένη δὲ καὶ τεχνικὴ, ὡς ἡ ἐν τοῖς κατασκευάσμασι, καὶ μαθήμασι, καὶ ἀξιώμασι, καὶ ἀριθμῷ, καὶ τοῖς τοιούτοις. Τούτων τοίνυν τὸ πρότερον ἀποκρυψάμενος οὗτος, τοῦ δευτέρου εἴδους τῆς τάξεως ἐπεμνήσθη, καί φησι, μὴ χρῆναι λέγειν ἐπὶ Θεοῦ τάξιν, ἐπείπερ ἡ τάξις δευτέρα ἐστὶ τοῦ τάττοντος. Ἐκεῖνο δὲ ἣ οὐ συνεῖδεν, ἢ ἑκὼν ἀπεκρύψατο, ὅτι ἔστι τι τάξεως εἶδος, οὐκ ἐκ τῆς παρ᾽ ἡμῶν θέσεως συνιστάμενον, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτῇ τῇ κατὰ φύσιν ἀκολουθίᾳ συμβαῖνον, ὡς τῷ πυρὶ πρὸς τὸ φῶς ἔστι τὸ ἐξ αὐτοῦ. Ἐν τούτοις γὰρ πρότερον τὸ αἴτιον λέγομεν, δεύτερον δὲ τὸ ἐξ αὖτοῦ οὐ διαστήματι χωρίζοντες ἀπ᾽ ἀλλήλων ταῦτα, ἀλλὰ τῷ λογισμῷ τοῦ αἰτιατοῦ πρὸς τὸ αἴτιον. Πῶς οὖν εὔλογον ἀρνεῖσθαι τὴν τάξιν, ἐφ᾽ ὧν ἐστι πρότερον καὶ δεύτερον, οὐ κατὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν θέσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τῆς κατὰ φύσιν αὐτοῖς ἐνυπαρχούσης ἀκολουθίας; Τίνος οὖν ἕνεκεν ἀθετεῖ τὴν τάξιν ἐπὶ Θεοῦ λαμβάνεσθαι; Ἡγεῖται, εἰ ἐπιδείξειε μηδαμῶς ἄλλως τὸ πρότερον ἐπὶ Θεοῦ νοεῖσθαι, λειπόμενον ἕξειν, κατ᾽ αὐτὴν τὴν οὐσίαν τὴν ὑπεροχὴν ἐπιδείκνυσθαι. Ἡμεῖς δὲ, κατὰ μὲν τὴν τῶν αἰτίων πρὸς τὰ ἐξ αὐτῶν σχέσιν, προτετάχθαι τοῦ Υἱοῦ τὸν Πατέρα φαμέν " κατὰ δὲ τὴν τῆς φύσεως διαφορὰν, οὐκέτι, οὐδὲ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ χρόνου ὑπεροχήν" ἣ οὕτω γε καὶ αὐτὸ, τὸ Πατέρα εἶναι τὸν Θεὸν, ἀθετήσομεν, τῆς κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν ἀλλοτριότητος τὴν φυσικὴν συνάφειαν ἀθε…

### English translation (Claude)

[20] Having defined, then, how the commonness of the essence should be understood, let us examine what follows, and what connection it has with what precedes. "But in order," he says, "and in seniority of time one is first and the other second." What necessity is there that, where the essence is common, these be subject to order and second in time? For it is not possible that the God of the universe should not be with his own image, which shone forth timelessly, from eternity, and should not have his conjunction with it beyond not only time but all the ages. That is why he is called radiance, that we may understand the conjunction, and stamp of the hypostasis, that we may learn that he is of the same essence. Moreover, order is of two kinds: one natural, the other by design. Natural order is like that of created things arranged according to the creative principles, like the position of numbers, and like the relation of causes to effects, it being agreed beforehand that God is the maker and creator of nature itself; designed and technical order is like that in constructions, in studies, in ranks, in number, and the like. Hiding the first of these, this man mentioned the second kind of order, and says that one must not speak of order in God, since order is posterior to the one who orders. But this he either did not notice or willingly concealed: that there is a kind of order not constituted by our positing, but arising from the natural sequence itself, as there is between fire and the light that comes from it. In these we call the cause prior and what comes from it second, not separating them from one another by an interval, but by reasoning about the effect in relation to its cause. How then is it reasonable to deny order where there is a prior and a second, not by our positing but by the sequence naturally present in them? Why, then, does he reject the taking of order in God? He thinks that if he shows that "prior" is conceived in God in no other way, it will remain for him to show the superiority in the essence itself. But we say that the Father is ranked before the Son according to the relation of causes to what comes from them, but not according to a difference of nature, nor according to superiority in time; or else in this way we shall set aside the very fact that God is Father, [doing away with] the natural conjunction by estrangement in essence …

### Scripture references

- Heb 1:3: allusion, high confidence
- Col 1:15: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 20 of Book 1. The passage breaks off at the end in the scan (marked …). Migne's notes are removed by logged corrections.
- τὸ ὁμοούσιον is rendered 'that he is of the same essence'. Heb 1:3 (radiance, stamp of the hypostasis); Col 1:15 (image).

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 1.20 (PG 29:535; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-20/#p-1-20).

## Against Eunomius 1.21

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-20/#p-1-21
- Source: PG 29:535
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil refutes Eunomius's definition of time as a motion of the stars, citing the days before the stars were made and the day the sun stood still, and defines time as the interval coextensive with the world.

### Greek text

Ἐπεὶ μέντοι ἀφορίσασθαι ἡμῖν τοῦ χρόνου τὴν φύσιν ὁ σοφὸς τὰ πάντα προήχθη, καὶ ἐνταῦθα αὐτοῦ τὸ βέβαιον καὶ περιεσκεμμένον τῆς διανοίας ἴδωμεν. Χρόνον τοίνυν εἶναί φησι ποιάν τινὰ κίνησιν ἀστέρων " ἡλίου δηλονότι καὶ σελήνης καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν, ὅσοις καθ᾽ ἑαυτὰ κινεῖσθαι δύναμίς ἔστι. Τὸ τοίνυν ἀπὸ γενέσεως οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς μέχρι τῆς … δεινὸς τὰ μετέωρα οὗτος ἀποφανεῖται; Σαφῶς γὰρ ὁ τὴν κοσμογονίαν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ Πνεύματος ἀναγράψας τῇ τετάρτῃ ἡμέρᾳ τοὺς μεγάλους φωστῆρας καὶ τοὺς λοιποὺς ἀστέρας γεγενῆσθαί φησι. Χρόνος οὖν οὐχ ἦν, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἐν ταῖς κατόπιν ἡμέραις οὐ γὰρ ἐκινοῦντό πω οἱ ἀστέρες. Πῶς γὰρ, οἵ γε μηδ᾽ ἐγεγόνεισαν τὴν ἀρχὴν; Καὶ πάλιν, ὅτε ἐπολέμει τοῖς Γαβαωνίταις ὁ τοῦ Ναυῇ Ἰησοῦς, ἐπειδὴ ἀκίνητος ὁ ἥλιος ἔμεινε τῷ προστάγματι πεδηθεὶς, καὶ ἡ σελήνη κατὰ χώραν εἱστήκει, χρόνος οὐχ ἦν τηνικαῦτα; Τί ἐκεῖνο οὖν τὸ διάστημα τῆς ἡμέρας εἴπωμεν; τίνα προσηγορίαν ἐπινοήσεις; Εἰ γὰρ ἡ τοῦ χρόνον φύσις ἐπιλε… ἡμέρας μέρος προσαγορεύειν τίνα τῆς ἀνοίας ὑπερβολὴν ἀπολείπει; ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἔοικεν ἐκ πολλῆς ἀγχινοίας ἡμέραν μὲν καὶ νύκτα ἐν τῇ ποιᾷ τῶν ἀστέρων κινήσει νομίζειν γίνεσθαι, ταῦτα δὲ εἶναι τοῦ χρόνου μέρη ὅθεν τὸν χρόνον ποιάν τινα κίνησιν ἀστέρων ἀπεφήνατο, οὐδὲ αὐτὸ τοῦτο συνεὶς ὅ τι λέγει. Οὐ γὰρ ποιὰν, ἀλλ᾽ εἴπερ ἄρα, ποσὴν, μᾶλλον ἦν εἰπεῖν οἰκειότερον. ᾿Αλλὰ τίς οὕτω παῖς παντελῶς τὴν διάνοιαν, ὥστε ἀγνοεῖν, ὅτι ἡμέραι μὲν, καὶ ὧραι, καὶ μῆνες, καὶ ἐνιαυτοὶ, μέτρα τοῦ χρόνου εἰσὶν, οὐχὶ μέρη; Χρόνος δέ ἐστι τὸ συμπαρεκτεινόμενον τῇ συστάσει τοῦ κόσμου διάστημα" ᾧ πᾶσα παραμετρεῖται κίνησις, εἴτε ἀστέρων, εἴτε ζώων, εἴτε οὗτινοσοῦν τῶν κινουμένων. καθὸ λέγομεν ταχύτερον ἣ βραδύτερον ἕτερον ἑτέρου · ταχύτερον μὲν τὸ ἐν ἐλάττονι χρόνῳ πλεῖον διάστημα μεταβαῖνον, βραδύτερον δὲ τὸ ἔλαττον ἐν πλείονι χρόνῳ κινούμενον. Ὁ δὲ, ἐπειδὴ ἐν χρόνῳ οἱ ἀστέρες κινοῦνται, χρόνου αὐτοὺς εἶναι δημιουργοὺς ἀποφαίνεται. Οὐκοῦν κατὰ τὸν τοῦ σοφωτάτου λόγον, ἐπειδὴ καὶ κάνθαροι ἐν χρόνῳ κινοῦνται, ὁρισώμεθα τὸν χρόνον εἶναι ποιάν τινα κανθάρων κίνησιν οὐδὲν γὰρ τούτου τὸ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ λεχθὲν διαφέρει, πλὴν τῆς σεμνότητος τῶν ὀνομάτων. Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν τοιαῦτα, σκέψασθε δὲ τὰ ἐφεξῆς.

### English translation (Claude)

[21] Since, however, this man who is wise in everything was led on to define for us the nature of time, let us see here too the firmness and circumspection of his thought. He says that time is a certain motion of the stars, of the sun, clearly, and the moon and the rest that have the power to move by themselves. Then what will this expert in celestial things declare about the [interval] from the genesis of heaven and earth to the …? For the one who wrote down the creation of the world by the power of the Spirit says plainly that the great lights and the other stars came into being on the fourth day. So there was no time, it seems, in the preceding days; for the stars were not yet moving. How could they be, when they had not even come into being at all? And again, when Joshua son of Nun was fighting the Gibeonites, and the sun stood unmoving, held fast by the command, and the moon had stood still in its place, was there no time then? What, then, shall we call that interval of the day? What name will you devise? For if the nature of time fails …, to call a part of a day … what excess of folly does that leave? But it seems that from his great acuteness he thinks that day and night come about in a certain motion of the stars, and that these are parts of time; hence he declared time to be a certain motion of the stars, not understanding even what he is saying. For it would have been more fitting to say not "a certain kind of" motion but, if anything, "a certain amount of" it. But who is so entirely a child in mind as not to know that days and hours and months and years are measures of time, not parts? Time is the interval coextensive with the constitution of the world, by which every motion is measured, whether of stars or of animals or of anything that moves, insofar as we say that one thing is faster or slower than another: faster, what passes over a greater distance in less time; slower, what moves a lesser distance in more time. But he, since the stars move in time, declares them to be makers of time. So, by the reasoning of this wisest of men, since beetles too move in time, let us define time as a certain motion of beetles; for what he said differs not at all from this, except in the solemnity of the words. So much for this; now look at what follows.

### Scripture references

- Gen 1:16: allusion, high confidence
- Josh 10:12: allusion, high confidence
- Josh 10:13: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 21 of Book 1. Lines lost after 'to the' and after 'fails' are marked …; Migne's Latin and notes of variant readings are removed by logged corrections.
- Creation of the lights on the fourth day: Gen 1:14-19; Joshua and the Gibeonites: Josh 10:12-13.
- 'A certain kind of' and 'a certain amount of' render ποιά and ποσή.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 1.21 (PG 29:535; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-20/#p-1-21).

## Against Eunomius 1.22

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-20/#p-1-22
- Source: PG 29:535
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil quotes Eunomius's argument that because God is simple the Son cannot be like him, and asks why the Son, who is equally simple, cannot be like the Father.

### Greek text

ΕΥ̓͂Ν. ᾿Αλλὰ μὴν φησὶν, οὐδὲ ἐνυπάρχειν τι τῇ οὐσίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ δυνατὸν, οἷον εἶδος, ἢ ὄγκον, ἢ πηλικότητα, διὰ τὸ πάντη συνθήκης ἐλεύθερον εἶναι τὸν Θεόν. Εἰ δὲ τούτων καὶ τῶν τοιούτων τι μήτε ἐστὶ μήτε ποτὲ γένοιτ᾽ ἂν εὐαγὲς ἐπινοῆσαι συμπεπλεγμένον τῇ οὐσίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ποῖος ἔτι συγχωρήσει λόγος πρὸς τὴν ἀγέννητον ὁμοιοῦν τὴν γεννητήν; τῆς κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ὁμοιότητος, ἢ συγκρίσεως, ἢ κοινωνίας, μηδεμίαν ὑπεροχὴν ἣ διαφορὰν καταλιπούσης, ἰσότητα δὲ σαφῶς ἐργαζομένης, μετὰ δὲ τῆς ἰσότητος ἀγέννητον ἀποφαινούσης τὸν ὁμοιούμενον, ἣ συγκρινόμενον. Οὐδεὶς δὲ οὕτως ἀνόητος καὶ πρὸς ἀσέβειαν τολμηρὸς, ὥστε ἴσον εἰπεῖν τῷ Πατρὶ τὸν Υἱὸν, αὐτοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου διαῤῥήδην εἰπόντος Ὁ Πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας με μείζων μου ἐστί" καὶ πάλιν μετ᾽ ὀλίγα. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ὅτι μὲν οἷς ὁ τῶν πάντων θεὸς ἀγέννητος καὶ ἀσύγκριτος, πλειόνων ὄντων τῶν παραλελειμμένων, ἀποχρῆν ἡγοῦμαι καὶ τὰ ΒΑΣ, Ὅταν τινὸς ἅπτεσθαι μέλλῃ πονηροῦ λόγου, … ἵνα διὰ τῆς ἐν τούτοις εὐγνωμοσύνης μηδὲ περὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἀπιστῆται. Οὐδὲν, φησὶν, οἷόν τε ἐνυπάρχειν τοῦ Θεοῦ τῇ οὐσίᾳ, οὔτε εἶδος, οὔτε ὄγκον, οὔτε πηλικότητα, διὰ τὸ πάντη συνθήκης ἐλεύθερον εἶναι τὸν Θεόν. Μέχρι τούτων ἐστὶν εὐγνώμων" ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἑξῆς εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἐπανῆλθεν, Ὡς γὰρ ἀναγκαίως τοῖς προεκτεθεῖσιν ἑπομένην τὴν βλασφημίαν ἐπισυνάπτει, λέγων" Εἰ δὲ τούτων καὶ τῶν τοιούτων τι μήτε ἐστὶ, μηδέποτ᾽ ἂν γένοιτο εὐαγὲς ἐπινοῆσαι συμπεπλεγμένον τῇ οὐσίᾳ, τίς συγχωρήσει λόγος πρὸς τὴν ἀγέννητον ὁμοιοῦν τὴν γεννητήν; Ποίαν ἀκολουθίαν ἔχει ταῦτα πρὸς ἄλληλα, εἰ ἀσύνθετός ἐστιν ὁ Θεὸς, ἀνεπίδεκτον εἶναι τὸν Υἱὸν τῆς πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁμοιότητος; Εἰπὲ γάρ" οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ σὺ τὸν Υἱὸν παραπλησίως ἐρεῖς μήτε εἶδος, μήτε ὄγκον, μήτε πηλικότητα ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, καὶ πάντη συνθήκης …

### English translation (Claude)

[22] EUNOMIUS: "Moreover," he says, "nothing can exist within the essence of God, such as form or bulk or size, because God is entirely free of composition. And if none of these or the like either is, or could ever piously be conceived as being, interwoven with the essence of God, what argument will still allow us to liken the begotten [essence] to the unbegotten? For likeness or comparison or fellowship in essence, leaving no superiority or difference, clearly produces equality, and together with equality shows that what is likened or compared is unbegotten. But no one is so senseless and so bold in impiety as to call the Son equal to the Father, when the Lord himself says expressly, 'The Father who sent me is greater than I.'" And again, a little later: "But that the God of all is unbegotten and incomparable, I think that what [has been said] is sufficient, though much has been left out."

BASIL: Whenever he is about to take up some wicked argument, … so that by his fair-mindedness in these points he may not be disbelieved about the rest. "Nothing," he says, "can exist within the essence of God, neither form nor bulk nor size, because God is entirely free of composition." Up to this point he is fair-minded; but in what follows he has returned to himself. For he attaches the blasphemy as if it followed necessarily from what he set out first, saying: "And if none of these or the like either is, or could ever piously be conceived as being, interwoven with the essence, what argument will allow us to liken the begotten to the unbegotten?" What logical connection do these things have with each other: that, if God is incomposite, the Son cannot admit likeness to him? For tell me: will you not also say likewise that the Son has neither form nor bulk nor size in himself, and is entirely [free] of composition …

### Scripture references

- John 14:28: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 22 of Book 1. Migne's notes of variant readings at the start are removed by logged corrections; lines are lost after 'some wicked argument' and at the end (marked …). The quotations are from Eunomius's Apology.
- John 14:28.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 1.22 (PG 29:535; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-20/#p-1-22).

## Against Eunomius 1.23

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-20/#p-1-23
- Source: PG 29:535
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil argues that since the Son, like the Father, is incorporeal and formless, it is pious to compare them.

### Greek text

᾿Εγὼ μὲν γὰρ οὐδὲ μανέντα σε ἡγοῦμαί ποτε τολμήσειν ἄλλο τι εἰπεῖν τὸν Υἱὸν ἣ ἀσώματον καὶ ἀνείδεον καὶ ἀσχημάτιστον, καὶ πάντα ὅσαπερ ἂν ἐπὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς εἴποις. Πῶς οὖν οὐχ εὐσεβὲς τὸν μὴ ἔχοντα εἶδος τῷ εἶδος μὴ ἔχοντι παραβάλλειν; καὶ τὸν μὴ ἔχοντα πηλικότητα τῷ μὴ ἔχοντι ταύτην; …
… καὶ τὸν ἀσύνθετον ὅλως τῷ ἀσυνθέτῳ; … δὲ τὸ ὅμοιον ἐν τῷ εἴδει τίθεται, καὶ τὸ ὅσον ἐν τῷ ὄγκῳ τὴν δὲ πηλικότητα, ὅ τι καὶ οἴεται παρὰ τὸν ὄγκον εἶναι, αὐτὸς ἂν οἰκειότερον ἐξηγή… ΕΥ̓͂Ν. Διὰ τοῦτο οὔτε ἴσος, φησὶν, οὔτε ὅμοιος, ἐπειδὴ καὶ ἄποσός ἔστι καὶ ἀνείδεος. ΒΑΣ. Ἐγὼ δὲ κατ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὴν ὁμοιότητα τίθεμαι. Ἐπειδὴ ὥσπερ ὁ Πατὴρ συνθήκης ἐστὶ πάσης ἐλεύθερος, οὕτω καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς ἁπλοῦς παντελῶς, καὶ ἀσύνθετος, καὶ τὸ ὅμοιον, μὴ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ εἴδους ταὐτότητα θεωρεῖσθαι, ἀλλὰ κατ᾽ αὐτὴν τὴν οὐσίαν. Ὅσοις μὲν γὰρ μορφὴ καὶ σχῆμα περίκειται, τούτοις, κατὰ τὴν ταὐτότητα τοῦ εἴδους, ἡ ὁμοιότης " τὴν δὲ ἀνείδεον καὶ ἀσχημάτιστον φύσιν ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ οὐσίᾳ λείπεται ἔχειν τὴν ὁμοιότητα " καὶ τὸ ἴσον μὴ ἐν τῇ τῶν ὄγκων παραμετρήσει, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῇ ταὐτότητι τῆς δυνάμεως. Χριστὸς, φησὶ, Θεοῦ δύναμις, καὶ Θεοῦ σοφία " ὅλης τῆς πατρικῆς δυνάμεως ἐναποκειμένης αὐτῷ δηλονότι. Ὅθεν ὅσαπερ ἄν βλέπῃ τὸν Πατέρα ποιοῦντα, ταῦτα καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς ὁμοίως ποιεῖ. ΕΥ̓͂Ν. ᾿Αλλ ἡ κατ᾽ οὐσίαν, φησὶν, ὁμοιότης, ἢ σύγκρισις, ἣ κοινωνία, μηδεμίαν ὑπεροχὴν ἣ διαφορὰν καταλείπουσα, ἰσότητα σαφῶς ἀπεργάζεται. ΒΑΣ. Πῶς οὖν οὐδεμίαν διαφορὰν καταλείπει, οὐδὲ τὴν τοῖς αἰτίοις πρὸς τὰ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐνυπάρχουσαν; Εἶτα ἐπάγει" ΕΥ̓͂Ν. Τίς δὲ οὕτως ἀνόητος, ἣ πρὸς ἀσέβειαν τολμηρὸς, ὥστε ἴσον εἰπεῖν τὸν Υἱὸν τῷ Πατρί; ΒΑΣ. Εἴπωμεν αὐτῷ τὰ τοῦ προφήτου πρὸς ταῦτα" ὅτι, Ὄψις πόρνης ἐγένετό σοι" ἀπηναισχύντησας πρὸς πάντας. Καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖναι τὰ ἑαυτῶν ὀνείδη τοῖς σεμνῶς βεβιωκόσι προστρίβονται" καὶ οὗτος τοὺς τὴν δόξαν τοῦ Μονογενοῦς μεγαλύνειν ἐπιθυμοῦντας ἀνοήτους ἀποκαλεῖ καὶ πρὸς ἀσέβειαν τολμηροὺς, ἐπὶ τοῖς αὐτοῖς χαλεπαίνων, ἐφ᾽ οἷς καὶ Ἰουδαῖοι παρωξύνοντο τηνικαῦτα λέγοντες ὅτι, Ἴσον ἑαυτὸν ποιεῖ τῷ Θεῷ.

### English translation (Claude)

[23] For my part, I do not think that even in madness you would ever dare to call the Son anything other than incorporeal, formless, shapeless, and all that you would say of the Father. How then is it not pious to compare the one who has no form with the one who has no form, and the one who has no size with the one who has none … … and the wholly incomposite with the incomposite? … [He] places likeness in form, and equality in bulk; as for size, whatever he thinks it is besides bulk, he himself could explain more fittingly …

EUNOMIUS: "For this reason he is neither equal nor like, since he is without quantity and without form."

BASIL: But it is in this very thing that I place the likeness. For just as the Father is free of all composition, so too the Son is entirely simple and incomposite; and likeness is contemplated not according to sameness of form but according to the essence itself. For things that are clothed with shape and figure have likeness according to sameness of form; but the formless and shapeless nature can only have its likeness in the essence itself, and its equality not in measuring bulks against each other but in sameness of power. "Christ," it says, "the power of God and the wisdom of God," the whole power of the Father being, clearly, stored up in him. Hence whatever he sees the Father doing, the Son also does likewise.

EUNOMIUS: "But likeness or comparison or fellowship in essence," he says, "leaving no superiority or difference, clearly produces equality."

BASIL: How then does it leave no difference, not even the one that exists in causes in relation to what comes from them? Then he adds:

EUNOMIUS: "But who is so senseless or so bold in impiety as to call the Son equal to the Father?"

BASIL: Let us say to him in reply the words of the prophet: "You had the face of a harlot; you were shameless toward all." For those women too fasten their own disgrace on those who have lived chastely; and this man calls senseless and bold in impiety those who desire to magnify the glory of the Only-Begotten, angered at the same things that provoked the Jews at that time, when they said, "He makes himself equal to God."

### Scripture references

- 1 Cor 1:24: quotation, high confidence
- John 5:19: allusion, high confidence
- Jer 3:3: quotation, high confidence
- John 5:18: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 23 of Book 1 begins here and continues in staged 1.36. The end of the passage is lost in the scan (marked …), and Migne's Latin is removed by logged corrections.
- Continuation of chapter 23. Lines lost in the scan at the beginning and before 'places likeness' are marked …; Migne's Latin and notes are removed by logged corrections.
- 1 Cor 1:24; John 5:19; Jer 3:3 (Septuagint); John 5:18.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 1.23 (PG 29:535; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-20/#p-1-23).

## Against Eunomius 1.24

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-20/#p-1-24
- Source: PG 29:535
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil argues that the Jews drew the right inference that calling God Father means equality, and shows that Eunomius's view of 'Father' as an activity contradicts his claim that the Father is greater.

### Greek text

Καίτοι γε (καὶ μηδενὶ παράδοξον τὸ λεγόμενον δόξῃ) μᾶλλόν πως ἐδόκουν ἐκεῖνοι τὸ ἀκόλουθον ἐπιβλέπειν. Ἠγανάκτουν γὰρ, ὅτι Πατέρα ἑαυτοῦ ἔλεγε τὸν Θεόν " τὸ ἐφεξῆς ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν συλλογιζόμενοι, ὅτι διὰ τούτου ἴσον ἑαυτὸν ποιεῖ τῷ Θεῷ ὡς ἀναγκαίως ἑπομένου τῷ Πατέρα ἔχειν τὸν Θεὸν τοῦ ἴσον ὑπάρχειν αὐτῷ. Ὁ δὲ, τὸ πρῶτον συγχωρῶν δῆθεν, πρὸς τὸ δεύτερον ἀνανεύει, καὶ τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου φωνὴν ἡμῖν προβάλλεται εἰπόντος" Ὁ Πατὴρ, ὁ πέμψας με, μείζων μου ἐστί" τοῦ δὲ Ἀποστόλου λέγοντος οὐχ ἀκούει ὅτι, Οὐχ ἀρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ. Καίτοι εἰ κατὰ τὸν σὸν λόγον ἡ ἀγεννησία οὐσία ἦν, ἐβούλετο δὲ τὴν κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ὑπεροχὴν ἐπιδεῖξαι, εἶπεν ἄν - Ὁ ἀγέννητος μείζων μου ἐστίν. Ὑμέτερος δέ ἐστιν ὁ λόγος, ὅτι ἡ τοῦ Πατρὸς προσηγορία ἐνεργείας ἐστὶ καὶ οὐχ οὐσίας σημαντική. Μείζονα οὖν λέγοντες τοῦ Υἱοῦ τὸν Πατέρα, μείζονα τοῦ ἔργου φατὲ τὴν ἐνέργειαν. Πᾶσα δὲ δήπου ἐνέργεια συμβαίνει τῷ μέτρῳ τοῖς ἐξ αὐτῆς γινομένοις - καὶ μεγάλη μὲν τῶν μεγάλων ἔργων ἐστὶ, σμικρὰ δὲ τῶν σμικροτέρων. Τὸ οὖν μείζονα τοῦ Υἱοῦ τὸν Πατέρα κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν λόγον ὁμολογεῖν οὐδὲν ἕτερόν ἐστιν, ἣ ἀσύμμετρον τῷ ἔργῳ τίθεσθαι τὴν ἐνέργειαν, καὶ μάτην φάσκειν πρὸς τὸ τῆς ἐνεργείας μέγεθος τὸν Θεὸν κεκινῆσθαι, οὐ δυνηθέντα τῇ ἐνεργείᾳ παρισῶσαι τὸ τέλος Ὥστε τὸ ἕτερον τοῖν δυοῖν ἀναγκαίως διαπεσεῖται" ἢ μὴ δηλοῦν ἐνέργειαν τὸν Πατέρα, ἀλλὰ οὐσίαν, καὶ οὕτως αὐτοῖς ὁ σεσοφισμένος τῆς ὁμοιότητος λόγος διαγεγράψεται, ὅμοιον τῷ Πατρὶ τὸν Υἱὸν τιθεμένων, τουτέστι, τῇ ἐνεργείᾳ· οἷον γὰρ ἠθέλησεν ὁ Πατὴρ, φησὶ, τοιοῦτον ἐποίησε, καθὸ καὶ εἰκόνα βουλήσεως ὀνομάζουσιν· ἣ τοῦτο φυλάσσοντας, μὴ εἶναι λέγειν μείζονα τὸν Πατέρα. Ἐπειδήπερ πᾶσα ἐνέργεια, μηδενὸς ἀνθισταμένου τῶν ἔξωθεν, σύμμετρός ἐστι τοῖς οἰκείοις ἀποτελέσμασι. Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν πρὸς ἔλεγχον τῆς ἐν τοῖς δόγμασιν αὐτῶν ἀσυμφωνίας εἰρήσθω.

### English translation (Claude)

[24] And yet (let no one think what I say strange) those men seemed somehow to see the consequence better. For they were indignant that he called God his own Father, inferring the next step for themselves, that by this he was making himself equal to God, as though being equal to him follows necessarily from having God as Father. But he, supposedly granting the first, balks at the second, and puts forward to us the Lord's words, "The Father who sent me is greater than I"; but he does not hear the Apostle saying, "He did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." Yet if, by your argument, ingeneracy were essence, and he wished to show superiority in essence, he would have said, "The unbegotten is greater than I." But it is your argument that the name "Father" signifies an activity and not an essence. When you call the Father greater than the Son, then, you are saying that the activity is greater than the work. But surely every activity corresponds in measure to what comes from it: it is great in great works and small in smaller ones. So to confess, by this argument, that the Father is greater than the Son is nothing other than to make the activity disproportionate to the work, and to say that God was moved in vain toward the greatness of the activity, since he was unable to make the result equal to the activity. So one of the two must necessarily fall. Either "Father" does not indicate an activity but an essence, and then their sophistical account of likeness will be struck out, since they make the Son like the Father, that is, like his activity (for "such as the Father willed," they say, "such he made," which is why they call him the image of the will); or, keeping this, they must not say that the Father is greater. For every activity, when nothing outside resists it, is proportionate to its own effects. Let this be said, then, to refute the inconsistency in their doctrines.

### Scripture references

- John 5:18: allusion, high confidence
- John 14:28: quotation, high confidence
- Phil 2:6: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 24 of Book 1. Migne's notes are removed by logged corrections.
- John 5:18; John 14:28; Phil 2:6. Basil's remarks about the Jews refer to John 5:18 and are translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 1.24 (PG 29:535; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-20/#p-1-24).

## Against Eunomius 1.25

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-20/#p-1-25
- Source: PG 29:535
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil argues that 'the Father is greater' in John 14:28 refers to the Father as cause and origin of the Son, not to a difference in power, dignity, size, or essence.

### Greek text

Ἐκεῖνο δὲ τίνι τῶν πάντων ἄδηλον, ὅτι τὸ μεῖζον ἣ κατὰ τὸν τῆς αἰτίας λόγον, ἣ κατὰ τὸν τῆς δυνάμεως πλεονασμὸν, ἣ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ ἀξιώματος ὑπεροχὴν, ἣ κατὰ τὴν τῶν ὄγκων περιουσίαν λέγεται; Κατὰ μὲν οὖν τὸν ὄγκον μὴ … καὶ τὸ εἰκὸς οὕτως ἔχει" ἐπειδήπερ τὸ μεῖζον ἐν τοῖς μεγέθεσι τοσοῦτόν ἔστιν, ὅσον καὶ τὸ ἔλαττον, καὶ ἔτι. Τὰ δὲ ἀπερίληπτα τῷ μεγέθει, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀμεγέθη καὶ ἄποσα παντελῶς, τίς ἂν ἀλλήλοις παραμετρήσειεν; ὧν δὲ ἀμήχανος ἡ παράθεσις, τίνι ἂν τρόπῳ ἐν τούτοις τὸ ὑπερβάλλον ἐπιγνωσθείη; Δυνάμει δὲ λέγειν ἐλλείπειν τὸν Χριστὸν τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ δύναμιν κομιδῇ νηπίων καὶ οὐδὲ κατακουόντων τῆς φωνῆς τοῦ Κυρίου, λέγοντος " Ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἔν ἐσμεν" καὶ τὸ ἕν ἀντὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν ἴσου παραλαμβάνοντος, ὡς ἐξ αὐτῶν δείξομεν τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου τῶν ῥημάτων. Εἰπὼν γὰρ περὶ τῶν πιστευσάντων ὅτι, Οὐ μή τις ἁρπάσῃ ἐκ τῆς χειρός μου" καὶ ὅτι Ὁ Πατὴρ ὃς δέδωκέ μοι, μείζων πάντων ἐστί" καὶ, Οὐδεὶς δύναται ἁρπάσαι ἐκ τῆς χειρὸς τοῦ Πατρός μου, ἐπήγαγεν: Ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἔν ἐσμεν, σαφῶς τὸ ἓν ἀντὶ τοῦ ἴσου καὶ ταὐτοῦ κατὰ δύναμιν παραλαμβάνων. ᾿Αλλὰ μὴν εἴ γε καὶ ὁ θρόνος ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὥσπερ οὖν ἡμεῖς πεπιστεύκαμεν, ἀξιώματός ἐστιν ὄνομα, ἣ ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Πατρὸς ἀφωρισμένη τῷ Υἱῷ καθέδρα τὶ ποτε ἕτερον, καὶ οὐχὶ τὸ ὁμότιμον τῆς ἀξίας ἀποσημαίνει; ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ ἥξειν ὁ Κύριος ἐπαγγέλλεται ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ Πατρός. Λείπεται τοίνυν κατὰ τὸν τῆς αἰτίας λόγον ἐνταῦθα τὸ μεῖζον λέγεσθαι. Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἡ ἀρχὴ τῷ Υἱῷ, κατὰ τοῦτο μείζων ὁ Πατὴρ, ὡς αἴτιος καὶ ἀρχή. Διὸ καὶ ὁ Κύριος οὕτως εἶπεν" Ὁ Πατήρ μου μείζων μου ἐστὶ, καθὸ Πατὴρ δηλονότι. Τὸ δὲ, Πατὴρ, τί ἄλλο σημαίνει ἣ οὐχὶ τὸ αἰτία εἶναι καὶ ἀρχὴ τοῦ ἐξ αὑτοῦ γεννηθέντος; Ὅλως δὲ οὐσία οὐσίας, καὶ κατὰ τὴν ὑμετέραν σοφίαν, μείζων καὶ ἐλάττων οὐ λέγεται. Ὥστε καὶ κατὰ τούτους, καὶ κατ᾽ αὐτὴν τὴν ἀλήθειαν, οὐδενὶ ἂν τρόπῳ τὴν κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ὑπεροχὴν ὁ προκείμενος λόγος τοῦ μείζονος ἐμφαίνοι. Ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ κατ᾽ ὄγκον φαίη ἂν αὐτὸς οὗτος μείζονα τὸν Θεὸν Πατέρα " ὅ γε ἀποφηνάμενος μὴ χρῆναι περὶ τὸν Θεὸν ὑπονοεῖν πηλικότητα. Ὑπόλοιπος οὖν ἐστιν ὁ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν λεχθεὶς τοῦ μείζονος τρόπος, ὁ τῆς ἀρχῆς, λέγω, καὶ τῆς αἰτίας. Ἡ μὲν οὖν κατὰ τὸ μεῖζον ἐπιχείρησις αὐτοῦ τῆς βλασφημίας τοιαύτη.

### English translation (Claude)

[25] To whom of all people is it not plain that "greater" is said either according to the account of cause, or according to an excess of power, or according to superiority of dignity, or according to an abundance of bulk? That it is not according to bulk … and this is reasonable, since "greater" belongs to magnitudes just as much as "less" and "more" do. But things that cannot be encompassed by magnitude, or rather that are without magnitude and wholly without quantity: who could measure them against one another? And where comparison is impossible, by what means could the excelling be recognized in them? To say that Christ, the power of God, falls short in power is the mark of utter infants, who do not even hear the voice of the Lord saying, "I and the Father are one," and taking "one" in the sense of equal in power, as we shall show from the very words of the Gospel. For having said of those who believed, "No one will snatch them out of my hand," and that "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all," and, "No one can snatch them out of my Father's hand," he added, "I and the Father are one," plainly taking "one" in the sense of equal and the same in power. Again, if the throne of God, as we have believed, is a name of dignity, what else does the seat at the Father's right hand assigned to the Son signify but equality of honor in dignity? The Lord also promises to come in the glory of the Father. It remains, then, that here "greater" is said according to the account of cause. For since the Son's origin is from the Father, in this sense the Father is greater, as cause and origin. That is why the Lord said, "My Father is greater than I," clearly inasmuch as he is Father. And what else does "Father" signify but being the cause and origin of the one begotten from him? In general, essence is not said to be greater or less than essence, even by your wisdom. So both according to them and according to the truth itself, the statement before us could in no way indicate a superiority in essence. Nor indeed would he himself say that God the Father is greater in bulk, since he declared that one must not suppose size in God. What remains, then, is the sense of "greater" that we have given: that of origin, I mean, and of cause. Such, then, is his attempt at blasphemy concerning "greater."

### Scripture references

- John 14:28: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 1:24: allusion, high confidence
- John 10:30: quotation, high confidence
- John 10:28: quotation, high confidence
- John 10:29: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 110:1: allusion, medium confidence
- Matt 16:27: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 25 of Book 1. A line lost after 'That it is not according to bulk' is marked …; Migne's Latin and notes are removed by logged corrections.
- John 14:28; 1 Cor 1:24; John 10:28-30; the Son at the right hand: Ps 110:1, Heb 1:3; coming in the glory of the Father: Matt 16:27.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 1.25 (PG 29:535; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-20/#p-1-25).

## Against Eunomius 1.26

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-20/#p-1-26
- Source: PG 29:535
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil exposes the contradiction of calling the Father both 'greater' and 'incomparable,' and argues that belittling the Son removes the knowledge of the Father himself.

### Greek text

… πρὸς τοὺς ἐναντιωτάτους λόγους περιτρεπόμενος, καθάπερ ἀορασίᾳ τινὶ τοὺς τῆς ψυχῆς ὀφθαλμοὺς πεπληγμένος, συνιδεῖν τὴν ἐν τοῖς λεχθεῖσι μάχην οὐχ ἐδυνήθη" ἵνα φανῇ τοσοῦτον ξένος ὧν τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰρήνης, ἣν ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν τοῖς γνησίως καὶ ἀδόλως εἰς αὐτὸν πεπιστευκόσιν ἀφῆκεν, εἰπών" Εἰρήνην ἀφίημι ὑμῖν, εἰρήνην τὴν ἐμὴν δίδωμι ὑμῖν" ὥστε οὐχὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ διαμάχεται. Μείζονα γὰρ εἰπὼν τὸν Θεὸν καὶ Πατέρα τοῦ Μονογενοῦς Υἱοῦ, καὶ τοῖς τὸ ἴσον λέγουσι μανίαν ἐπικαλέσας, ὡς αὐτὸς ἀναντιῤῥήτους ἔχων τούτου τὰς ἀποδείξεις, μικρὸν ὑποβὰς σκέψασθε οἷα γράφει. ΕΥ͂Ν. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ὅτι μὲν εἷς ὁ τῶν ὅλων Θεὸς ἀγέννητος καὶ ἀσύγκριτος, πλειόνων ὄντων τῶν παραλελειμμένων, ἀποχρῆν, ἡγοῦμαι, καὶ τὰ ῥηθέντα πρὸς ἀπόδειξιν. ΒΑΣ. Ἐρωτάσθω τοίνυν, εἰ ἀσύγκριτος ὁ Θεὸς, πόθεν αὐτοῦ ἡ ὑπεροχὴ κατελήφθη; Τὸ γὰρ μεῖζον ἐκ τῆς πρὸς τὰ ὑπερεχόμενα παραθέσεως θεωρεῖται, Πῶς οὖν ὁ αὐτὸς καὶ μείζων ἐστὶ καὶ ἀπαράθετος; ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἵνα μὲν παρηλλαγμένην τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν οὐσίαν πρὸς τὴν τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ἐπιδείξῃ, συγκριτικῶς λεγόμενον τὸ μεῖζον εἰς τὴν τῆς οὐσίας διαφορὰν ἐξεδέξατο᾽ ἵνα δὲ πάλιν εἰς τὸ ὁμότιμον τῇ κτίσει τὸν Μονογενῆ καταγάγῃ, ἀσύγκριτον εἶναι τὸν Πατέρα νομοθετεῖ καινήν τινα καὶ ἀσύγκριτον ὄντως τὴν ὁδὸν τῆς βλασφημίας ἐπινοῶν ἐν προσποιήσει δὴ τοῦ ὑψοῦν καὶ ἐξαίρειν τὸν Θεὸν καὶ Πατέρα, τοῦ Μονογενοῦς Υἱοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ τὴν δόξαν κατασμικρύνων· τοῦ Κυρίου διαμαρτυρουμένου καὶ λέγοντος" Ὁ μὴ τιμῶν τὸν Υἱόν, οὐ τιμᾷ τὸν Πατέρα" καί" Ὃ ἀθετῶν ἐμὲ οὐχ ἐμὲ ἀθετεῖ" ἀλλὰ τὸν πέμψαντά με. ᾽Αλλ᾽ ὁ ἐχθρὸς τῆς ἀληθείας, ὁ ἐνεργῶν τὰ τοιαῦτα λέγειν καὶ γράφειν αὐτοῖς, εἶδεν ἐκεῖνο, ὅτι, εἰ πρὸς τὴν σύνεσιν αὐτοὺς τῆς τοῦ Μονογενοῦς δόξης ἀποτυφλώσειε, καὶ. τὴν αὐτοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς γνῶσιν συναφαιρήσεται· ὥστε, εἰ καὶ δοκοῦσιν ὑπερβολάς τινας νέμειν τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρὶ, μηδὲν αὐτοῖς ὄφελος εἶναι τῆς πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀγούσης ὁδοῦ τὴν γνῶσιν ἀφῃρημένοις. Ἐπειδὴ καὶ Ἰουδαῖοι δοξάζειν τὸν Θεὸν οἴονται, καὶ Ἑλλήνων τις ἀκούσεται βουλομένων τι μέγα περὶ Θεοῦ λέγειν" ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως οὐκ ἄν τις εἴποι μεγαλύνειν αὐτοὺς τὸν Θεὸν ἄνευ τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν πίστεως, δι’ οὗ ἡ προσαγωγὴ τῆς γνώσεώς ἔστιν.

### English translation (Claude)

[26] … turning around to the most contrary statements, as if the eyes of his soul had been struck with blindness, he was unable to see the conflict in what he had said; so that he might be shown to be so much a stranger to the peace of God, which our Lord left to those who have believed in him genuinely and without guile, saying, "Peace I leave you, my peace I give you," that he is at war not only with others but even with himself. For having called the God and Father of the only-begotten Son greater, and having charged those who say "equal" with madness, as one who himself had incontrovertible proofs of this, a little further down, look at what he writes:

EUNOMIUS: "But that the God of all is one, unbegotten and incomparable, I think that what has been said is sufficient for demonstration, though much has been left out."

BASIL: Let him be asked, then: if God is incomparable, from where was his superiority grasped? For "greater" is contemplated by setting a thing beside what it surpasses. How then is the same one both greater and incapable of being set beside anything? But in order to show the essence of God differing from that of the Only-Begotten, he took "greater," which is said by way of comparison, to mean a difference of essence; and in order again to bring the Only-Begotten down to equal honor with creation, he lays it down that the Father is incomparable, devising a new and truly incomparable road of blasphemy. Pretending, of course, to exalt and lift up the God and Father, he belittles the glory of the only-begotten Son and God, although the Lord testifies and says, "He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father," and, "He who rejects me rejects not me but him who sent me." But the enemy of the truth, who works in them to say and write such things, saw this: that if he blinded them to the understanding of the glory of the Only-Begotten, the knowledge of God the Father himself would be taken away with it; so that, even if they seem to assign some superlatives to God the Father, they have no benefit from it, since they have been deprived of the knowledge of the road that leads to him. For the Jews too think that they glorify God, and one will hear some of the Greeks wishing to say something great about God; but still no one would say that they magnify God without faith in Christ, through whom is the access to knowledge.

### Scripture references

- John 14:27: quotation, high confidence
- John 5:23: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 10:16: quotation, medium confidence
- Eph 2:18: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 26 of Book 1. Its opening is lost in the scan (marked …); Migne's notes of variant readings are removed by logged corrections.
- John 14:27; John 5:23; Luke 10:16 (closest to Basil's wording); 'access' recalls Eph 2:18. The remarks on Jews and Greeks are translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 1.26 (PG 29:535; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-20/#p-1-26).

## Against Eunomius 1.27

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-20/#p-1-27
- Source: PG 29:535
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil concludes Book 1: if the Father is incomparable, the Son would be no different from creatures, contrary to his words 'I and the Father are one,' and Eunomius's argument refutes itself.

### Greek text

᾿Ασύγκριτον οὖν τὸν Θεὸν λέγει, ἵνα δείξῃ Υἱὸν ἴσον ὄντα τῇ κτίσει, ἐν τῷ ὁμοίως τῆς δόξης τοῦ Πατρὸς ἀπολείπεσθαι " διότι τὰ ἴσῳ μέτρῳ ὑπερεχόμενα ἴσα ἀλλήλοις ἀναγκαίως ἐστί. Τοσοῦτον δὲ ὑπερέχεται κατὰ τὸν τούτου λόγον ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς ὁ Μονογενὴς Υἱὸς, ὅσον καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἕκαστον. Τοιοῦτον γάρ ἐστι τὸ ἀσύγκριτον, ὃ πᾶσιν ὁμοίως ἐστὶν ἀπροσπέλαστον καὶ ἀνέφικτον. Εἰ δὲ ἴσον τοῖς ἄλλοις τοῦ Πατρὸς ἀπολείπεται, ἴσος ἐκείνοις ἐστὶ μεθ᾽ ὧν ἀπολείπεται. Τί οὖν τῆς βλασφημίας ταύτης χεῖρον εἴποιεν ἂν Ἰουδαῖοι; τί δὲ τῶν ἐθνῶν λεγόντων ἐστὶν ἀκούειν; Καὶ οὐκ ἐρυθριῶσιν οἱ τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγον πρεσβεύειν σχη… συγκρίνεται τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρὶ, ὥσπερ οὔτε ἄγγελοι, οὔτε οὐρανὸς, οὔτε ἥλιος, οὔτε γῆ, οὔτε τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ ζώων τε καὶ φυτῶν ἕκαστον, πῶς μὲν τὴν διαφορὰν ἕξει πρὸς τὰ οἰκεῖα κτίσματα; πόθεν δὲ αὐτῷ πρὸς τὸν γεννήσαντα ἡ οἰκειότης; Ἐγὼ, φησὶ, καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἔν ἐσμεν. Πάλιν γὰρ τοῦ αὐτοῦ μνημονεύσωμεν. Τοῦτο, εἰπέ μοι, οὐχὶ συγκρίνοντος ἑαυτόν ἔστι τὸ ῥῆμα; Τί λέγω συγχρίνοντος; ἑνοῦντος μὲν οὖν, ὡς εἰπεῖν, καὶ τὸ τῆς φύσεως ἀπαράλλακτον παριστῶντος ἐντεῦθεν. Ὁ δὲ ἀσύγκριτον εἶναι τὸν Θεὸν ἀποφαίνεται. Καὶ ἡ μὲν ἀγαθότης τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, καθόσον ἐσμὲν χωρητικοὶ, διὰ τῆς μελέτης καὶ τῆς ἀσκήσεως τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἔργων τῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν τῶν ὅλων ὁμοιώσει προσάγει ἐν οἷς φησι" Γίνεσθε τέλειοι καθὼς καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τέλειός ἐστιν" οὗτος δὲ τὸν Μονογενῆ τὴν ἐκ φύσεως αὐτῷ ὑπάρχουσαν πρὸς τὸν γεννήσαντα οἰκειότητα, τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν ἦχον, ἀποστερεῖ. Καίτοι καὶ οὕτως αὐτῷ εἰς τὸ ἐναντίον ὁ λόγος περιτραπήσεται. Εἰ γὰρ ἀσύγκριτος ὁ Πατὴρ, πόθεν λαβὼν τῆς ἀνομοιότητος τοῦ Υἱοῦ τὰς ἀποδείξεις παρέξεται; Εἰ μὲν γὰρ, ἀντιπαρεξετάζων τὰς οὐσίας ἀλλήλαις, εὑρηκέναι φήσει τὸ ἀνόμοιον, πῶς ἀσύγκριτος ὁ τοιοῦτος; εἰ δὲ οὐδὲ συγκρίνεται τὴν ἀρχὴν, πῶς ἐπιγνῶναι … ἢ διάφορον ἠδυνήθη; Οὕτως ἔοικε τὸ κακὸν οὐ τῷ ἀγαθῷ ἐναντιοῦσθαι μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸ ἑαυτῷ. … οὗ γένοιτο λυτρῶσαι ἡμᾶς χάριτι τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, μεθ᾽ οὗ τῷ ἀνάρχῳ Πατρὶ δόξα σὺν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ …

### English translation (Claude)

[27] He calls God incomparable, then, in order to show the Son to be equal to creation, in that he falls short of the Father's glory in the same way; for things surpassed by an equal measure are necessarily equal to one another. According to his argument, the only-begotten Son is surpassed by the God and Father as much as each of the other things is. For such is incomparability: that which is equally unapproachable and unattainable for all. But if he falls short of the Father equally with the others, he is equal to those with whom he falls short. What worse than this blasphemy could the Jews say? What are we to hear from the heathen? And they do not blush, who, pretending to honor the Word of God … is not compared with God the Father, as neither angels nor heaven nor sun nor earth nor each of the animals and plants upon it is compared, how will he have any difference from his own creatures? And from where will he have his kinship with the one who begot him? "I and the Father," he says, "are one." For let us recall the same words again. Tell me: is this not the saying of one who compares himself? Why do I say "compares"? Rather of one who unites himself, so to speak, and from this presents the exactness of the nature. But he declares God to be incomparable. The goodness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ leads human beings, as far as we are able to receive it, through the practice and exercise of good works to likeness with the God of the universe, when he says, "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect"; but this man, as far as it lies with him, deprives the Only-Begotten of the kinship he has by nature with the one who begot him. Yet even so his argument will turn around to the opposite. For if the Father is incomparable, from where will he get the proofs of the Son's unlikeness that he will offer? If he says that he has found the unlikeness by setting the essences side by side, how is such a one incomparable? And if he is not compared at all, how could he come to know … or a difference? So it seems that evil is opposed not only to the good but even to itself. … from which may it be granted to us to be redeemed by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom be glory to the Father without beginning, with the Holy Spirit, now and always …

### Scripture references

- John 10:30: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 5:48: quotation, high confidence
- Titus 2:13: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 27, the last of Book 1. Lines are lost after 'pretending to honor the Word of God', after 'could he come to know', and before the closing prayer (marked …). In the scan the words 'or a difference? So it seems that evil is opposed not only to the good' are displaced into the middle of the chapter; they are moved back to their place by logged corrections. The doxology is printed in the scan after Migne's notes; the end of it is lost.
- John 10:30; Matt 5:48; 'our God and Savior Jesus Christ': Titus 2:13.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 1.27 (PG 29:535; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-20/#p-1-27).

## Against Eunomius 2.1

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-20/#p-2-1
- Source: PG 29
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil introduces Book 2 by quoting Eunomius's claim that the saints call the Son 'offspring' and 'thing made,' and proposes to test every claim against the teaching of the Spirit in Scripture.

### Greek text

Ἐν τοίνυν τοῖς περὶ Θεοῦ τῶν ὅλων λόγοις ὑποκατασκευάσας ὅσον ἐδύνατο τὰς εἰς τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ βλασφημίας, αὐτῷ λοιπὸν ἐπαφῆκε τῷ Μονογενεῖ θεῷ τὴν γλῶσσαν. Τί γάρ φησι; ΕΥ̓͂Ν. Καὶ εἷς Υἱός. Μονογενὴς γὰρ, περὶ οὗ ἐνῆν μὲν τὰς τῶν ἁγίων φωνὰς παραθέμενον, δι᾽ ὧν καὶ γέννημα καὶ ποίημα καταγγέλλουσι, ταῖς τῶν ὀνομάτων διαφοραῖς καὶ τὴν τῆς οὐσίας παραλλαγὴν ἐμφανίσαντας, ἀπηλλάχθαι φροντίδων καὶ πραγμάτων " διὰ δὲ τοὺς σωματικὴν τὴν γέννησιν ὑπο…ας, ἀναγκαῖον ἴσως καὶ περὶ τούτων διὰ βραχέων εἰπεῖν. ΒΑΣ. Ταῦτα μὲν ὁ Εὐνόμιος. ᾿Εγὼ δὲ, εἰ μὲν οὕτω χρὴ διανοεῖσθαι περὶ τοῦ λόγου παντὸς, ὡς πλάσματος οἷα ἐν τοῖς διδασκαλείοις τῆς ματαιότητος εἰς μελέτην τοῦ ἐν τῷ ψεύσματι πιθανοῦ τοῖς μειρακίοις προβάλλεται (ἐπειδὴ καὶ παραπλησίως ἐκείνοις πάντα σκιαμαχίᾳ προσέοικε" πρὸς κατηγόρους τε μάχη μὴ ὑφεστῶτας " καὶ ἀπολογία πρὸς κατηγορίαν οὐ προῤῥηθεῖσαν " καὶ λόγος πρὸς δικαστὰς τοὺς οὐδαμοῦ φαινομένους)" εἰ οὕτω χρὴ καὶ τούτων ἀκούειν, αὐτός τε ἀφίημι τὴν ἐξέτασιν, καὶ παντὶ παραινῶ μηδὲν τῶν εἰρημένων περιεργάζεσθαι " εἰ δὲ μεῖζόν ἔστι τὸ ἐπάγγελμα, καὶ πολλοῖς γέγονεν ὑπόνοια, εἶναί τινα παρ᾽ αὐτῷ τῆς ἀληθείας φροντίδα, ἀνάγκη πᾶσα τῶν εἰρημένων ἕκαστον διευθύνειν εἰς δύναμιν. Τίς ἂν οὖν τρόπος τῆς ἐξετάσεως δικαιότερος γένοιτο, ἣ τοῖς διδάγμασι τοῖς παρὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος ἡμῖν δεδομένοις τὸν λόγον συγκρίνοντας, ὃ μὲν ἂν ἐκείνοις συμφωνοῦν εὕρωμεν καταδέχεσθαι, τῷ δὲ ἐναντίως ἔχοντι ἀπιστεῖν καὶ ὡς ἐχθρὸν ἀποφεύγειν;

### English translation (Claude)

[1] Having thus, in his arguments about the God of the universe, laid the groundwork as far as he could for his blasphemies against the Son of God, he at last let loose his tongue against the only-begotten God himself. For what does he say?

EUNOMIUS: "And one Son; for he is Only-Begotten. About him it would have been possible to be rid of all concern and trouble by citing the words of the saints in which they proclaim him both offspring and thing made, making plain by the differences of the names the difference of essence as well. But because of those who suppose the begetting to be bodily … , it is perhaps necessary to speak briefly about these things too."

BASIL: So says Eunomius. For my part, if one must think about his whole discourse as a fiction, of the kind set before boys in the schools of vanity as practice in making a falsehood plausible (for everything he does is like those exercises, a shadow-boxing: a fight against accusers who do not exist, an apology against an accusation never made, and a speech before judges who appear nowhere): if one must listen to this too in that way, I myself give up the examination and urge everyone not to trouble about anything he has said. But if the claim is something greater, and many have suspected that he has some concern for the truth, it is entirely necessary to set straight each of his statements as far as possible. What way of examining them, then, could be more just than to compare his argument with the teachings given us by the Spirit, accepting whatever we find in agreement with them, and distrusting what is contrary and fleeing it as an enemy?

### Translation notes

- Chapter 1 of Book 2 (On the Son). A few words are lost in Eunomius's sentence (marked …); Migne's notes are removed by logged corrections. The quotation is from Eunomius's Apology.
- γέννημα is rendered 'offspring', ποίημα 'thing made'.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 2.1 (PG 29; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-20/#p-2-1).

## Against Eunomius 2.2

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-20/#p-2-2
- Source: PG 29:518
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil denies that any saint called the Son a 'thing made,' and argues that Acts 2:36 ('God made him Lord and Christ') speaks of the incarnate Christ's authority, not of his coming into being.

### Greek text

Πρῶτον τοίνυν ἐκεῖνο δεικνύτω, τίνες τῶν ἁγίων … ἔχει φωνὰς τῶν Γραφῶν εἰς ἀπόδειξιν; Εἰ γὰρ τῇ τὸ … καὶ Χριστὸν ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς, τοῦτον τὸν Ἰησοῦν, ὅν ὑμεῖς ἐσταυρώσατε' πρῶτον μὲν οὐδὲν οἰκεῖον … ποίημα λέγειν τὸν ποιητὴν τῶν ὅλων; Εἰ γὰρ … ἔπρεπεν αὐτῷ προσηγορία τοιαύτη, οὐχ ἂν ἐσιωπήθη. … Θεοῦ οὐκέτι. Ἐν ἀρχῇ γὰρ ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν" καὶ πάλιν" Ἐν τοῖς … γὰρ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου τοῖς … ἢ προσκόμματος, καὶ πέτραν σκανδάλου, καὶ τοιαῦτα ἕτερα ἐν οἷς οὐ πολὺ δοκεῖ τὸ εὔφημον εἶναι τοῖς … ποίημα δὲ οὐδαμοῦ τὸ παράπαν ὠνόμασε. Καίτοι γε … οὗτος παρ᾽ αὐτῶν εἰληφέναι τῶν ἁγίων τὸ ὄνομα … τοῦτό φησιν, ἵνα ταῖς συκοφαντίαις μὴ μόνον τοὺς κατ᾽ αὐτὸν περιβάλῃ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς πάλαι γενομένους ἁγίους. Ἄνευ δὲ τοῦ μὴ χρῆναι διὰ τὸ ἐπικίνδυνον τοῖς … παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ μεταπλάττειν᾽ ἔτι οὐδὲ ἡ τοῦ Ἀποστόλου … … ἡμῖν παρίστησι, περὶ ἧς ὁ λόγος ἐν τῷ παρόντι. Οὐδὲ γὰρ περὶ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου, τοῦ ἐν ἀρχῇ ὄντος πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, ἀλλὰ περὶ τοῦ κενώσαντος ἑαυτὸν ἐν τῇ τοῦ δούλου μορφῇ, καὶ γενομένου σύμμορφον τῷ σώματι τῆς ταπεινώσεως ἡμῶν, καὶ σταυρωθέντος ἐξ ἀσθενείας, σαφῶς διαλέγεται. Καὶ τοῦτο παντὶ γνώριμον τῷ καὶ μικρὸν ἐπιστήσαντι τῆς ἀποστολικῆς λέξεως τῷ βουλήματι, ὅτι οὐχὶ θεολογίας ἡμῖν παραδίδωσι τρόπον, ἀλλὰ τοὺς τῆς οἰκονομίας λόγους παραδηλοῖ. Κύριον γὰρ, φησὶ, καὶ Χριστὸν αὑτὸν ὁ Θεὸς ἐποίησε, τοῦτον τὸν Ἰησοῦν ὃν ὑμεῖς ἐσταυρώσατε, τῇ δεικτικῇ φωνῇ μονονουχὶ πρὸς τὸ ἀνθρώπινον αὐτοῦ καὶ ὁρώμενον πᾶσι προδήλως ἐπερειδόμενος. Ὁ δὲ τὴν, ἐποίησεν, φωνὴν εἰς τὴν ἀρχῆθεν γέννησιν τοῦ Μονογενοῦς μεταφέρει. Καὶ οὐδὲ ἐκεῖνο αὐτὸν δυσωπεῖ, ὅτι τὸ, Κύριος, οὐκ οὐσίας ἐστὶν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐξουσίας ὄνομα. Ὥστε ὁ εἰπὼν, Κύριον αὐτὸν καὶ Χριστὸν ὁ Θεὸς ἐποίησε, τὴν κατὰ πάντων ἀρχὴν καὶ δεσποτείαν λέγει τὴν παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐπιτραπεῖσαν αὐτῷ, οὐ τὴν εἰς τὸ εἶναι πάροδον αὐτοῦ διηγεῖται. Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν μικρὸν ὕστερον ἐπιδείξομεν, ὅταν ἐλέγχωμεν αὐτὸν παρὰ τὸ βούλημα τοῦ Πνεύματος τὰς ἐκ τῆς Γραφῆς μαρτυρίας παρατιθέμενον " νυνὶ δὲ ἐπὶ τὰ συνεχῆ τοῦ λόγου προΐωμεν, Τί οὖν αὐτῷ βούλεται τὸ ὄνομα τοῦτο; καὶ τί δήποτε ποίημα προσαγορεύειν τὸν ποιητὴν τῶν ὅλων … οἴεται ταῖς τῶν ὀνομάτων διαφοραῖς καὶ τῆς …

### English translation (Claude)

[2] First, then, let him show this: which of the saints … has words of Scripture for proof? For if … "and Christ God has made, this Jesus whom you crucified," first of all nothing proper … to call the Maker of all things a thing made? For if … such a designation befitted him, it would not have been passed over in silence … of God no longer. For "In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth"; and again, "In …"; "[for] his invisible things from the creation of the world [are seen] by the …"; "… of stumbling and a rock of offense," and other such things in which there seems to be no great reverence … but nowhere at all did [Scripture] name him a thing made. And yet … this man [claims] to have taken the name from the saints themselves … he says this so that with his slanders he may involve not only those of his own time but also the saints of old.

[3] But apart from the fact that, because of the danger, one must not … remodel on one's own …, not even the … of the Apostle … presents to us the subject that our discussion is now about. For he is clearly speaking not about the very essence of God the Word, who was in the beginning with God, but about the one who emptied himself in the form of a servant, was conformed to the body of our humiliation, and was crucified in weakness. And this is known to anyone who pays even a little attention to the intention of the apostolic words: that he is handing down to us not a manner of theology but making known the accounts of the economy. "For God has made him Lord and Christ," he says, "this Jesus whom you crucified," pressing, with the demonstrative word, all but on his humanity, which was plainly visible to all. But this man transfers the word "made" to the original begetting of the Only-Begotten. Nor does it shame him that "Lord" is the name not of an essence but of authority. So the one who said, "God made him Lord and Christ," speaks of the rule and lordship over all that was entrusted to him by the Father; he is not describing his passage into being. We shall show this a little later, when we refute him for citing the testimonies of Scripture against the intention of the Spirit; now let us go on to what follows in his discourse. What, then, does this name mean to him? And why does he call the Maker of all things a thing made? … he thinks that by the differences of the names the … of the essence also …

### Scripture references

- Acts 2:36: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:1: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 1:20: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Pet 2:8: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:1: allusion, high confidence
- Phil 2:7: allusion, high confidence
- Phil 3:21: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Cor 13:4: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapters 2 and 3 of Book 2 (marked [2], [3]). This page of the scan is badly damaged: many Greek lines are cut short, and their remains are interleaved with Migne's Latin and with his headings for Book 2. The surviving Greek is kept and translated; lost words are marked …. Migne's book titles ('second discourse of the same, on the Son') and Latin are removed by logged corrections.
- Acts 2:36; Gen 1:1; Rom 1:20; 1 Pet 2:8 (Isa 8:14); John 1:1-2; Phil 2:7; Phil 3:21; 2 Cor 13:4.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 2.2 (PG 29:518; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-20/#p-2-2).

## Against Eunomius 2.4

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-20/#p-2-4
- Source: PG 29:518
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil argues from the names Peter and Paul that names signify distinctive features, not essences, so a difference of names cannot prove a difference of essence between Father and Son.

### Greek text

Καίτοι τίς ἂν τῷ λόγῳ τούτῳ σωφρονῶν πρόσθοιτο, ὅτι ὧν τὰ ὀνόματά ἔστι διάφορα, τούτων παρηλλάχθαι καὶ τὰς οὐσίας ἀνάγκη; Πέτρου γὰρ καὶ Παύλου, καὶ ἁπαξαπλῶς ἀνθρώπων πάντων προσηγορίαι μὲν διάφοροι, οὐσία δὲ πάντων μία. Διόπερ ἐν τοῖς πλείστοις οἱ αὐτοὶ ἀλλήλοις ἐσμεν· τοῖς δὲ ἰδιώμασι μόνοις τοῖς περὶ ἕκαστον θεῳρουμένοις ἕτερος ἑτέρου διενηνόχαμεν. Ὅθεν καὶ αἱ προσηγορίαι οὐχὶ τῶν οὐσιῶν εἰσι σημαντικαὶ, ἀλλὰ τῶν ἰδιοτήτων, αἳ τὸν καθ᾽ ἕνα χαρακτηρίζουσιν. Ὅταν οὖν ἀκούωμεν Πέτρον, οὐ τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ νοοῦμεν ἐκ τοῦ ὀνόματος (οὐσίαν δὲ λέγω νῦν τὸ ὑλικὸν ὑποκείμενον " ὅπερ οὐδαμῶς σημαίνει τοὔνομα), ἀλλὰ τῶν ἰδιωμάτων ἃ περὶ αὐτὸν θεωρεῖται, τὴν ἔννοιαν ἐντυπούμεθα. Εὐθὺς γὰρ ἐκ τῆς φωνῆς ταύτης νοοῦμεν τὸν τοῦ Ἰωνᾶ, τὸν ἐκ τῆς Βηθσαϊδᾶ, τὸν ἀδελφὸν … στολῆς προσκληθέντα, τὸν διὰ πίστεως ὑπεροχὴν ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτὸν τὴν οἱκοδομὴν τῆς Ἐκκλησίας δεξάμενον ὧν οὐδέν ἐστιν οὐσία, ὡς ἡ ὑπόστασις νοουμένη. Ὥστε τὸ ὄνομα τὸν χαρακτῆρα μὲν ἡμῖν ἀφορίζει τὸν Πέτρου " αὐτὴν δὲ οὐδαμοῦ παρίστησι τὴν οὐσίαν. Πάλιν ἀκούσαντες Παῦλον, ἑτέρων ἰδιωμάτων συνδρομὴν ἐνοήσαμεν· τὸν Ταρσέα, τὸν Ἑβραῖον, τὸν κατὰ νόμον Φαρισαῖον, τὸν μαθητὴν Γαμαλιὴλ, τὸν κατὰ ζῆλον διώκτην τῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὸν ἐκ τῆς φοβερᾶς ὀπτασίας εἰς τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν ἐναχθέντα, τὸν ἀπόστολον τῶν ἐθνῶν. Ταῦτα γὰρ πάντα ἐκ μιᾶς φωνῆς τῆς Παῦλος περιορίζεται. Καίτοιγε, εἴπερ ἀληθὲς ἦν, ὅτι ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα διενήνοχεν, ἐναντίως ἔχουσιν αἱ οὐσίαι, … καὶ Παῦλον καὶ Πέτρον καὶ ἁπαξαπλῶς ἀνθρώπους ἅπαντας ἑτερουσίους ἀλλήλοις εἶναι. Ἐπεὶ δὲ τοῦτο οὐδεὶς οὕτως ἀμαθὴς καὶ τῆς κοινῆς φύσεως ἀνεπί… γὰρ, φησὶ. διήρτισαι σὺ, ὡς κἀγώ" οὐδὲν τοῦ λόγου ἣ τὸ ὁμοούσιον πάντων ἀνθρώπων ἀποσημαίνοντος· ψευδὴς ὁ τῇ διαφορᾷ τῶν ὀνομάτων τὸ τῆς οὐσίας διάφορον ἕπεσθαι σοφιζόμενος. Οὐ γὰρ τοῖς ὀνόμασιν ἡ τῶν πραγμάτων φύσις ἀκολουθεῖ, ἀλλ᾽ ὕστερα τῶν πραγμάτων εὕρηται τὰ ὀνόματα. Εἰ γὰρ τοῦτο ἦν ἀληθὲς, ἔδει καὶ ὧν προσηγορίαι εἰσὶν αἱ αὐταί, μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν οὐσίαν εἶναι. Οὐκοῦν ἐπειδὴ οἱ κατ᾽ ἀρετὴν τέλειοι τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ προσηγορίας ἠξίωνται, ὁμοούσιοι ἂν εἶεν τῷ Θεῷ τῶν ὅλων οἱ ἄνθρωποι. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ὥσπερ τοῦτο λέγειν μανία σαφής, οὕτω κἀκεῖνος ὁ λόγος τῆς ἴσης ἔχεται παρανοίας, Φανερὸν τοίνυν ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων, ὅτι καὶ ἐπὶ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ οὐχὶ οὐσίαν παρίστησι τὰ ὀνόματα, ἀλλὰ τῶν ἰδιωμάτων ἐστὶ δηλωτικά " ὥστε μηδεμίαν εἶναι χώραν τῷ λόγῳ, ἐκ τῆς τῶν ὀνομάτων παραλλαγῆς τὴν τῶν οὐσιῶν ἐναντίωσιν παρεισάγοντι. Οὕτω δ᾽ ἂν πρὸ πάντων ἑαυτὸν καταβάλοι. Εἰ γὰρ διαφέρει ποίημά τε καὶ γέννημα, διάφοροι καὶ τοῦ Μονογενοῦς αἱ οὐσίαι, τῇ διαφορᾷ τῶν ὀνομάτων ἑπόμεναι. Εἰ δὲ τοῦτο παραφρονούντων, … οὐδὲ ἐκεῖνο καθεστηκότων. Ὁ δὲ καὶ προσποιεῖται μὲν μυρίας ἔχειν τὰς ἀποδείξεις τοῦ παρὰ τῶν ἁγίων ποίημα τὸν Υἱὸν προσειρῆσθαι· ὡς δὲ ἐφ᾽ ἕτερά τινα προηγούμενα σπεύδων, ὑπερτίθεται δῆθεν ἐν τῷ παρόντι τὴν μνήμην. Ἔστι δὲ καὶ τοῦτο τεχνικὸν τὸ κακούργημα, ἐν οἷς ἀπορεῖ λόγων, τὴν σιωπὴν προτιμᾷν. Εἰ γὰρ σκιὰν μαρτυρίας εἶχε τῆς …
… Πρὸ πάντων, … Μονογενῆ λεγούσης ποίημα, οὐχ ἂν ἐκεκώφωτο … ἡμῶν ἤδη τὰ ὦτα περιθρυλλούμενα. Εἶτά φησι, διὰ τοὺς σωματικὴν τὴν γέννησιν ὑπολαμβάνοντας τοῦ Κυρίου, καὶ ταῖς ὁμωνυμίαις προσπταίοντας, ἀναγκαῖον αὐτῷ καὶ περὶ τούτων εἶναι διὰ βραχέων εἰπεῖν. Καίτοι τί ἐκώλυε, ταῖς ἐκ τῶν Γραφῶν μαρτυρίαις τὸν λόγον ἑαυτοῦ πιστωσάμενον, οὕτως ἐπὶ τὴν διόρθωσιν τῶν ἀσθενεστέρων ἐλθεῖν, καὶ τὴν ἐκ τῆς ὁμωνυμίας βλάβην παραμυθήσασθαι, εἴ τις ἄρα γέγονέ ποτέ τισιν ἣ γενήσεται; Τίς γὰρ οὕτω παντελῶς σάρκινος τὴν διάνοιαν, καὶ θείων λόγων ἄπειρος, ὥστε, ἀκούων θείας γεννήσεως, πρὸς τὰς σωματικὰς καταφέρεσθαι φαντασίας, ἐν αἷς συμπλοκὴ μὲν ἄῤῥενος πρὸς τὸ θῆλυ, κύησις δὲ ἐν μήτρᾳ, καὶ διάπλασις, καὶ μόρφωσις, καὶ τοῖς καθήκουσι χρόνοις πρόοδος εἰς τὸ ἔξω; Τίς οὕτω κτηνώδης, ὥστε, ἀκούων Θεὸν Λόγον ἐκ Θεοῦ προελθόντα, ἀκούων δὲ σοφίαν ἐκ Θεοῦ γεννηθεῖσαν, πρὸς τὰ σώματος πάθη τοῖς λογισμοῖς καταπίπτειν;

### English translation (Claude)

[4] Yet who in his right mind would agree with this argument, that things whose names differ must also differ in essence? For the designations of Peter and Paul, and in short of all human beings, are different, but the essence of all is one. That is why in most respects we are the same as one another, and differ from one another only by the distinctive features contemplated in each. Hence designations are indicative not of essences but of the particular characteristics that mark out each individual. So when we hear "Peter," we do not understand his essence from the name (by essence I now mean the material substrate, which the name in no way signifies), but we receive the impression of the distinctive features contemplated in him. For at once from this word we think of the son of Jonah, the man from Bethsaida, the brother of … called to the apostolate, the one who because of the preeminence of his faith received upon himself the building of the church: none of these is essence, understood as substance. So the name marks out for us the character of Peter, but in no way presents his essence. Again, when we hear "Paul," we think of a concurrence of other distinctive features: the man of Tarsus, the Hebrew, as to the law a Pharisee, the disciple of Gamaliel, in zeal a persecutor of the churches of God, the one brought to knowledge by the fearful vision, the apostle of the nations. All these are delimited by the one word "Paul." And yet, if it were true that things whose names differ have opposite essences, … Paul and Peter, and in short all human beings, would be of different essence from one another. But since no one is so ignorant and so [inattentive] … to the common nature ("for you were formed," it says, "as I was," the passage signifying nothing other than that all human beings are of the same essence), the one who argues sophistically that difference of essence follows difference of names is a liar. For the nature of things does not follow the names; rather, the names were found after the things. If this were true, things whose designations are the same would have to be of one and the same essence. Then, since those perfect in virtue have been counted worthy of the designation "God," human beings would be of the same essence as the God of the universe. But just as to say this is plain madness, so that argument of his is held by an equal derangement.

[5] It is clear, then, from what has been said, that in the case of the Father and the Son too the names do not present essence but are indicative of distinctive features; so that there is no room for an argument that brings in an opposition of essences from the difference of names. In this way he would refute himself before all. For if "thing made" and "offspring" differ, the essences of the Only-Begotten also will be different, following the difference of the names. But if to say this belongs to the deranged, … neither does that belong to those in their right mind. He pretends to have countless proofs that the Son has been called a thing made by the saints; but, as though hurrying on to some other, more important matters, he supposedly defers any mention of them for now. This too is a crafty piece of mischief: to prefer silence where he is at a loss for arguments. For if he had even a shadow of testimony of the … … before all else … calling the Only-Begotten a thing made, it would not have been passed over in silence; … our ears would by now be ringing with it. Then he says that because of those who suppose the Lord's begetting to be bodily and stumble over homonyms, it is necessary for him to speak briefly about these things too. Yet what prevented him from first confirming his argument by the testimonies of Scripture, and then coming to the correction of the weaker, and to remedying the harm from the homonymy, if it has ever come or will come to anyone? For who is so entirely fleshly in mind and so inexperienced in the divine words that, on hearing of a divine begetting, he is carried down to bodily images, in which there is the union of male with female, conception in the womb, formation, shaping, and at the due times a coming forth into the open? Who is so like a beast that, hearing that God the Word came forth from God, and hearing that wisdom was begotten from God, he falls in his reasonings to the passions of the body?

### Scripture references

- John 1:42: allusion, high confidence
- John 1:44: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 16:18: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 22:3: allusion, high confidence
- Phil 3:5: allusion, high confidence
- Gal 1:13: allusion, medium confidence
- Acts 9:3: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 11:13: allusion, high confidence
- Job 33:6: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 82:6 (81:6 LXX): allusion, medium confidence
- John 8:42: allusion, medium confidence
- Prov 8:25: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 4 and the beginning of chapter 5 of Book 2 (marked [4], [5]); chapter 5 continues in staged 2.5. Lost lines are marked …; Migne's Latin and notes are removed by logged corrections. 'Essence, understood as substance' renders οὐσία … ὡς ἡ ὑπόστασις νοουμένη (ὑπόστασις here in the sense of the underlying reality).
- Peter: John 1:42, 1:44, Matt 16:18; Paul: Acts 22:3, Phil 3:5, Gal 1:13, Acts 9:3-8, Rom 11:13; Job 33:6 (Septuagint); 'gods': Ps 82:6 (LXX 81:6).
- Continuation of chapter 5 of Book 2. Lost words at the opening are marked …; Migne's Latin and notes are removed by logged corrections.
- God the Word from God: John 1:1, 8:42; wisdom begotten: Prov 8:25.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 2.4 (PG 29:518; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/1-20/#p-2-4).

## Against Eunomius 2.6

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-6/#p-2-6
- Source: PG 29:519
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil exposes Eunomius's selective concern about bodily notions of begetting, and argues that 'offspring' is a name never given to the Son in Scripture, which uses 'Son', as the Septuagint translators kept even Hebrew names untranslated out of reverence.

### Greek text

᾿Αλλὰ καὶ τοῦτο μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων εὐπρόσωπον αὐτῷ σχῆμα τῶν λόγων ἐπινενόηται, ὡς τῆς πρὸς τοὺς ἀσυνέτους τῶν ἀδελφῶν εὐσπλαγχνίας ἕνεκεν τὸν κόπον τῆς διδασκαλίας δοκεῖν καταδέχεσθαι. Καὶ τὰς μὲν σωματικὰς ὑπονοίας, τὰς ἐπὶ τῇ προσηγορίᾳ ταύτῃ ἐγγινομένας, ἐπανορθοῦται δῆθεν " τὰς δὲ ἐκ τοῦ ποίημα τὸν Κύριον ὀνομάζεσθαι βλάβας οὐ παραιτεῖται. Καίτοι ὅ γε σωματικὴν εἶναι τὴν γέννησιν φανταζόμενος, ὁ αὐτὸς ἂν καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς ὑλικοὺς τῆς ποιήσεως τρόπους ὑπενεχθείη. Οὐ γὰρ δήπου μερισμὸν μέν τινα καὶ μετάστασιν καὶ ῥύσιν τῆς τοῦ γεννῶντος οὐσίας ἐκ τῆς φωνῆς τοῦ γεννᾶν ὁ ἀσθενὴς ἐννοήσει " ὕλην δὲ ἔξωθεν ἐκ τοῦ δὴ ὄντος εἰσενεχθεῖσαν εἰς τὴν, ὡς ὑμεῖς φατε, τοῦ … Τίνος οὖν ἕνεκεν τὰ ἀῤῥωστήματα τῶν λογισμῶν τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἐξ ἡμισείας ἰᾶται, καὶ τῶν … τοὺς τῇ προσηγορίᾳ τοῦ ποιήματος περιπταίοντας παρορᾷ; Ὅτι τὸ μὲν γεγεννῆσθαι πολέμιον οἶδε τοῖς δόγμασιν ἑαυτοῦ, τοῦ γεννηθέντος οἰκείως ἔχειν ὀφείλοντος πάντως καὶ ἀπαραλλάκτως πρὸς τὸν γεννήσαντα " τὸ δὲ πεποιῆσθαι φίλον καὶ σύμμαχον ταῖς ἑαυτοῦ ὑποθέσεσι, διὰ τὸ ἀλλοτρίου καὶ ξένου, καὶ πάντη ἀνοικείου πρὸς τὸν ποιήσαντα τὴν ἔννοιαν παριστᾷν. Εἶτα τούτοις ἐπισυνάπτει λέγων " ΕΥ̓͂Ν. Γέννημα τοίνυν τὸν Υἱόν φαμεν, κατὰ τὴν τῶν Γραφῶν διδασκαλίαν" οὐχ ἕτερον μέν τι τὴν οὐσίαν νοοῦντες, ἕτερον δέ τι παρ᾽ αὑτὴν τὸ σημαινόμενον, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὴν εἶναι τὴν ὑπόστασιν, ἣν σημαίνει τοὔνομα ἐπαληθευούσης τῇ οὐσίᾳ τῆς προσηγορίας. ΒΑΣ. Καὶ ἐν τούτοις τοίνυν τῇ μὲν ἀληθείᾳ φανερῶς διαμάχεται, ἑαυτῷ δὲ ὅμως ἀκόλουθα λέγει. Ὡς γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ἄνω λόγοις τὸ ἀγέννητον ἐπὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῶν ὅλων τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ διωρίζετο εἶναι σημαντικὸν, οὕτω καὶ ἐνταῦθα τὸ γέννημα τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ Υἱοῦ σημαίνειν λέγει - ἵν᾽ ἐν τῇ τοῦ γεννητοῦ πρὸς τὸ ἀγέννητον ἀντιθέσει ἐναντίως ἔχοντα τῷ Πατρὶ τὸν Μονογενῆ κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν αὑτὴν ἐπιδείξῃ. Διὰ ταῦτα νομοθετεῖ ῥήματα ἔξω τῆς χρήσεως ὄντα τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος, γέννημα τὸν Υἱὸν ὀνομάζων. Πόθεν λαβών; ἐκ ποίας διδασκαλίας : τίνος προφήτου; τίνος τῶν ἀποστόλων ταύτην αὐτῷ τὴν προσωνυμίαν ἐπιφημίσαντος; Ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ οὐδαμοῦ τῆς Γραφῆς κειμένην οὕτω τὴν φωνὴν ταύτην εὗρον. Καίτοι οὐδαμόθεν οὗτος ἣ ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Πνεύματος διδασκαλίας εἰληφέναι τὰς προσηγορίας ταύτας ἀλαζονεύεται. Μικρὸν γὰρ αὐτῷ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἀγῶνα παρέχειν, εἰ μὴ καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Πνεύματος κατατολμήσειε. Γεγεννηκέναι μὲν γὰρ τὸν Πατέρα πολλαχοῦ δεδιδάγμεθα " γέννημα δὲ εἶναι τὸν Υἱὸν οὐδέπω καὶ τήμερον ἀκηκόαμεν· Παιδίον γὰρ, φησὶν, ἐγεννήθη ἡμῖν" υἱὸς καὶ ἐδόθη ἡμῖν" καὶ καλεῖται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ οὐχὶ γέννημα, ἀλλὰ Μεγάλης βουλῆς ἄγγελος. Καίτοι εἴπερ τὸ γέννημα οὐσίας ὑπῆρχε σημαντικόν, οὐχ ἂν ἕτερον ὄνομα παρὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐδιδάχθημεν, ἣ ὅπερ ἐμφανῶς τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ παριστᾷν ἔμελλε. Καὶ πάλιν ὁ Πέτρος, ὁ διὰ τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας ἐπίγνωσιν τῶν μακαρισμῶν ἐκείνων ἀξιωθεὶς, οὐχ εἶπε, Σὺ εἴ τὸ γέννημα" ἀλλὰ, Σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος. Καὶ ὁ Παῦλος, πᾶσαν αὑτοῦ τὴν γραφὴν τῆς τοῦ Υἱοῦ προσηγορίας καταπληρώσας, οὐδαμοῦ φανήσεται γεννήματος μνημονεύσας· ὅπερ οὗτος ἐκ πολλῆς τῆς πεποιθήσεως, ὡς ἐκ τοῦ θείου λαβὼν διδασκαλείου, προ… … ἐγέννησε, φωνὴν ἐπὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς κειμένην μεταφέρειν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Οὐ γὰρ ὅπερ ἂν ἐκ τῆς τῶν τούτῳ τόν … τῷ θείῳ φόβῳ πεπαιδευμένον προσέχει, ἀλλ' ἀγαπᾷν, τοῖς ἐν τῇ Γραφῇ κειμένοις ὀνόμασιν ἐπιμένοντα, διὰ τούτων θεοπρεπῶς τὴν δοξολογίαν ἀποπληροῦν. Εἰ γὰρ οἱ ἐξ ἀρχῆς τὴν Ἑβραίων διάλεκτον εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα γλῶσσαν μεταβαλόντες τινῶν ὀνομάτων τῆς ἑρμηνείας οὐ κατετόλμησαν, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὴν τὴν Ἑβραϊκὴν φωνὴν μετεκόμισαν" ὡς τὸ Σαβαὼθ, καὶ τὸ ᾿Αδωναὶ, καὶ τὸ Ἐλωΐ, καὶ εἴ τι τοιοῦτον, οὐχ ἐπὶ τῶν θείων ὀνομάτων μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπὶ ἄλλων πλειόνων τὴν εὐλάβειαν ταύτην ἐπιδεικνύμενοι" πόσον τινὰ προσῆκεν ἡμᾶς περὶ τῶν τοῦ Κυρίου ὀνομάτων τὸν φόβον ἔχειν; Καίτοι πότε ἂν ἐκεῖνο παρ᾽ ἑαυτῶν τινα πλάσαι τῶν ὀνομάτων ἠνέσχοντο, οἵγε μηδὲ τῆς ἑρμηνείας τινῶν καταθαῤῥήσαντες, ὡς ἂν μὴ τὸ ἐναργὲς τῆς ἐμφάσεως τῷ ἀκαταλλήλῳ τῶν σημαινομένων ἐκλύσειαν.

### English translation (Claude)

[6] But he has devised this too, along with the rest, as a specious form for his arguments: to seem to take on the labor of teaching out of compassion for the brothers who lack understanding. The bodily suspicions arising from this designation he supposedly corrects; but the harm from calling the Lord a thing made he does not avoid. Yet the one who imagines the begetting to be bodily would also be carried down to the material ways of making. For surely the weak person, from the word "beget," will not conceive a division, transfer, and flowing out of the begetter's essence, without [also conceiving] a matter brought in from outside, from what [is not], into the [constitution] of what you call … ? Why then does he heal the infirmities of the brothers' reasonings by halves, and … overlook those who stumble at the designation "thing made"? Because he knows that "having been begotten" is hostile to his doctrines, since what is begotten must surely be akin to the begetter and without difference from him; whereas "having been made" is friendly and allied to his hypotheses, because it presents the notion of something alien, foreign, and wholly unrelated to its maker. Then he adds to this, saying:

EUNOMIUS: "We say, then, that the Son is offspring according to the teaching of the Scriptures, not understanding the essence to be one thing and what is signified something else besides it, but that the subsistence itself is what the name signifies, since the designation is true of the essence."

BASIL: In this too, then, he openly fights against the truth, yet says what is consistent with himself. For just as in his earlier arguments he defined "unbegotten" in the God of the universe as signifying his essence, so here too he says that "offspring" signifies the essence of the Son, so that by the opposition of begotten to unbegotten he may show the Only-Begotten opposed to the Father in his very essence. That is why he legislates words outside the usage of the divine Spirit, calling the Son "offspring." Where did he get it? From what teaching? From which prophet? Which of the apostles applied this name to him? For my part, I have found this word used in this way nowhere in Scripture.

[7] And yet this man boasts that he has taken these designations from nowhere but the teaching of the Spirit. For it is a small thing to him to give trouble to human beings unless he also makes bold against the Spirit himself. That the Father has begotten we have been taught in many places; but that the Son is "offspring" we have not heard to this day. "For a child," it says, "is born to us, a son is given to us, and his name is called" not "offspring" but "Angel of great counsel." Yet if "offspring" were indicative of essence, we would have been taught by the Spirit no other name than the one that would plainly present his essence. And again Peter, who for his knowledge of the truth was counted worthy of that blessing, did not say, "You are the offspring," but, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Paul, who filled all his writing with the designation "Son," will nowhere be found to have mentioned "offspring." This man, from great self-confidence, as though he had received it from the divine school, … transferring to the Son of God the word "begot," which belongs to the Father. For the one trained in the fear of God does not attend to what … , but loves to persist in the names found in Scripture and through them to render the glorification in a manner befitting God. For if those who first translated the Hebrew tongue into the Greek language did not dare to translate some names, but carried over the Hebrew word itself, such as "Sabaoth," "Adonai," "Eloi," and the like, showing this reverence not only with the divine names but with many others as well, how great a fear ought we to have about the names of the Lord? When would they have endured to make up any of the names of their own accord, they who did not even dare to translate some, lest by the unsuitability of the meanings they should weaken the clarity of the expression?

### Scripture references

- Isa 9:6 (9:5 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Matt 16:16: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 16:17: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapters 6 and 7 of Book 2 (marked [6], [7]). Lost lines are marked …; Migne's Latin and notes are removed by logged corrections. 'From what [is not]' translates a damaged reading (ἐκ τοῦ δὴ ὄντος in the scan) by its evident sense.
- Isa 9:6 (LXX 9:5, 'Angel of great counsel'); Matt 16:16-17. 'Sabaoth', 'Adonai', 'Eloi': Hebrew words left untranslated in the Greek Bible.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 2.6 (PG 29:519; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-6/#p-2-6).

## Against Eunomius 2.8

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-6/#p-2-8
- Source: PG 29:519
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil argues that Scripture calls the Lord 'Son' but never 'offspring,' a word used of unformed miscarriages, crops, and the 'offspring of vipers.'

### Greek text

Ἀλλ᾽ εἰ ἐγέννησε, φησὶν, ὁ Θεὸς, πῶς οὐ χρὴ τὸν γεννηθέντα προσαγορεύειν γέννημα; Ὅτι φοβερὸν ἡμῖν ἡμετέροις αὐτὸν ὀνόμασι προσφωνεῖν, ᾧ ἐχαρίσατο ὁ Θεὸς ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα, Υἱός μου εἶ σὺ, φησὶν, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε. Καίτοι ἀκολουθότερον ἦν κατὰ τὸν τούτων λόγον, διὰ τὸ γεγεννῆσθαι, γέννημα προσαγορευθῆναι, καὶ οὐχ Υἱόν" ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ εἴρηται. Διόπερ χρὴ τὸν πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ἔχοντα τὸ Χριστοῦ δικαστήριον, καὶ εἰδότα ὅσος ὁ κίνδυνος ἀφελεῖν τι ἢ προσθεῖναι τοῖς παραδεδομένοις ὑπὸ τοῦ Πνεύματος, μὴ παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ φιλοτιμεῖσθαι καινοτομεῖν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς προκατηγγελμένοις παρὰ τῶν ἁγίων ἐφησυχάζειν. Ὃ τοίνυν οὔτε ἡ κοινὴ συνήθεια, οὔτε ἡ τῶν Γραφῶν χρῆσις παραδέ. τούτου κατατολμᾷν πῶς οὐχὶ τῆς ἐσχάτης ἀπονοίας ἐστί; Τίς γὰρ πατὴρ ἣ μήτηρ εὐμενῶς καὶ ἡμέρως πρὸς τὸν ἐξ αὐτοῦ διακείμενος, ἀφεὶς τὸ προσαγορεύειν αὐτὸν υἱὸν ἢ τέκνον, γέννημα ἂν προσείποι; Τέκνον γὰρ, φησὶν, ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν ἀμπελῶνα· καὶ ἀλλαχοῦ" Ὁ Θεὸς ὄψεται ἑαυτῷ πρόβατον εἰς σφαγὴν, τέκνον" καὶ πάλιν ὁ Ἰσαάκ" Τίς εἶ, τέκνον; καὶ, Υἱέ, μὴ ὀλιγώρει παιδείας … τοιοῦτον, Οὐδαμοῦ δὲ γέννημα τὸν ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἕκαστος προσειπὼν ἐπιδείκνυται. Καὶ ἡ αἰτία σαφής· ὅτι ὁ μὲν υἱὸς καὶ τὸ τέκνον ἐμψύχων εἰσὶν ὀνόματα, τὸ γέννημα δὲ οὐ πάντως, Γέννημα μὲν γὰρ δύναται λέγεσθαι καὶ τὸ πρὸ τοῦ ἐξεικονισθῆναι ἐν ταῖς ἀμβλώσεσιν ἐκβαλλόμενον " οὐ μὴν καὶ τῆς τοῦ τέκνου προσηγορίας ἄξιον τὸ τοιοῦτον. Καὶ γεννήματα μὲν καρποὶ τῆς γῆς, τέκνα δὲ ταῦτα οὐκέτι. Οὐ γὰρ μὴ πίω, φησὶν, ἐκ τοῦ γεννήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ταύτης. Σπανίως δὲ ἐπὶ ἐμψύχων τὴν προσηγορίαν τὴν παραληφθεῖσαν εὕρομεν. Καὶ ὅπου γε εἴρηται, ἐπὶ ζώου κατηγορουμένου καὶ εἰς εἰκόνα πονηρίας παραληφθέντος ἔστιν ἰδεῖν. Ὄφεις γάρ, φησὶ, γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν. Διὰ τοῦτο, οἶμαι, ἥ τε κοινὴ συνήθεια τὴν προσηγορίαν ταύτην ἡτίμασε, καὶ ἡ θεία Γραφὴ παραιτουμένη φαίνεται, καὶ μάλιστα ἐπὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ. ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ τὴν τέκνου προσηγορίαν, ὡς πολὺ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον ἔχουσαν, οὐ προσήκατο. Δηλοῖ δὲ ὁ ᾿Απόστολος, Υἱὸν μὲν ἄνω καὶ κάτω τὸν Κύριον ἀποκαλῶν, καὶ … καὶ εἰκόνα, καὶ ἀπαύγασμα" τὴν δὲ τοῦ γεννήματος προσηγορίαν ἀποφυγών. Εἰ δὲ φησιν οὗτος, δειξάτω, ἢ ἄλλος τις τῶν προϊσταμένων τοῦ λόγου, καὶ πάντα αὐτοῖς δώσομεν ἀπαλεῖψαι. ᾿Αλλ᾽ οὐχ ἂν ἔχοι" εἰ μὴ ἄρα μιμούμενος τὸν ἀσεβῆ Μαρκίωνα, τὰ … Οὕτω μὲν οὖν ἀλλοτρία τῆς τε κοινῆς συνηθείας καὶ τῆς τῶν Γραφῶν χρήσεως ἡ φωνὴ τοῦ γεννήματος ἀπελήλεγκται.

### English translation (Claude)

[8] "But if God begot," he says, "why should one not call the one begotten offspring?" Because it is a fearful thing for us to address with names of our own the one to whom God has given the name that is above every name: "You are my Son," he says, "today I have begotten you." Yet by their argument it would have been more consistent for him to be called offspring rather than Son, because he was begotten; but this has not been said. Therefore the one who has the judgment seat of Christ before his eyes, and knows how great is the danger of taking anything away from or adding anything to what has been handed down by the Spirit, must not be eager to innovate on his own, but must rest content with what was proclaimed beforehand by the saints. What, then, neither common usage nor the usage of the Scriptures has received—how is it not the height of folly to venture on it? For what father or mother, kindly and gently disposed toward the one born of them, would leave off calling him son or child and call him offspring? "Child," it says, "go into the vineyard"; and elsewhere, "God will provide for himself a sheep for the slaughter, my child"; and again Isaac: "Who are you, my child?" and, "My son, do not make light of discipline" … ; but nowhere is anyone shown to have called his own "offspring." The reason is plain: "son" and "child" are names of living beings, but "offspring" is not always so. For even what is cast out in miscarriages before it has taken form can be called offspring, but such a thing is not worthy of the name "child." The fruits of the earth are offspring, but they are not children: "I will not drink," it says, "of this offspring of the vine." We have found the name applied to living beings rarely, and where it is used, one can see it said of an animal under reproach and taken as an image of wickedness: "Serpents," it says, "offspring of vipers." That is why, I think, common usage has held this name in no honor, and divine Scripture is seen to decline it, especially in speaking of the only-begotten Son of God. It did not even admit the name "child," as having much that is human about it. The Apostle shows this, calling the Lord "Son" again and again, and … and image and radiance, but avoiding the designation "offspring." But if [it is said anywhere], let this man show it, or any other of the leaders of this teaching, and we will let them strike out everything. But he could not, unless, imitating the impious Marcion, he … Thus the word "offspring" has been proved foreign both to common usage and to the usage of the Scriptures.

### Scripture references

- Phil 2:9: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 2:7: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 5:10: allusion, medium confidence
- Deut 4:2: echo, medium confidence
- Matt 21:28: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 22:8: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 27:18: quotation, high confidence
- Prov 3:11: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 26:29: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 23:33: quotation, high confidence
- Col 1:15: allusion, medium confidence
- Heb 1:3: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 8 of Book 2. Lost lines are marked …; Migne's Latin and notes are removed by logged corrections. Marcion is mentioned as one who cut down the Scriptures.
- Phil 2:9; Ps 2:7; the judgment seat: 2 Cor 5:10; not adding or taking away: Deut 4:2; Matt 21:28; Gen 22:8; Gen 27:18; Prov 3:11 (Heb 12:5); Matt 26:29; Matt 23:33 (3:7); image and radiance: Col 1:15, Heb 1:3.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 2.8 (PG 29:519; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-6/#p-2-8).

## Against Eunomius 2.9

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-6/#p-2-9
- Source: PG 29:519
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil argues that 'offspring' is a relative term, like 'son' or 'friend,' which indicates a relation, not an essence.

### Greek text

Ἴδωμεν δὲ λοιπὸν εἰ δυνατὸν τὸ ὄνομα τοῦτο κατ᾽ αὐτῆς τετάχθαι τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Υἱοῦ. Φησὶ γὰρ αὐτός· ΕΥ̓͂Ν. ᾿Αδύνατον εἶναι ἕτερον μέν τι τὴν οὐσίαν νοεῖν, ἕτερον δέ τι παρ᾽ αὑτὴν τὸ σημαινόμενον, ἀλλ᾽ αὑτὴν εἶναι τὴν ὑπόστασιν, ἣν σημαίνει τοὔνομα ἐπαληθευούσης τῇ οὐσίᾳ τῆς προσηγορίας. ΒΑΣ. Ἄξιά γε ὡς ἀληθῶς τῶν δικαστῶν, οὓς ἀνέπλασας, ταυτί σου τὰ δόγματα, Ὡς γὰρ ἐν ὀνείρῳ … ἀγορᾷ, ἢ ἐκκλησίᾳ μεθυόντων, καὶ οὐδενὸς οὔτε ἀκούοντος οὔτε συνιέντος τῶν λεγομένων, ἐπὶ πολλῆς τῆς ἀδείας νομοθετεῖς, ἀντὶ πάσης ἀποδείξεως ἐξαρκεῖν ἡγούμενος τὸ αὐτὸς εἰρηκέναι. Ἐπεὶ τίς οὐχ οἶδεν, ὅτι τῶν ὀνομάτων τὰ μὲν ἀπολελυμένως καὶ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὰ προφερόμενα τῶν ὑποκειμένων αὐτοῖς πραγμάτων ἐστὶ σημαντικὰ, τὰ δὲ πρὸς ἕτερα λεγόμενα τὴν σχέσιν μόνην ἐμφαίνει τὴν πρὸς ἃ λέγεται; Οἷον, ἄνθρωπος μὲν, καὶ ἵππος, καὶ βοῦς, αὐτὸ ἔκαστον τῶν ὀνομαζομένων παρίστησιν· υἱὸς δὲ, ἣ δοῦλος, ἣ φίλος, μόνης τῆς πρὸς τὸ συνεζευγμένον ὄνομα συναφείας ἐστὶ δηλωτικά. Ὁ τοίνυν ἀκούσας γεννήματος οὐχ ἐπί τινα οὐσίαν τῇ διανοίᾳ φέρεται, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ἑτέρῳ ἐστὶ συναπτόμενον ἐννοεῖ. Τὸ γὰρ γέννημά τινος λέγεται γέννημα. Ὁ μέντοι οὐχ ὑποστάσεώς τινος ἔννοιαν ἐμποιεῖ ἀλλὰ μόνην τὴν πρὸς ἕτερον σχέσιν ἀποσημαίνει, τοῦτο οὐσίαν εἶναι νομοθετεῖν πῶς οὐ τῆς ἀνωτάτω παραπληξίας ἐστί; Καίτοιγε μικρὸν ἔμπροσθεν ἐδείκνυτο παρ᾽ ἡμῶν, ὅτι καὶ τὰ ἀπολελυμένα τῶν ὀνομάτων, κἂν τὰ μάλιστα δοκῇ ὑποκείμενόν τι δηλοῦν, οὐχ αὐτὴν παρίστησι τὴν οὐσίαν, ἰδιώματα δέ τινὰ περὶ αὐτὴν ἀφορίζει.

### English translation (Claude)

[9] Let us now see whether this name can be ranged against the very essence of the Son. For he himself says:

EUNOMIUS: "It is impossible to conceive the essence as one thing and what is signified as something else besides it; rather, the subsistence itself is what the name signifies, since the designation is true of the essence."

BASIL: Truly worthy of the judges whom you yourself fashioned are these doctrines of yours! For as if in a dream … in a marketplace or an assembly of drunkards, where no one either hears or understands what is said, you legislate with great license, thinking it enough, in place of all proof, that you yourself have said it. For who does not know that some names, uttered absolutely and by themselves, signify the things that underlie them, while others, said in relation to something else, show only the relation to that to which they are said? For example, "man," "horse," and "ox" each present the thing named; but "son," "slave," or "friend" indicate only the connection with the name joined to them. So the one who hears "offspring" is not carried in thought to some essence, but understands that it is joined to another; for an offspring is called the offspring of someone. What, then, produces the notion not of some subsistence but signifies only the relation to another—how is it not the height of madness to legislate that this is essence? Yet a little before, we showed that even the absolute names, however much they seem to indicate some substrate, do not present the essence itself, but mark off certain distinctive features about it.

### Translation notes

- Chapter 9 of Book 2. Lost words after 'in a dream' are marked …; Migne's Latin and a note of variant readings are removed by logged corrections.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 2.9 (PG 29:519; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-6/#p-2-9).

## Against Eunomius 2.10

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-6/#p-2-10
- Source: PG 29:519
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil shows that if 'offspring' named an essence, all offspring would share one essence and the Son would be the essence of the Father himself.

### Greek text

᾿Αλλ ὁ σοφώτατος, καὶ ταῖς ματαιοτεχνίαις ἅπαντα τὸν βίον ἐσχολακὼς, οὐχ ἐρυθριᾷ αὐτὴν τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ Μονογενοῦς σημαίνειν λέγων τὸ γέννημα. Τοῦτο δὲ ὅσην τὴν ἀτοπίαν ἔχει, σκοπεῖτε. Εἰ γὰρ ἡ οὐσία γέννημα, καὶ ἀνάπαλιν, εἴ τι γέννημα, τοῦτο οὐσία - ὁμοούσια τὰ γεννήματα πάντα ἀλλήλοις ἔσται. Ἐκ δὴ τούτου τί συμβήσεται κατὰ τὸν τούτου λόγον; Ὁ δημιουργὸς τῶν ὅλων πᾶσι τοῖς γεννήσεως μετειληφόσι τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχων οὐσίαν ἀναφανήσεται. Οὐ γὰρ δὴ ἐπὶ μὲν τοῦ Υἱοῦ οὐσίαν φήσει σημαίνειν τὸ γέννημα, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν λοιπῶν τῶν μετεχόντων γενέσεως οὐκέτι τὴν αὐτὴν ἔννοιαν ἀποσώζειν. Ἐπεὶ λεγέτω τινὰ αἰτίαν σαφῆ καὶ ἀναντίρρητον τοῦ τὴν αὐτὴν προσηγορίαν μὴ ἐπὶ πάντων ὁμοίως τὸ ἴσον δύνασθαι. ᾿Αλλ᾽ οὐχ ἂν ἔχοι. Ὃν γὰρ ἂν ἐπινοήσῃ γεννήματος λόγον, οὗτος πᾶσιν ὁμοίως τοῖς γεννητοῖς ἐφαρμόσει. Μέγιστον δὲ τεκμήριον τῆς ἀληθείας τοῦ λόγου ἡ αὐτοῦ ἑκάστου τῶν ἀκουόντων διάνοια. Ἐρωτάτω γὰρ ἕκαστος ἑαυτόν, ᾿ ἐπειδὰν ἀκούσῃ, Ὁ δεῖνα τοῦ δεῖνος γέννημα, τίνα ἔννοιαν ἐντυποῦται. Ἆρα ὅτι ὁ γεννηθεὶς οὐσία τοῦ γεγεννηκότος ἐστίν; Ἢ τοῦτο μὲν κατα. ἐκεῖνο δὲ ἀληθὲς, ὅτι παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ γεννητῶς εἰς τὸ εἶναι παρήχθη. Τοῦτο τοίνυν ὁμοίως ἐπί τε ποῦ Μονογενοῦς καὶ ἐφ᾽ οὑτινοσοῦν τῶν γεννηθέντων ἁρμόσει λέγεσθαι, Καὶ μηδεὶς κοινὸν τὸ τῆς σχέσεως) καθαίρεσιν εἶναι τῆς ἀξίας τοῦ Μονογενοῦς νομιζέτω. Οὐ γὰρ ἐν τῷ πρός τί πως ἔχειν ἡ διαφορὰ τῷ Υἱῷ πρὸς τὰ ἄλλα, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῇ ἰδιότητι τῆς οὐσίας ἡ ὑπεροχὴ τοῦ θεοῦ πρὸς τὰ θνητὰ διαφαίνεται, Σκοπεῖτε μέντοι ποῦ τῆς ἀτοπίας ὁ τούτων λόγος ἐκφέρει. Εἰ τὸ γέννημα ἑτέρου λέγεται γέννημα, ὡς ἥ τε κοινὴ συνήθεια βεβαιοῖ, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀντερεῖ, ταυτὸ δὲ τοῦτο καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ οὐσίαν σημαίνει, κατὰ τὸν τούτων λόγον ἐκείνου ἔσται οὐσία, οὗ καὶ γέννημα λέγεται. Ἔσται τοίνυν ἐκ τῆς ἀκολουθίας ταύτης οὐκέτι τοῦ Μονογενοῦς τὴν οὐσίαν ἡ τοῦ γεννήματος προσηγορία σημαίνουσα, ὅπερ οὗτοι βιάζονται, ἀλλὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῶν ὅλων. Εἰ γὰρ οὐχ οἷόν τε ἕτερον μέν τι τὴν οὐσίαν νοεῖν, ἕτερον δέ τι παρ᾽ αὐτὴν τὸ γέννημα, καὶ ἴσον δύναται, οὐσίαν τε εἰπεῖν καὶ γέννημα " τοῦ θεοῦ δέ ἐστι γέννημα ὁ Υἱός, τοῦ Θεοῦ ἔσται οὐσία, εἴπερ τὸ γέννημα τὴν οὐσίαν δηλοῖ. Καὶ οὕτω τὸ γέννημα οὐσία τοῦ ἀγεννήτου κατὰ τὸν τούτου λόγον ἀναφανήσεται. Εἰ δὲ γελοῖον τὸ συναγόμενον, ὁ θεὶς τὰ λήμματα τῆς αἰσχύνης κληρονομείτω. Ἔοικε γάρ πως ὁ λόγος, ἐπειδὰν ἅπαξ τῆς ἀληθείας παρενεχθῇ, εἰς πολλὰς καὶ ἐπικινδύνους ἀτοπίας ὑπὸ τῆς κατὰ τὴν πλάνην ἀκολουθίας ἐκφέρεσθαι.

### English translation (Claude)

[10] But this wisest of men, who has spent his whole life in the pursuits of vain artistry, does not blush to say that "offspring" signifies the very essence of the Only-Begotten. See how much absurdity this involves. If essence is offspring, and conversely, if anything is offspring, it is essence, then all offspring will be of the same essence as one another. What follows from this by his reasoning? The Creator of all will appear to have the same essence as everything that has a share in generation. For he will surely not say that in the case of the Son "offspring" signifies essence, but in the case of the rest that share in generation it no longer keeps the same sense. Or let him give some clear and incontrovertible reason why the same designation does not have equal force for all alike. But he could not. For whatever account of "offspring" he devises will fit all begotten things alike. The greatest evidence of the truth of the argument is the mind of each hearer. Let each one ask himself, when he hears "so-and-so is the offspring of so-and-so," what notion he forms. Is it that the one begotten is the essence of the begetter? Or is this ridiculous, and that true, that he was brought into being by him by way of begetting? This, then, can be said alike of the Only-Begotten and of anyone at all who has been begotten. And let no one think (since the relation is common) that this lowers the dignity of the Only-Begotten. For the Son's difference from the others lies not in standing in a certain relation; rather, the superiority of God over mortal things appears in the distinctive character of the essence. But see to what absurdity their argument carries them. If "offspring" is said to be the offspring of another, as common usage confirms and no one will deny, and this very word, according to their argument, signifies essence in the case of the Son as well, he will be the essence of that one of whom he is also called the offspring. So by this sequence the designation "offspring" will no longer signify the essence of the Only-Begotten, as they insist by force, but that of the God of the universe. For if it is not possible to conceive the essence as one thing and the offspring as something else besides it, and one may equally say, so to speak, essence and offspring, and the Son is the offspring of God, he will be the essence of God, if indeed "offspring" shows the essence. And so, by his argument, the offspring will turn out to be the essence of the unbegotten. If the conclusion is ridiculous, let the one who laid down the premises inherit the shame. For it seems that an argument, once it has strayed from the truth, is carried by the logic of its error into many dangerous absurdities.

### Translation notes

- Chapter 10 of Book 2. Migne's Latin and notes are removed by logged corrections.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 2.10 (PG 29:519; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-6/#p-2-10).

## Against Eunomius 2.11

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-6/#p-2-11
- Source: PG 29:519
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil exposes the sophism in Eunomius's claim that the Son's essence 'was not before its own constitution,' showing that it implies the Son came from nothing and the Father became Father later.

### Greek text

Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ὥσπερ προαγῶνές τινες καὶ κατασκευαὶ τῆς βλασφημίας εἰσί" τὸ δὲ κεφάλαιον τοῦ κακοῦ ἐν τοῖς ἑξῆς ἐπιφέρει λέγων· … οὖσαν πρὸ τῆς ἰδίας συστάσεως, εἶναι δὲ γεννηθεῖσαν πρὸ πάντων γνώμῃ τοῦ Πατρός. ΒΑΣ. Ἔτι τῶν αὐτῶν ἔχεται τεχνασμάτων. Περὶ τῆς οὐσίας ἡμῖν τοῦ Υἱοῦ διαλέγεται, ὡς δή τι ἕτερον λέγων παρ᾽ αὑτὴν τὸν Υἱὸν, καὶ τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ προημεροῦ τῇ βλασφημίᾳ τὴν ἀκοήν· οὐχ ἐκ τοῦ προφανοῦς λέγων ἐκ μὴ ὄντων γεγεννῆσθαι τὸν Υἱὸν, ἀλλὰ τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ γεγεννῆσθαι οὐκ οὖσαν. Πρὸ τίνος οὐχ οὖσαν; εἰπέ. Θεωρεῖτε αὑτοῦ τὸ σόφισμα; Αὐτὴν ἑαυτῇ συγκρίνει, ἵνα πᾶσι δὴ ἀνεκτὰ δόξῃ λέγειν, οὐχὶ πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων λέγων αὖτὴν μὴ εἶναι, οὐδὲ ἁπλῶς μὴ εἶναι, ἀλλὰ πρὸ τῆς ἰδίας συστάσεως. Τὴν δὲ τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσίαν, εἰπέ μοι, πρεσβυτέραν εἶναι σὺ φὴς τῆς ἰδίας συστάσεως; Εἰ μὲν γὰρ οὐχ ὑποβάλλει χρόνοις τοῦ Υἱοῦ τὴν οὐσίαν, οὐδὲ τὸ πρότερον κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν λόγον ἐπινοεῖ, μάταιος μὲν αὐτῷ καὶ ἀργὸς ὁ λόγος, διόπερ οὐδὲ ἀποκρίσεως ἄξιος. Οὐχ ἦττον μέντοι καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῶν ὅλων ὑπάρξει τοῖς βουλομένοις μετακομίζειν τὴν ματαιότητα. Τό τε γὰρ οὐχ εἶναι λέγειν τὸν Θεὸν πρὸ τῆς ἰδίας συστάσεως, καὶ τὸ εἶναι λέγειν πρὸ ἑαυτοῦ, τῆς αὐτῆς ἐστιν ἀφροσύνης. Εἰ δὲ χρονικῶς ἐπὶ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Υἱοῦ τὸ πρότερον δέχεται, καὶ ἐκ μὴ ὄντων φήσει τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ γεγεννῆσθαι, μᾶλλον δὲ αὐτὸν τὸν Υἱόν οὐδὲν γὰρ διαφέρει πρός γε αὐτὴν τὴν διάνοιαν οὕτως ἣ οὕτω λέγειν " πρῶτον μὲν χρόνον δεύτερον τίθεται, εἰ δὲ βούλει, καὶ αἰώνων, τὸν ποιητὴν τῶν αἰώνων" ἔπειτα μέντοι ἀκολουθῶν ταῖς ἑαυτοῦ βλασφημίαις, καὶ τὸν Πατέρα φήσει, οὐχ ὄντα Πατέρα τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς, εἶτα ὕστερον γεγονέναι.

### English translation (Claude)

[11] These things, then, are like preliminary bouts and preparations for the blasphemy; but the chief point of the evil he brings forward in what follows, saying:

EUNOMIUS: "… [the essence of the Son was begotten], not being before its own constitution, but existing, having been begotten before all things by the will of the Father."

BASIL: He still holds to the same tricks. He discusses with us the essence of the Son as though he meant the Son to be something other than it, and in this way he tames our hearing in advance for the blasphemy, not saying openly that the Son was begotten from things that are not, but that his essence was begotten, not being. Not being before what? Tell me. Do you see his sophism? He compares the essence with itself, so that he may seem to say what everyone can tolerate, saying not that it was not before the ages, nor simply that it was not, but that it was not before its own constitution. And the essence of the Father, tell me: do you say that it is older than its own constitution? If he does not subject the essence of the Son to times, and does not conceive "before" in this sense, his argument is vain and idle, and therefore not worth an answer. Indeed, those who wish will be able to transfer this vanity no less to the God of the universe; for to say that God was not before his own constitution and to say that he was before himself belong to the same folly. But if he takes "before" in a temporal sense in the case of the Son's essence, he will also say that his essence was begotten from things that are not, or rather the Son himself (for, as far as the meaning goes, it makes no difference to speak one way or the other). First, he makes the maker of the ages second to time, or to the ages if you prefer; and then, following his own blasphemies, he will say that the Father too was not Father from the beginning but became so later.

### Scripture references

- Heb 1:2: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 11 of Book 2. The opening of Eunomius's sentence is lost in the scan (marked …; the bracketed words give its evident subject). Migne's Latin and notes of variant readings are removed by logged corrections. The quotation is from Eunomius's Apology.
- 'Maker of the ages': Heb 1:2.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 2.11 (PG 29:519; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-6/#p-2-11).

## Against Eunomius 2.12

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-6/#p-2-12
- Source: PG 29:519
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil argues that God is eternally Father, so the Son eternally exists, with nothing between them; the Father is prior only as cause.

### Greek text

Καίτοι εἰ μὲν καλὸν καὶ πρέπον τῇ μακαριότητι τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ εἶναι Πατέρα, πῶς οὐχ ἐξ ἀρχῆς τὸ πρέπον αὐτῷ παρῆν; Ἢ γὰρ ἀγνοίᾳ τοῦ βελτίονος, ἢ ἀδυναμίᾳ πάντως λογιοῦνται τὴν ἔλλειψιν - ἀγνοίᾳ μὲν, εἴπερ ὕστερον ἐξεῦρε τὸ βέλτιον, ἀδυναμίᾳ δὲ, εἴπερ εἰδὼς καὶ συνιεὶς ἀπετύγχανε τοῦ καλλίστου. Εἰ δὲ (εἰ μὴ θέμις εἰπεῖν) οὐ καλὸν αὐτῷ τὸ εἶναι Πατέρα, τίνος ἕνεκεν ἐκ μεταβολῆς τὸ χεῖρον προεἴλετο; ᾿Αλλὰ τρέποιτο μὲν εἰς τοὺς αἰτίους ἡ βλασφημία" ὁ δὲ Θεὸς τῶν ὅλων ἐξ ἀπείρου ἐστὶ Πατὴρ, οὐχ ἀρξάμενός ποτε τοῦ εἶναι Πατήρ. Οὔτε γὰρ τῇ τῆς δυνάμεως ἐνδείᾳ πρὸς τὴν ἐκπλήρωσιν τοῦ θελήματος ἐκωλύετο, οὔτε αἰώνων τινῶν περίοδος ἀνέμενεν, ἵνα, ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ζώων, μετὰ τὴν τῆς ἡλικίας συμπλήρωσιν τῆς εἰς τὸ γεννᾷν αὐτῷ δυνάμεως προσελθούσης, τὸ σπουδαζόμενον περιγένηται (μαινομένων γὰρ ταῦτα καὶ ἐννοῆσαι καὶ φθέγξασθαι), ἀλλὰ τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ἀϊδιότητι συμπαρεχτεινομένην ἔχει τὴν (ἵν᾽ οὕτως ὀνομάσω) πατρότητα. Οὐκοῦν καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς, πρὸ αἰῶνος ὧν, καὶ ἀεὶ ὧν, οὐχ ἤρξατο τοῦ εἶναί ποτε, ἀλλ᾽ ἀφ᾽ οὗ Πατὴρ, καὶ Υἱὸς, καὶ εὐθὺς τῇ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐννοίᾳ ἡ τοῦ Υἱοῦ συνεισέρχεται. Ὁ γὰρ Πατὴρ Υἱοῦ Πατὴρ δηλονότι. ᾿Αρχὴ μὲν οὖν Πατρὸς οὐδεμία, ἀρχὴ δὲ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ὁ Πατήρ᾽ μέσον δὲ τούτων οὐδέν, Πῶς οὖν οὐκ ἦν τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ( τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι τὸ, πρὸ τῆς ἰδίας συστάσεως, ἐν σοφίσμασι λεγόμενον παρὰ τούτων ) ὁ μηδὲν ἔχων προεπινοούμενον ἑαυτοῦ, εἰ μὴ τὸν ἐξ οὗ ἔχει τὸ εἶναι, οὐ διαστήματι ὑπερέχοντα, ἀλλὰ τῇ αἰτίᾳ προτεταγμένον; Εἰ τοίνυν ἀΐδιος ἡ τοῦ Υἱοῦ κοινωνία πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν καὶ Πατέρα ἀναπέφανται, τῆς διανοίας ἡμῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ Υἱοῦ δι’ οὐδενὸς κενοῦ πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα χωρούσης, ἀλλ᾽ ἀδιαστάτως τὸν Υἱὸν τῷ Πατρὶ συναπτούσης, ὁ μηδενὶ μέσῳ διοριζόμενος, τίνα ἔτι παρείσδυσιν καταλείπει τῇ πονηρᾷ βλασφημίᾳ τῶν λεγόντων, ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ εἶναι παρῆχθαι;

### English translation (Claude)

[12] Yet if it is good and fitting to the blessedness of God to be Father, why was what is fitting not present to him from the beginning? They will attribute the lack either to ignorance of the better or to inability: to ignorance, if he discovered the better later; to inability, if, knowing and understanding it, he failed to attain the best. But if (though it is not right to say it) it is not good for him to be Father, why did he choose the worse by a change? But let the blasphemy turn back upon those responsible: the God of the universe is Father from infinity, not having begun at some time to be Father. He was not hindered by any lack of power from fulfilling his will, nor did he wait for some period of ages, so that, as with human beings and the other animals, he might obtain what he desired when the power to beget had come to him with the completion of his growth (to think or to say this belongs to madmen); rather, he has his fatherhood (if I may name it so) coextensive with his own eternity. So the Son too, being before the ages and always being, did not begin at some time to be; but from when the Father is, the Son also is, and at once the notion of the Son enters together with the notion of the Father. For the Father is clearly Father of a Son. There is no beginning of the Father, but the beginning of the Son is the Father; and between them there is nothing. How, then, did he not exist from the beginning (for this is what these men call, sophistically, "before his own constitution"), he who has nothing conceived prior to himself except the one from whom he has his being, who surpasses him not by an interval but is ranked before him by being the cause? If, then, the Son's fellowship with God the Father has been shown to be eternal, since our thought proceeds from the Son to the Father through no empty space, but joins the Son to the Father without interval, what entry does the one who is separated by nothing in between leave for the wicked blasphemy of those who say that he was brought from what is not into being?

### Translation notes

- Chapter 12 of Book 2. Migne's Latin and notes are removed by logged corrections.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 2.12 (PG 29:519; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-6/#p-2-12).

## Against Eunomius 2.13

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-6/#p-2-13
- Source: PG 29:519
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil argues that any interval between Father and Son would make the Son younger than an age or a time, contradicting Scripture that all things, the ages included, came to be through him.

### Greek text

Ἔπειτα μέντοι καὶ τῆς ἀνοίας αὐτοὺς θαυμά… τὸν Υἱὸν, οὐ τοῦ Πατρὸς μόνον νεώτερον ἀποφαίνουσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ, ᾧ τὸν Μονογενῆ ἀπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς διορίζουσιν. ᾿Ανάγκη γὰρ, εἴπερ τι εἴη μεταξὺ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ, πρεσβύτερον εἶναι τοῦτο τῆς ὑπάρξεως τοῦ Υἱοῦ. Τί οὖν ἂν εἴη τοῦτο; Τὶ ἄλλο γε ἣ αἰὼν πάντως ἣ χρόνος; Ὁ γάρ τοι σοτέραν τὴν τοῦ Πατρὸς ζωὴν τῆς τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ἐννοῶν, τίνι γε ἄλλῳ παραμετρῶν, ἂν εἴποι τὸ περιττὸν, ἢ οὐχὶ αἰώνων ἢ χρόνων τινῶν διαστήματι; Εἰ δὲ τοῦτο ἀληθὲς, ψευδὴς ἢ λέγουσα Γραφὴ τοὺς αἰῶνας δι᾽ αὐτοῦ γεγενῆσθαι, καὶ ἡ διδάσκουσα, ὅτι πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο· τοῖς πᾶσι, δηλονότι, ἐμπεριειλημμένων καὶ τῶν αἰώνων. Εἰ δὲ φήσουσι μὴ ἀπαρνεῖσθαι πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων τὸν Υἱὸν γεγεννῆσθαι, μὴ λανθανέτωσαν, ὃ τῷ … …σωμεν γὰρ αὐτοὺς τοὺς ἐκ μὴ ὄντων παράγοντας τοῦ Μονογενοῦς τὴν οὐσίαν - Ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, ὡς φατε, τί ἦν ἐκεῖνο τὸ διάστημα; τίνα αὐτῷ προσηγορίαν ἐπινοήσετε; Ἡ μὲν γὰρ κοινὴ συνήθεια ἢ χρόνοις ἣ αἰῶσιν ἅπαν διάστημα ὑποβάλλει" ὅπερ ἐν τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς ὁ χρόνος, τοῦτο ἐν τοῖς ὑπερκοσμίοις ἡ τοῦ αἰῶνος φύσις ἐστίν. Οὗτοι δὲ, εἴ τι τρίτον ἐκ τῆς ἑαυτῶν σοφίας ἐπινοοῦσι, λεγέτωσαν. Ἕως δ' ἂν σιωπῶσι, μὴ λανθανέτωσαν δευτέραν αἰώνων τὴν τοῦ Μονογενοῦς οὐσίαν τιθέμενοι. Εἰ γὰρ ἦν τι διάστημα πρεσβύτερον τοῦ Υἱοῦ, συμπαρεκτεινόμενον τῇ ζωῇ τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἕν τι τούτων ἦν δηλονότι. ᾿Αλλ᾽ οὔτ᾽ ἔστιν, οὔτε μὴ γένηται πρεσβυτέρα τῆς τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ὑποστάσεως. Παντὸς γὰρ τοῦ δυναμένου εἰς ἀρχαιότητος λόγον ἐπινοεῖσθαι ἀνωτέρα ἡ ὕπαρξις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου τοῦ ἐν ἀρχῇ ὄντος πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν εὑρεθήσεται. Κἄν, μυρίαις φαντασίαις ἑαυτὸν ἐξαπατήσας ὁ νοῦς, καὶ τοῖς τῶν ἀνυπάρκτων ἀναπλασμοῖς ἐπιβάλλων, τὰ μὴ ὄντα περινοῇ, οὐδεμίαν τῶν πασῶν μηχανὴν ἐξευρήσει, δι' ἧς δυνήσεται τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ἑαυτὸν ὑπερθεῖναι " καὶ κατωτέραν τοῦ ἰδίου κινήματος τὴν ζωὴν καταλιπεῖν τῆς αὐτοζωῆς " καὶ τῷ ἰδίῳ λόγῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου τὴν ἀρχὴν ὑπερβῆναι· καὶ αἰῶνας ἐποπτεῦσαι ἐρήμους τοῦ Θεοῦ τῶν αἰώνων.

### English translation (Claude)

[13] Then one may well wonder at their folly … the Son, they show him younger not only than the Father, but also than that by which they separate the Only-Begotten from the Father. For if there is anything between the Father and the Son, it must be older than the Son's existence. What, then, would this be? What else, surely, but an age or a time? For the one who conceives the life of the Father as older than that of the Only-Begotten: by what else would he measure the excess, if not by an interval of ages or of times? If this is true, the Scripture is false that says the ages came to be through him, and the one that teaches that all things came to be through him, the ages clearly being included in "all things." But if they say that they do not deny that the Son was begotten before the ages, let them not miss that … For let us ask them, those who bring the essence of the Only-Begotten out of things that are not: when he was not, as you say, what was that interval? What name will you devise for it? Common usage subjects every interval either to times or to ages: what time is among sensible things, the nature of the age is among things above the world. If they conceive some third thing out of their own wisdom, let them say it. But as long as they keep silent, let them not miss that they are making the essence of the Only-Begotten second to the ages. For if there was some interval older than the Son, coextending with the life of the Father, it was clearly one of these. But nothing is, or could ever come to be, older than the hypostasis of the Only-Begotten. For the existence of God the Word, who was in the beginning with God, will be found higher than everything that can be conceived under the heading of antiquity. And even if the mind, deceiving itself with countless fantasies and applying itself to fabrications of things that do not exist, conceives what is not, it will find no device at all by which it can place itself above the beginning of the Only-Begotten, leave the life of Life itself below its own movement, pass beyond the beginning of God the Word by its own reasoning, and survey ages empty of the God of the ages.

### Scripture references

- Heb 1:2: allusion, high confidence
- John 1:3: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:2: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Tim 1:17: echo, low confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 13 of Book 2. Lines are lost after 'one may well wonder at their folly' and after 'let them not miss that' (marked …). 'Older' renders a damaged word (σοτέραν in the scan). In the scan the opening of chapter 14 ('the glory owed to the Only-Begotten … inescapable') stands at the end of this page; it is moved to its place at the start of chapter 14 (staged 2.14) by logged corrections. Migne's Latin and notes are removed by logged corrections.
- Heb 1:2; John 1:3; John 1:1-2; 'God of the ages' echoes 1 Tim 1:17.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 2.13 (PG 29:519; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-6/#p-2-13).

## Against Eunomius 2.14

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-6/#p-2-14
- Source: PG 29:519
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil answers Eunomius's dilemma ('God begot the Son either when he was or when he was not') from John 1:1: the Word 'was' in the beginning, beyond which nothing can be conceived, and John's prologue proclaims his eternal begetting.

### Greek text

᾿Αφαιρούμενος δὲ τὴν ὀφειλομένην τῷ Μονογενεῖ δόξαν, σκοπεῖτε ποίοις αὐτὸν ἀποσεμνύνει λόγοις. ΕΥ̓͂Ν. Ἔστι δὲ, φησὶν, ἡ οὐσία τοῦ Υἱοῦ γεννηθεῖσα πρὸ πάντων, γνώμῃ τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρός. ΒΑΣ. Τοῦτο μέγα προστίθησι τῷ Υἱῷ, τὸ πρεσβύτερον εἶναι τῆς κτίσεως, καὶ τῶν ποιημάτων αὐτὸν τῶν ἑαυτοῦ προϋπάρχειν, ἀρκοῦν εἰς δόξαν τῷ Δημιουργῷ τῶν ὅλων τιθέμενος τὸ κτισμάτων αὐτὸν τῶν ἑαυτοῦ προτετάχθαι. Τῆς γὰρ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν καὶ Πατέρα κοινωνίας τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν ἦχον ἀλλοτριώσας, ἐν τῇ τῶν κτισμάτων προτιμήσει τὴν δόξαν αὐτῷ μαρτυρεῖ. Εἶτα πρὸς τὸ ἀναίσχυντον τὴν βλασφημίαν ἐκφέρων ταῖς ἀφύκτοις ἡμᾶς, ὡς οἴεται, … ΕΥ̓͂Ν. Ἤτοι γὰρ ὄντα, φησὶν, ἐγέννησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν Υἱὸν, ἢ οὐχ ὄντα. ᾿Αλλ᾽ εἰ μὲν οὐχ ὄντα, μηδείς μοι, φησὶ, τόλμαν ἐπεγκαλείτω " εἰ δὲ ὄντα, οὐχ ἀτοπίας μόνον καὶ βλασφημίας, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάσης εὐηθείας ὑπερβολὴν ὁ λόγος ἔχει" τῷ γὰρ ὄντι οὐ δεῖ γεννήσεως. ΒΑΣ. Τὸ μὲν οὖν πολυθρύλλητον σόφισμα, τὸ πάλαι μὲν ἐξευρεθὲν παρ᾽ ἑτέρων, τελείως δὲ νῦν ἐν ταῖς ἀπηρυθριασμέναις καὶ ἀναισχύντοις γλώσσαις ὑπὸ τούτων ἐξεργασθὲν, τοῦτό ἐστιν. Ἡμεῖς δὲ πρῶτον ἐκεῖνο τοὺς ἀκροατὰς ὑπομνήσομεν, ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ διὰ τὴν τῶν πολλῶν ἄγνοιαν ἀνθρωπικῶς ἐξακουόντων τῆς γεννήσεως τοῦ Υἱοῦ εἰς ἀνάγκην ἐληλυθὼς τῶν λόγων τούτων " οὗτος ὁ ἀπὸ τῶν σωματικῶν ἐννοιῶν ἐπὶ τὴν πνευματικὴν θεωρίαν τὰς ἀπαιδεύτους ψυχὰς ἐπανάγων" ὃς, ἐπειδὴ τὰ γεννώμενα ζῶα οὐκ ὄντα πρότερον, εἶτα γεννᾶται, καὶ ὁ σήμερον γεννηθεὶς χθὲς οὐχ ὑπῆρχε, ταύτην καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ὑποστάσεως τὴν ἔννοιαν μεταφέρει. Καὶ ἐπειδὴ γεγέννηται, φησὶν, οὐχ ὑπῆρχε πρὸ τῆς γεννήσεως. Οὕτω μεγαλοφυῶς τὴν γέννησιν ἡμῖν τοῦ Μονογενοῦς θεολογεῖ, καὶ διὰ τοιούτων λόγων τὰ ἀῤῥωστήματα τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν ἐπανορθοῦται, ἄξιος ὧν, εἴπερ τις, ἀκοῦσαι τῆς παροιμίας, ὅτι Ἱατρὲ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν. Τίνα μέντοι καὶ παραμυθίαν τῆς ἀτόπου ταύτης νόσου τῶν λογισμῶν αὐτῷ προσενέγκωμεν ἣ τὰ παρὰ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος διὰ τοῦ μακαρίου Ἰωάννου λαληθέντα ἡμῖν, ὅτι Ἔν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος; Διὰ τούτων τῶν δύο ῥήσεων ἀπέκλεισεν ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς, μιᾶς ἀν… … ἐστί τι ἐπινοῆσαι πρεσβύτερον· οὐ γὰρ ἔτι ἂν εἴη ἀρχὴ, εἴπερ ἔχοι τι ἑαυτῆς ἐξώτερον οὔτε τὸ Ἦν διαβάντας τῷ λογισμῷ, εἰς τὸ ὅτε οὐχ ἦν δυνατὸν ὑπερκύψαι. ᾿Αθέτησις γάρ ἐστι τοῦ Ἦν, ἡ τοῦ ὅτε οὐκ ἦν ἐπίνοια. Εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἡ ἀρχὴ τῶν πρὸς ἕτερον λεγομένων ἦν, ὡς τὸ ἀρχὴ σοφίας, καὶ ἀρχὴ ὁδοῦ ἀγαθῆς, καὶ, Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς, ἣν ἂν τυχὸν, τοῦ ἐκ τοιαύτης ἀρχῆς ὑφεστῶτος, δι᾽ ἐνθυμήσεως ὑπερβῆναι τὴν γέννησιν· ἐπειδὴ δὲ τὸ σημαινόμενον τοῦτο τῆς ἀρχῆς ἀπολελυμένον καὶ ἄσχετον τὴν ἀνωτάτω φύσιν δηλοῖ, πῶς οὐ καταγέλαστος ὁ τὰ ἐξωτέρω ταύτης ἐπινοῶν, ἣ ἐπιχειρῶν αὐτὴν τοῖς λογισμοῖς ὑπερβάλλειν; Συμπαρεκτείνεται δὲ καὶ τὸ Ἦν τῷ ἀνυπερθέτῳ τῆς ἀρχῆς ταύτης. Οὐ γὰρ τὴν ἀπὸ χρόνου ὕπαρξιν τὸ Ἦν ὑποφαίνει, ὡς τὸ, Ἄνθρωπος ἣν ἐν χώρᾳ τῇ Αὐσίτιδι καὶ, Ἦν ἄνθρωπος ἐξ Ἀρμαθαΐμ· καὶ τὸ, Ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν ἀόρατος" ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς ἡμῖν ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς ἐν ἑτέρῳ λόγῳ τοῦ τοιούτου Ἦν τὸ σημαινόμενον ἔδειξεν, εἰπὼν " Ὁ ὧν, καὶ ὁ ἦν, καὶ ὁ παντοκράτωρ. Οἷον γὰρ τὸ ὧν, τοιοῦτον καὶ τὸ ἦν, ἀΐδιον ὁμοίως καὶ ἄχρονον. Οὐχ ὄντα δὲ λέγειν τὸν ἐν ἀρχῇ ὄντα, οὔτε διασώζοντός ἐστι τὴν ἔννοιαν τῆς ἀρχῆς, οὔτε συνάπτοντος αὐτῇ τὴν ὕπαρξιν τοῦ Μονογενοῦς. Ἀνεπινόητον μὲν γὰρ τῆς ἀρχῆς τὸ πρεσβύτερον, ἀχώριστον δὲ ταύτης τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου τὸ εἶναι. Ὥστε ἐφ᾽ ὅσον ἂν βουληθῇς ταῖς τοῦ νοῦ πολυπραγμοσύναις … λογισμοῖς οὐ δυνήσῃ. ᾿Αντερωτάσθω τοίνυν καὶ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν πότερον ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ὁ Θεὸς Λόγος, ἣ ὕστερον προσεγένετο; Εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἦν, Παῦσον τὴν γλῶσσάν σου ἀπὸ κακοῦ, τῆς τοῦ, ὅτι οὐχ ἦν, βλασφημίας εἰ δὲ ὅπερ οὐδὲ θέμις εἰπεῖν, τοῖς σοῖς οἰκειότερον πρὸς σὲ χρήσομαι ῥήμασιν, ὅτι οὐ βλασφημίας μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ παρανοίας ὑπερβολὴν ὁ λόγος ἔχει, ἀνθρώπους ἀπαιτεῖν τῶν λόγων τοῦ Πνεύματος τὰς εὐθύνας, καὶ μαθητὴν μὲν εἶναι τῶν Εὐ᾿ ὁμολογεῖν, αὐτῶν δὲ τούτων κατεξανίστασθαι. Σκόπει γὰρ τὰς θείας φωνὰς, ὡς ἀκριβῶς καὶ σαφῶς τῇ πρὸ αἰώνων γενέσει τοῦ Υἱοῦ μαρτυροῦσιν. Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ὁ μὲν Ματθαῖος τῆς κατὰ σάρκα γεννήσεως ἐξηγητὴς γέγονεν, ὡς αὐτός φησι" Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ Δαβίδ· ὁ δὲ Μάρκος ἀρχὴν τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου τὸ Ἰωάννου πεποίηκε κήρυγμα, εἰπών" ᾿Αρχὴ τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ· Φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ· ὁ δὲ Λουκᾶς καὶ αὐτὸς διὰ τῶν σωματικῶν ἀρχῶν τῇ θεολογίᾳ προσέβη· … ἀναγκαίως ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς Ἰωάννης, τελευταῖος ἐλθὼν εἰς τὸ γράφειν, παντὸς αἰσθητοῦ, καὶ χρόνου τοῦ τοῖς τοιούτοις παρεπομένου, τὴν διάνοιαν ὑπεράρας, μᾶλλον δὲ ὑψωθεὶς τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ Πνεύματος, αὐτῷ προσέβη τῷ πάντων ἐπέκεινα, μονονουχὶ διαμαρτυρόμενος καὶ αὐτὸς, ὅτι, εἰ καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν κατὰ σάρκα Χριστὸν, ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐκέτι γινώσκομεν. Λαβόμενος γὰρ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀρχῆς, καὶ πάσας τὰς σωματικάς τε καὶ χρονικὰς ἐννοίας κατωτέρας τῆς ἑαυτοῦ θεολογίας ἀπολιπὼν, ὑπερεφώνησε τὰ προλαβόντα κηρύγματα τῇ τῆς γνώσεως. Οὐχ ἀπὸ Μαρίας, φησὶν, ἡ ἀρχή, οὐδὲ ἀπὸ τῶνδε τῶν χρόνων. ᾿Αλλὰ τί; Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος" τὴν ἐξ ἀϊδίου ὕπαρξιν, τὴν ἀπαθῆ γέννησιν, τὸ συμφυὲς τῷ Πατρὶ, τὸ μεγαλεῖον τῆς φύσεως, πάντα ἐν τοῖς ὀλίγοις ῥήμασι συλλαβὼν, καὶ τῇ προσθήκῃ τοῦ Ἤν ἀναγαγὼν εἰς τὴν ἀρχὴν, ὥσπερ ἀποφράττων τὰ στόματα τῶν, ὅτι οὐκ ἦν, βλασφημούντων, καὶ πόῤῥωθεν τὰς τῶν τοιούτων σοφισμάτων παρεισδύσεις ὑποτεμνόμενος, Εἶτα διὰ τῆς θεολογίας οἷον ὑπογραφὴν τινα ἐναργῆ τῆς φύσεως τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ἐντυπώσας, ὡς ἤδη γνωρίζουσιν ὑποδείκνυσι τῇ φωνῇ λέγων Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν" πάλιν ἐνταῦθα τῇ προσθήκῃ τοῦ Ἦν, τῇ ἀϊδιότητι τοῦ Πατρὸς τοῦ Μονογενοῦς συνάπτων τὴν γέννησιν " καὶ πάλιν’ Ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, ᾽Αλλ᾽ ὅμως οὕτω πανταχόθεν τοῦ λόγου … τὰς μαρτυρίας τοῦ Πνεύματος, καὶ οὐδὲ ἀκούειν δοκῶν οὕτως ἡμῖν πυκνῶς ἐμθοῶντος τὸ Ἦν …
… Οὐκ ὤν, φησὶν, ἐγεννήθη. Οὐκοῦν ὕστερον προσ… γεγένηται. Εἰ δὲ τοῦτο ἐν ἀρχῇ οὐχ ἦν, ὥς φατε, τίνα περιφανεστέραν μάχην ἐπιδείξειέ τις πρὸς τὰς φωνὰς τῶν Εὐαγγελίων αἷς πεπιστεύκαμεν;

### English translation (Claude)

[14] Having taken away the glory owed to the Only-Begotten, see with what words he extols him:

EUNOMIUS: "The essence of the Son," he says, "is begotten before all things by the will of God the Father."

BASIL: This is the great thing he adds to the Son: that he is older than creation and exists before his own works, setting down as enough for the glory of the Creator of the universe that he is ranked before his own creatures. For having estranged him, as far as it lies with him, from fellowship with God the Father, he bears witness to his glory by his precedence over creatures. Then, carrying his blasphemy on to shamelessness, he [hems] us in, as he thinks, with inescapable …

EUNOMIUS: "For God begot the Son either when he was or when he was not. If when he was not, let no one charge me with audacity; but if when he was, the argument is the height not only of absurdity and blasphemy but of all silliness; for what is has no need of begetting."

BASIL: This, then, is the notorious sophism, invented long ago by others, but now brought to completion by these men on their brazen and shameless tongues. First let us remind his hearers that this is the man who, because of the ignorance of the many who take the begetting of the Son in a human way, came under the necessity of these arguments; this is the one who leads untrained souls up from bodily notions to spiritual contemplation; who, since animals that are born did not exist before and then are born, and the one born today did not exist yesterday, transfers this notion to the hypostasis of the Only-Begotten as well. "And since he has been begotten," he says, "he did not exist before the begetting." So magnificently does he theologize to us the begetting of the Only-Begotten, and with such arguments he corrects the infirmities of our brothers, worthy as he is, if anyone is, to hear the proverb, "Physician, heal yourself." What remedy, then, for this absurd disease of his reasonings shall we offer him, but the words spoken to us by the Holy Spirit through the blessed John: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"? By these two sayings the evangelist shut out … ; … [than a beginning] one can conceive nothing older; for it would no longer be a beginning if it had anything outside itself. Nor is it possible, passing beyond "was" by reasoning, to peer out into "when he was not"; for the notion "when he was not" is the denial of "was." If "beginning" were one of the things said in relation to another, as in "the beginning of wisdom," and "the beginning of a good way," and "in the beginning God made," it might perhaps be possible to pass beyond, by reflection, the begetting of what subsists from such a beginning. But since this meaning of "beginning," absolute and without relation, indicates the supreme nature, how is one not ridiculous who conceives things beyond it, or tries to surpass it in his reasonings? And "was" is coextensive with the unsurpassability of this beginning. For "was" does not indicate existence from a point in time, as in "There was a man in the land of Ausitis," and "There was a man from Armathaim," and "The earth was invisible"; rather, the evangelist himself showed us in another book the meaning of such a "was," saying, "He who is, and who was, and the Almighty." For as "who is," so also "was": alike eternal and timeless. To say that the one who was in the beginning was not neither preserves the notion of the beginning nor joins the existence of the Only-Begotten to it. For what is older than the beginning cannot be conceived, and the being of God the Word is inseparable from it. So however far you wish [to run] with the busy curiosity of your mind … you will not be able [to pass beyond "was"] by reasoning.

[15] Let him be asked by us in turn, then: was God the Word with God in the beginning, or did he come to be later? If he was, "Keep your tongue from evil," from the blasphemy "he was not." But if [he was not], which it is not even right to say, I will use your own words against you more aptly: the argument is the height not only of blasphemy but of insanity, that human beings should demand an accounting of the words of the Spirit, and profess to be disciples of the Gospels while rising up against them. For see how exactly and clearly the divine words bear witness to the Son's begetting before the ages. Since Matthew became the narrator of the begetting according to the flesh, as he himself says, "The book of the genesis of Jesus Christ, son of David"; and Mark made the preaching of John the beginning of the Gospel, saying, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: A voice of one crying in the wilderness"; and Luke too approached the theology through the bodily beginnings … ; of necessity the evangelist John, coming last to write, raised his mind above everything sensible and the time that accompanies such things, or rather, lifted up by the power of the Spirit, drew near to the one who is beyond all things, all but testifying himself that "even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer." For laying hold of the beginning itself, and leaving all bodily and temporal notions below his own theology, he outsounded the earlier proclamations by the grandeur of his knowledge. "Not from Mary," he says, "is the beginning, nor from these times. But what? In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God": embracing in these few words the existence from eternity, the impassible begetting, the natural unity with the Father, the grandeur of the nature; and by adding "was" he led back to the beginning, as if stopping the mouths of those who blaspheme "he was not," and cutting off from afar the entries of such sophisms. Then, having imprinted by his theology a clear outline, as it were, of the nature of the Only-Begotten, he points to him with his word as to those who now recognize him, saying, "He was in the beginning with God," again by the addition of "was" joining the begetting of the Only-Begotten to the eternity of the Father; and again, "In him was life, and the life was the light of men," and "He was the true light." But nevertheless, though the argument is … on every side … the testimonies of the Spirit, and seeming not even to hear him crying out to us so often the "was" … … "Not being," he says, "he was begotten." So he [came to be] later … has come to be. But if this was not in the beginning, as you say, what more manifest conflict could anyone show with the words of the Gospels in which we have believed?

### Scripture references

- Luke 4:23: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:1: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:2: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:4: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:9: quotation, high confidence
- Prov 16:7: quotation, medium confidence
- Gen 1:1: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:2: quotation, high confidence
- Job 1:1: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Sam 1:1: quotation, high confidence
- Rev 1:8: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 34:13 (33:14 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Matt 1:1: quotation, high confidence
- Mark 1:1: quotation, high confidence
- Mark 1:3: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 5:16: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sir 1:14 (Sirach): quotation, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 14 of Book 2 and most of chapter 15 (marked [15]); chapter 15 ends in staged 2.15. The opening of chapter 14 stood at the end of the preceding scan page (staged 2.13) and has been moved here by logged corrections. Lines lost in the scan are marked …; Migne's Latin and notes are removed by logged corrections. The quotation is Eunomius's Apology.
- Luke 4:23; John 1:1-2, 4, 9; Prov 16:7 (Septuagint, 'beginning of a good way'); Gen 1:1-2; Job 1:1 ('Ausitis', LXX); 1 Sam 1:1 ('Armathaim', LXX); Rev 1:8; Ps 34:13 (LXX 33:14); Matt 1:1; Mark 1:1-3; 2 Cor 5:16. 'The beginning of wisdom' is Sir 1:14.
- End of chapter 15 of Book 2. Most of this scan page is Migne's notes and Latin, removed by logged corrections; the Greek that survives is fragmentary (lost words marked …).

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 2.14 (PG 29:519; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-6/#p-2-14).

## Against Eunomius 2.16

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-6/#p-2-16
- Source: PG 29:519
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil argues that the mind cannot think beyond the Son, the light of the soul, and offers images of an impassible, timeless begetting: radiance from light, a seal's impression, thoughts arising with the mind.

### Greek text

Καὶ μὴν ἐκεῖνό γε τίνι οὐκ ἂν τῶν εὐγνωμόνων συνδόξειεν, ὅτι ὥσπερ ὀφθαλμὸς, τῶν περιλαμπομένων τόπων ἐκπεσὼν, ἀναγκαίως δι᾽ ἐρημίαν τοῦ φωτὸς τῆς ἐνεργείας ἴσταται, οὕτω δὲ καὶ ὁ νοῦς, ἐπὶ τὸ ἔξω τοῦ ὄντος ταῖς φαντασίαις εἰσβιαζόμενος, οἷόν τινος φωτὸς τῆς ἀληθείας ἐπιλειπούσης, συγχυθεὶς καὶ ἀνοηταίνων τῆς νοήσεως ἀπολήγει; Οὔτ᾽ ἂν οὖν ὀφθαλμὸς ἔξω τοῦ φωτὸς τῷ ὁρᾷν χρῆσθαι δύναιτο, οὔτε ψυχὴ, τῆς τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ἐννοίας παρενεχθεῖσα, τῇ νοήσει κεχρῆσθαι. Ἡ γὰρ τῆς ἀληθείας … μάταιός ἔστι νοῦς καὶ τετύφλωται, τῷ ὄντι μηδὲν ἐπιστάμενος, ὁ τὰ τοῦ Μονογενοῦς πρεσβύτερα κατειληφέναι φρονῶν· ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ καὶ ὀφθαλμῷ τις ὀξυνίζοντι … Ἐν τῷ φωτί σου γὰρ, φησὶν, ὀψόμεθα φῶς. Ὁ δὲ ἐν καταλήψει τοῦ ὅτε οὔπω ἦν τὸ φῶς γεγονέναι φάσκων παραπλήσιον πέπονθε τοῖς ἐν ἐκστάσει φρενιτιχῇ ὁρᾷν φανταζομένοις τὰ μὴ παρόντα. Τὰ γὰρ ὑπὲρ τὸν Υἱὸν οὐ νοεῖται. Ἐπειδὴ ὅπερ ὀφθαλμῷ τὸ αἰσθητόν ἐστι φῶς, τοῦτο ψυχῇ ὁ Θεός ἐστι Λόγος. Ἦν γὰρ, φησὶ, τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον. “Ὥστε ἀφώτιστος ψυχὴ ἀδύνατός ἔστι πρὸς νόησιν. Πῶς ἂν οὖν τὰ ὑπεράνω τῆς γενέσεως τοῦ φωτὸς καταληφθείη; Χρῆν δὲ, οἶμαι, τοὺς καὶ μικρὸν γοῦν τῆς ἀληθείας πεφροντικότας, ἀφεμένους τῶν σωματικῶν ὁμοιώσεων, καὶ τοῦ ταῖς ὑλικαῖς φαντασίαις τὰς περὶ Θεοῦ ἐννοίας καταρρυπαίνειν, τοῖς παρὰ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος παραδοθείσαις ἡμῖν θεολογίαις ἀκολουθεῖν, καὶ ἀντὶ τῶν ἐρωτημάτων τούτων, ἃ τῶν γρίφων οὐδὲν ἀπολείπεται, τὴν ἐφ᾽ ἑκάτερα ὑπόληψιν ἐπικίνδυνον ἐχόντων, νοεῖν μὲν ἀξίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ γέννησιν ἀπαθῆ, ἀμέριστον, ἀδιαίρετον, ἄχρονον, κατὰ τὴν ἀπολάμπουσαν τοῦ φωτὸς αὐγὴν τῇ θείᾳ γεννήσει προσαγομένους " νοεῖν δὲ εἰκόνα τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, οὐ κατὰ τὰς τεχνητὰς … ταύτας ὕστερον ἀπεργασθεῖσαν πρὸς τὸ ἀρχέτυπον, ἀλλὰ συνυπάρχουσαν καὶ παρυφεστηκυῖαν τῷ πρωτοτύπῳ ὑποστήσαντι, τῷ εἶναι τὸ ἀρχέτυπον, οὖσαν, οὐχ ἐκτυπωθεῖσαν διὰ μιμήσεως, ὥσπερ ἐν σφραγῖδί τινι τῆς ὅλης φύσεως τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐναποσημανθείσης τῷ Υἱῷ. Εἰ δὲ βούλει, ὁποία τῶν τεχνῶν ἡ ὑπόστασις ἐκ τῶν διδασκόντων ὅλη τοῖς μαθητευομένοις ἐγγινομένη " οὔτε λείποντός τινος τοῖς διδάσκουσι, καὶ τῆς τελειώσεως τοῖς ἐκμανθάνουσι προσγινομένης. Ἢ τοῦτο μὲν οὐχ ἀκριβὲς πρὸς ὁμοίωσιν διὰ τὴν τοῦ χρόνου παράτασιν. Οἰκειότερον δὲ εἰπεῖν, ὅτι ὁποία τῶν νοημάτων ἡ φύσις τοῖς τοῦ νοῦ κινήμασιν ἀχρόνως συνυφισταμένη.

### English translation (Claude)

[16] And surely every fair-minded person would agree that, just as the eye, when it has passed out of the illuminated places, necessarily ceases from its activity for lack of light, so also the mind, forcing its way by imaginations to what lies outside being, as if the light of truth were failing it, is confounded, grows foolish, and ceases from thinking. The eye could not use its sight outside the light, nor could the soul, carried away from the notion of the Only-Begotten, make use of its thinking. For … of the truth … that mind is vain and blinded, truly knowing nothing, which thinks it has grasped what is older than the Only-Begotten; as if one were to … an eye straining. "For in your light," it says, "we shall see light." But he who claims to have come to grasp the time when the light had not yet come to be is in much the same state as those who in a frenzied delirium imagine they see what is not there. For what is above the Son is not an object of thought. For what perceptible light is to the eye, God the Word is to the soul: "He was," it says, "the true light, which enlightens every man coming into the world." So the unenlightened soul is incapable of thinking. How then could what lies above the begetting of the light be grasped? It was necessary, I think, for those who care even a little for the truth to let go of bodily comparisons and of soiling their notions of God with material imaginings, and to follow the teachings about God handed down to us by the Holy Spirit; and instead of these questions, which fall nothing short of riddles, since an answer either way is dangerous, to conceive a begetting worthy of God, impassible, without partition, undivided, and timeless, being led to the divine begetting by the radiance that shines from light; and to conceive the image of the invisible God, not like the man-made [images] …, which are produced afterward in relation to the archetype, but coexisting and subsisting alongside the prototype that gives it subsistence, being by the very fact that the archetype is; not imprinted by imitation, but as in a seal, the whole nature of the Father being impressed upon the Son. Or, if you prefer, it is like the way an art comes to be whole in learners from those who teach, nothing being lost to the teachers while completion accrues to the learners. Or this is not exact as a likeness, because of the extension of time. It is more fitting to say: like the nature of thoughts, which subsist timelessly together with the movements of the mind.

### Scripture references

- Ps 36:9 (35:10 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- John 1:9: quotation, high confidence
- Col 1:15: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 16 of Book 2. Lines are lost in the scan (marked …); Migne's Latin and notes are removed by logged corrections.
- Ps 36:9 (LXX 35:10); John 1:9; Col 1:15. The analogies are Basil's, and he notes their limits.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 2.16 (PG 29:519; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-6/#p-2-16).

## Against Eunomius 2.17

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-17/#p-2-17
- Source: PG 29:519
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil answers Eunomius's claim that a Son who 'was' before his begetting would be unbegotten: the Son is eternally begotten, and 'eternal' and 'unbegotten' are different notions.

### Greek text

Καὶ μηδείς μοι συκοφαντείτω τὸν λόγον, εἴ τι τῶν ὑποδειγμάτων μὴ πάντη συμβαίνοι τοῖς προκειμένοις. Οὐδὲ γὰρ δυνατὸν τὰ μικρὰ καὶ φαῦλα τοῖς θείοις καὶ ἀϊδίοις μετὰ ἀκριβείας ἁρμόζειν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅσον ἐλέγξαι τὴν εἰρωνείαν τῶν οὐ δυναμένων δὴ γέννησιν ἀπαθῆ τῇ διανοίᾳ λαβεῖν. Εἰκὼν δὲ εἴρηται καὶ ἔστιν ὁ Υἱὸς γεννητὴ, καὶ ἀπαύγασμά ἔστι τῆς δόξης τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ σοφία, καὶ δύναμις, καὶ δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, οὐχ ὡς ἕξις, οὐδὲ ὡς ἐπιτηδειότης, ἀλλ᾽ οὐσία ζῶσα καὶ ἐνεργὴς, καὶ ἀπαύγασμά ἔστι τῆς δόξης τοῦ Θεοῦ. Διόπερ καὶ ὅλον ἐν ἑαυτῷ δείκνυσι τὸν Πατέρα, ἐξ ὅλης αὐτοῦ τῆς δόξης ἀπαυγασθείς. Τὴν τοίνυν δόξαν τοῦ Θεοῦ μὴ ἔχειν ἀπαύγασμα λέγειν, ἢ τὴν σοφίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ μὴ συνεῖναί ποτε τῷ Θεῷ, πάσης τῆς …τοπίας. Ἀλλ᾽ εἰ ἦν, φησὶν, οὐ γεγέννηται. ᾿Αποκρινώμεθα τοίνυν ὅτι, Ἐπειδὴ γεγέννηται, ἦν" οὐχ ἀγέννητον ἔχων τὸ εἶναι, ὧν δὲ ἀεὶ καὶ συνὼν τῷ Πατρὶ, ἐξ οὗ καὶ τὴν, αἰτίαν τῆς ὑπάρξεως ἔχει. Πότε οὖν εἰς τὸ εἶναι παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς παρήχθη; Ἀφ᾽ οὗ ἐστιν ὁ Πατήρ; Ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ ἀϊδίου, φησὶν, ὁ Πατήρ" ἐξ ἀϊδίου τοίνυν καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς, γεννητῶς τῇ ἀγεννησίᾳ τοῦ Πατρὸς συναπτόμενος. Ὅτι δὲ οὗτος οὐχ ἡμέτερος ὁ λόγος, αὐτὰς τὰς τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος φωνὰς αὐτοῖς παρεξόμεθα. Ἔκ μὲν … γος· ἐκ δὲ τοῦ ψαλμοῦ ὡς ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ Πατρὸς εἰρημένον τὸ, Ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου γεγέννηκά σε" καὶ συνθέντες ἀμφότερα, εἴπωμεν, ὅτε καὶ ἦν καὶ γεγέννηται. ᾿Αλλὰ τὸ μὲν, Γεγέννηκα, τὴν αἰτίαν ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἔχει τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ εἶναι σημαίνει· τὸ δὲ, Ἦν, τὴν ἄχρονον αὐτοῦ καὶ προαιώνιον ὕπαρξιν. Ὁ δὲ, ἐπαγωνιζόμενος τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ἀπάτῃ, εἰς ἄτοπον τὸν λόγον ἀπάγειν οἴεται. ΕΥ̓͂Ν. Εἰ γὰρ, φησὶ, πρὸ τῆς γεννήσεως ἦν ἧς ἑαυτοῦ ὁ Υἱὸς, ἀγέννητος ἦν. ΒΑΣ. ᾿Αλλὰ τὸ πρὸ τῆς γεννήσεως τοῦτο, ὦ μάταιε, ἤτοι ἀνύπαρκτόν ἔστι παντελῶς, καὶ … καὶ τί δεῖ ἀντιλέγειν τοῖς ἀνοήτοις; παραπλήσιον γὰρ τοῦτο, ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ καὶ τῷ τὸν λογισμὸν ἐκ … φέρεται, καὶ πρὸς τὴν τῶν αἰώνων ἔννοιαν ἐνεχθήσεται. ᾿Αλλ᾽ εἴπερ αἰῶνες πάντες κάτω που τῆς γενέσεως τοῦ Μονογενοῦς νοοῦνται, αὐτοῦ ἐκείνου ὄντες ποιήματα, μάταιος ὁ ἐπιζητῶν τῆς ὑποστάσεως τοῦ Υἱοῦ τὰ πρεσβύτερα. Οὐδὲν γὰρ ἀλλοιότερον ἐρωτᾷ, ἣ εἰ καὶ περὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐπυνθάνετο, πότερον ὑπῆρχε πρὸ τῆς ἰδίας συστάσεως. ἣ οὐχί. Ὡς γὰρ ἐκεῖ ἀνόητον τὸ ἐρώτημα, ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀνάρχου καὶ ἀγεννήτου ζητεῖν τὸ ἀνώτερον " οὕτω καὶ ἐνταῦθα, ἐπὶ τοῦ ἐξ ἀϊδίου τῷ Πατρὶ συνόντος, καὶ οὐδὲν ἔχοντος μέσον ἑαυτοῦ τε καὶ τοῦ γεννήσαντος, χρονικὰς ποιεῖσθαι τοῦ προτέρου τὰς ἐρωτήσεις, τῆς ἴσης ὄντως ἀνοίας. Παραπλήσιον γὰρ ἐρωτᾶν, τί ἔσται μετὰ τὴν τελευτὴν τοῦ ἀθανάτου, καὶ ἐπιζητεῖν τί ὑπῆρχε πρὸ τῆς γεννήσεως τοῦ ἀϊδίου. Οἱ δὲ, ἐπειδὴ τὸ ἄναρχον τοῦ Πατρὸς ἀΐδιον ὀνομάζεται, ταὐτὸν τὸ ἀνάρχῳ τὸ ἀΐδιον ἀποφαίνουσι, καὶ ἐπειδὴ μὴ ἀγέννητος ὁ Υἱὸς, οὐδὲ ἀΐδιον εἶναι ὁμολογοῦσι. Πλεῖστον δὲ διαφέρει κατὰ τὴν ἔννοιαν. ᾿Αγέννητον μὲν γὰρ λέγεται τὸ μηδεμίαν ἀρχὴν ἑαυτοῦ, μηδὲ αἰτίαν ἔχον τοῦ εἶναι " ἀΐδιον δὲ τὸ χρόνου παντὸς καὶ αἰῶνος κατὰ τὸ εἶναι πρεσβύτερον. Ὅθεν καὶ ὁ καὶ οὐχ ἀγέννητος, καὶ ἀΐδιος. Ἤδη δὲ καὶ τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀξιοῦσί τινες τῆς τοῦ ἀϊδίου προσηγορίας, ὡς ἐκ τοῦ ἀεὶ εἶναι τῆς κλήσεως ταύτης τετυχηκότας. Ἡμεῖς δὲ τῆς αὐτῆς λογιζόμεθα παρανοίας καὶ τῇ κτίσει προσμαρτυρεῖν τὸ ἀΐδιον, καὶ τὸν Δεσπότην τῆς κτίσεως τῆς ὁμολογίας ταύτης ἀποστερεῖν.

### English translation (Claude)

[17] And let no one slander the argument if any of the examples does not fit the matters before us in every respect. For it is not possible to apply small and paltry things with exactness to things divine and eternal, but only so far as to refute the dissembling of those who supposedly cannot grasp an impassible begetting in thought. The Son is called, and is, a begotten image, and the radiance of the glory of God, and the wisdom and power and righteousness of God: not as a state or an aptitude, but as a living and active essence, the radiance of the glory of God. That is why he shows the whole Father in himself, having shone forth from his whole glory. To say, then, that the glory of God has no radiance, or that the wisdom of God was ever not with God, belongs to every absurdity … "But if he was," he says, "he has not been begotten." Let us answer, then: since he has been begotten, he was; not having unbegotten being, but always being and being with the Father, from whom he also has the cause of his existence. When, then, was he brought into being by the Father? From when the Father is. "But the Father is from eternity," he says. From eternity, then, is the Son too, joined by way of begetting to the ingeneracy of the Father. That this argument is not ours, we will present to them the very words of the Holy Spirit. From … the "Word"; and from the psalm, as spoken in the person of the Father, "From the womb before the morning star I have begotten you"; and putting both together, let us say that he both was and has been begotten. But "I have begotten" signifies the cause from which he has the beginning of his being, and "was" his timeless existence before the ages. But he, contending on behalf of his own deceit, thinks he is driving the argument into absurdity:

EUNOMIUS: "For if," he says, "the Son was before his own begetting, he was unbegotten."

BASIL: But this "before the begetting," you vain man, is either wholly nonexistent and … (and what need is there to argue with the senseless? For this is as if with one who … his reason …), or [if his thought] is carried …, it will be carried to the notion of the ages. But if all the ages are conceived somewhere below the begetting of the Only-Begotten, since they are his works, vain is the one who seeks what is older than the hypostasis of the Son. He asks nothing different than if he were inquiring about the Father whether he existed before his own constitution or not. For as there the question is senseless, to seek what is higher than the one who is without beginning and unbegotten, so here too, in the case of the one who is with the Father from eternity and has nothing between himself and the one who begot him, to raise temporal questions about "before" belongs to equal folly. It is like asking what will be after the death of the immortal, or inquiring what existed before the begetting of the eternal. But they, since the beginninglessness of the Father is called eternal, declare "eternal" to be the same as "without beginning," and since the Son is not unbegotten, they do not confess him to be eternal either. But the two differ greatly in concept. "Unbegotten" is said of what has no beginning of itself and no cause of its being; "eternal" of what is older in being than all time and every age. Hence [the Son] is both not unbegotten and eternal. Some even think the ages worthy of the name "eternal," as having obtained this name from always being. But we consider it the same madness to bear witness to eternity for the creation and to deprive the Master of creation of this confession.

### Scripture references

- Heb 1:3: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 1:24: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 1:30: allusion, high confidence
- Col 1:15: allusion, high confidence
- John 1:1: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 110:3 (109:3 LXX): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 17 of Book 2. In the scan the words '…absurdity; but if he was' stand displaced among Migne's notes; they are restored to their place by a logged correction. Other lost lines are marked …; Migne's Latin and notes are removed by logged corrections. 'Or [if his thought] is carried' supplies the second half of Basil's 'either … or'. The quotation is Eunomius's Apology.
- Heb 1:3; 1 Cor 1:24, 30; Col 1:15; John 1:1; Ps 110:3 (LXX 109:3).

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 2.17 (PG 29:519; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-17/#p-2-17).

## Against Eunomius 2.18

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-17/#p-2-18
- Source: PG 29:519
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil answers Eunomius's claim that the Son was begotten 'not being' by showing that the One who named himself 'He who is' at the burning bush was the Son, called in Scripture both angel and God.

### Greek text

Ὁ δὲ, πρὸς τὸ ἀναίσχυντον ἐκφέρων τὸν λόγον, φησιν· ΕΥ̓͂Ν. Ἡμεῖς δὲ, τοῖς τε ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων καὶ πάλαι καὶ νῦν ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἀποδειχνυμένοις …τες, μήτε τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ προσιεμένης γέννησιν, μήτε μὴν ἑτέρας τινὸς ὑποκειμένης εἰς Υἱοῦ γέννησιν, μὴ ὄντα φαμὲν τὸν Υἱὸν γεγεννῆσθαι. ΒΑΣ. Τίς οὕτως ἐπ᾽ εὐσεβείᾳ φιλότιμος; τίς ἐπὶ τῷ φιλόχριστος εἶναι τοσοῦτον ἐκαλλωπίσατο, ὅσον οὗτοι τοῖς τῆς ὕβρεως καὶ ἀτιμίας ῥήμασι, καὶ καθαιρετικοῖς τῆς δόξης τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ἐπαγάλλονται; Οὐ παύσῃ μὴ ὄντα προσαγορεύων, ὦ ἄθεε, τὸν ὄντως ὄντα, τὴν πηγὴν τῆς ζωῆς, τὸν πᾶσι τοῖς οὖσι τοῦ εἶναι παρεκτικόν; Ὃς οἰκείαν ἑαυτῷ καὶ πρέπουσαν τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ἀϊδιότητι ἐν τῷ πρὸς τὸν ἴδιον θεράποντα Μωῦσέα χρηματισμῷ προσηγορίαν ἐξεῦρεν, ὄντα ἑαυτὸν ὀνομάσας; ᾿Εγὼ γάρ εἰμι, φησὶν, ὁ ὦν. Καὶ τούτοις οὐδεὶς ἀντερεῖ μὴ οὐχὶ ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ Κυρίου εἰρῆσθαι " οὔκουν ὅστις γε μὴ τὸ Ἰουδαϊκὸν κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τῇ ἀναγνώσει Μωῦσέως κατὰ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ καρδίας ἐπικείμενον ἔχει. Γέγραπται γὰρ, ὅτι ὥφθη τῷ Μωῦσεϊ ἄγγελος Κυρίου ἐπὶ τοῦ βάτου ἐν πυρὶ φλογός. Ἄγγελον τοίνυν προτάξασα τῆς διηγήσεως ἡ Γραφὴ, Θεοῦ ἐπάγει τὴν φωνήν. Εἶπε γὰρ, φησὶ, τῷ Μωϋσεῖ· Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ πατρός σου ᾿Αβραάμ" καὶ μετ᾽ ὀλίγα πάλιν - ᾿Εγώ εἰμι ὁ ὥν. Τίς οὖν ὁ αὐτὸς καὶ ἄγγελος καὶ Θεός; Ἆρα οὐχὶ περὶ οὗ μεμαθήκαμεν, τι καλεῖται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ μεγάλης βουλῆς Ἄγγελος; Ἐγὼ μὲν οὐχ οἶμαι πλειόνων δεῖν πρὸς τὴν ἀπόδειξιν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς μὲν φιλοχρίστοις ἐξαρκεῖν καὶ τὴν ὑπόμνησιν, τοῖς δὲ ἀνιάτως ἔχουσι μηδὲν ὄφελος ἐκ τοῦ πλήθους τῶν λεγομένων ἔσεσθαι. Εἰ γὰρ … ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ πρότερον ἀπηξίου τὴν τοῦ ἀγγέλου προσηγορίαν. Οὐ γὰρ ἐνταῦθα μόνον εὑρήσομεν τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν καὶ ἄγγελον καὶ Θεὸν ὑπὸ τῆς Γραφῆς ὀνομασθέντα - ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἰακώβ, τὴν ὀπτασίαν ταῖς γυναιξὶ διηγούμενος, φησί " Καὶ εἶπέ μοι ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ μετ᾽ ὀλίγα παρὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ὀφθείς σοι ἐν τῷ τόπῳ οὗ ἤλειψάς μοι ἐκεῖ στήλην. Καίτοι ἐκεῖ ἐπὶ τῆς στήλης τῷ Ἰακὼβ εἴρηται" Ἐγὼ Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς Ἀβραὰμ τοῦ πατρός σου, καὶ ὁ Θεὸς Ἰσαάκ. Ὁ τοίνυν ἐνταῦθα ἄγγελος εἰρημένος, οὗτος ἐκεῖ λέγει πεφανερῶσθαι …
… Παντὶ οὖν δῆλον, ὅτι ἔνθα καὶ ἄγγελος καὶ Θεὸς ὁ αὐτὸς προσηγόρευται, ὁ Μονογενῆς ἐστι δηλούμενος, ἐμφανίζων ἑαυτὸν κατὰ γενεὰν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, καὶ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Πατρὸς τοῖς ἀγίοις ἑαυτοῦ διαγγέλλων. Ὥστε καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ Μωϋσέως ὄντα ἑαυτὸν ὀνομάσας, οὐχ ἄλλος τις παρὰ τὸν Θεὸν Λόγον, τὸν ἐν ἀρχῇ ὄντα πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, νοηθείη.

### English translation (Claude)

[18] But he, carrying his argument on to shamelessness, says:

EUNOMIUS: "But we, [following] what has been shown by the saints both of old and now in our own time, since the essence of God does not admit a begetting, and no other essence is available as a substrate for the begetting of the Son, say that the Son was begotten not being."

BASIL: Who was ever so ambitious for piety? Who ever prided himself so much on loving Christ as these men exult in words of insult and dishonor that tear down the glory of the Only-Begotten? Will you not stop, godless man, calling "not being" the one who truly is, the fountain of life, the one who grants being to all that are? He found for himself, in his oracle to his own servant Moses, a name proper to himself and fitting to his own eternity, naming himself "the One who is": "For I am," he says, "the One who is." And no one will deny that these words were spoken in the person of the Lord, no one, at least, who does not have the Jewish veil lying over his heart at the reading of Moses. For it is written that an angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in the bush in a flame of fire. Having set an angel at the head of the account, Scripture then brings in the voice of God: "He said," it says, "to Moses: I am the God of your father Abraham"; and a little after, again, "I am the One who is." Who, then, is the same one both angel and God? Is it not the one of whom we have learned that his name is called "Angel of great counsel"? I do not think more is needed for the proof: for lovers of Christ even the reminder suffices, and for the incurable nothing will be gained from a multitude of words. For if … he did not disdain the name of angel even before. For not only here shall we find our Lord named by Scripture both angel and God; Jacob too, telling his wives of the vision, says, "And the [angel] of God said to me," and a little after, from the same one, "I am the God who appeared to you in the place where you anointed a pillar for me." Yet there, at the pillar, it was said to Jacob, "I am the Lord, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac." So the one called angel here is the one who says he appeared there … … It is plain to everyone, then, that wherever the same one is called both angel and God, the Only-Begotten is meant, manifesting himself to human beings in each generation and announcing the will of the Father to his saints. So also in the case of Moses, the one who named himself "the One who is" would be understood to be no other than God the Word, who was in the beginning with God.

### Scripture references

- Ps 36:9 (35:10 LXX): echo, medium confidence
- Exod 3:14: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 3:15: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 3:2: quotation, high confidence
- Exod 3:6: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 9:6 (9:5 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Gen 31:11: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 31:13: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 28:13: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:2: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 18 of Book 2; it ends in staged 2.20. Lost lines are marked …; Migne's Latin and notes are removed by logged corrections. The quotation is Eunomius's Apology.
- Ps 36:9 ('fountain of life'); Exod 3:14; 2 Cor 3:15; Exod 3:2, 3:6; Isa 9:6 (LXX 9:5); Gen 31:11, 31:13; Gen 28:13.
- End of chapter 18 of Book 2. Most of this scan page is Migne's notes and Latin, removed by logged corrections.
- John 1:2.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 2.18 (PG 29:519; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-17/#p-2-18).

## Against Eunomius 2.19

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-17/#p-2-19
- Source: PG 29:519
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil denounces calling the Son 'not being,' a phrase Scripture uses of idols, and shows that the 'superiority' Eunomius grants the Son over his works does not imply a difference of essence from creatures.

### Greek text

᾿Αλλ᾽ οἱ τὴν ἀδικίαν εἰς τὸ ὕψος λαλοῦντες μὴ ὄντα προσειπεῖν τὸν Υἱὸν οὐχ ἀπώκνησαν. Καὶ Ὁ μὲν ἄφρων ἐν καρδίᾳ αὑτοῦ εἶπεν, Οὐκ ἔστι Θεός" οἱ δὲ οὐ διενοήθησαν μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐλάλησαν ἐν πονηρίᾳ, καὶ γραφῇ παραδοῦναι εἰς τὸν ἔπειτα χρόνον οὐ παρητήσαντο, μὴ ὄντα τολμήσαντες τὸν Θεὸν ὀνομάσαι. Καὶ ἐπειδὴ γε ὁρῶσιν οὐδὲ τοὺς δαίμονας αὐτοὺς ἀπαρνουμένους τὸ εἶναι Θεὸν, οὗτοι, εἰς τὸν κατόπιν χρόνον ἐπανελθόντες τῷ λόγῳ, ἐκεῖ τὴν ἀσεβῆ ἑαυτῶν ἐπιθυμίαν ἀποπληροῦσι, μὴ εἶναί ποτε τὸν Υἱὸν βλασφημοῦντες, ὡς τῇ μὲν ἑαυτοῦ φύσει μὴ ὄντα, χάριτι δὲ εἰς τὸ εἶναι ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ παραχθέντα. Εἶτα ἣν ὁ Παῦλος περὶ τῶν εἰδώλων ἀφῆκε φωνὴν, εἰπών· Ἐδουλεύσατε τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσι θεοῖς" καὶ ὁ Ἱερεμίας" Καὶ ὤμνυσαν ἐν τοῖς μὴ οὖσι θεοῖς " καὶ ἣ σοφωτάτη Ἐσθήρ· Μὴ παραδῷς, Κύριε, τὸ σκῆπτρόν σου τοῖς μὴ οὖσι" ταύτην οὗτοι περὶ τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ Θεοῦ εἰπόντες, πῶς ἂν δικαίως ἔτι τῆς Χριστιανῶν προσηγορίας μεταποιοῖντο; Καὶ γάρ που καὶ ἑτέρωθι ὁ αὐτὸς οὗτος Ἀπόστολος, ὁ ἐν Πνεύματι Θεοῦ λαλῶν, μὴ ὄντα ὀνομάζει τὰ ἔθνη διὰ τὸ τῆς γνώσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστερῆσθαι, εἰπὼν, ὅτι Τὰ μὴ ὄντα ἐξελέξατο ὁ Θεός. Ἐπεὶ γὰρ ὢν καὶ ἀλήθεια καὶ ζωὴ ὁ θεὸς, οἱ τῷ Θεῷ τῷ ὄντι μὴ ἡνωμένοι κατὰ τὴν πίστιν, τῇ δὲ ἀνυπαρξίᾳ τοῦ ψεύδους οἰκειωθέντες διὰ τῆς περὶ τὰ εἴδωλα πλάνης, εἰκότως, οἶμαι, διὰ τὴν στέρησιν τῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς ζωῆς ἀλλοτρίωσιν, μὴ ὄντες προσηγορεύθησαν. ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ τοῖς Ἐφεσίοις ἐπιστέλλων ὡς γνησίως ἠνωμένοις τῷ ὄντι δι᾽ ἐπιγνώσεως, ὄντας αὐτοὺς ἰδιαζόντως ὠνόμασεν, εἰπών" Τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι, καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ. Οὕτω γὰρ καὶ οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν παραδεδώκασι, καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντιγράφων εὑρήκαμεν. Ὁ δὲ οὐδὲ ἧς οἱ δοῦλοι τοῦ Χριστοῦ προσηγορίας μετέχουσιν, οὐδὲ ταύτης ἀξιῶσαι τὸν Θεὸν ἡμῶν ἠνέσχετο, ἀλλὰ τὸν ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι παραγαγόντα τὴν κτίσιν, μὴ ὄντα προσεῖπε. Πλέον δ᾽ ἄν τις αὐτοῦ τὴν καταφρόνησιν καταμάθοι, ἐξ ὢν προσποιεῖται δῆθεν ἀποσεμνύνειν τὸν Κύριον. ΕΥΝ. Οὐ κοινοποιοῦμεν, φησὶ, τοῦ Μονογενοῦς τὴν οὐσίαν πρὸς τὰ ἐκ μὴ ὄντων γενόμενα, ἐπείπερ οὐχ οὐσία τὸ μὴ ὄν" ἀλλὰ τοσαύτην αὐτῷ νέμομεν τὴν ὑπεροχὴν, ὅσην ἔχειν ἀναγκαῖον τῶν ἰδίων ποιημάτων τὸν ποιητήν. ΒΑΣ. Διὰ τῶν κατασκευῶν εἰς τοῦτο τὸν λόγον προαγαγὼν, τῷ ῥήματι δῆθεν φιλανθρωπεύεται, καί φησι, μὴ κοινοποιεῖν πρὸς τὰ ἐκ μὴ ὄντων τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ Μονογενοῦς. Καίτοι εἰ ὁ Θεὸς τῶν ὅλων, διὰ τὸ ἀγέννητος εἶναι, ἀναγκαίαν ἔχει τὴν πρὸς τὰ γεννητὰ παραλλαγὴν, τὰ δὲ γεννητὰ σύμπαντα κοινὴν ἔχει τὴν ἐκ μὴ ὄντων ὑπόστασιν, πῶς οὐχὶ ἀναγκαίως ταῦτα κατὰ τὴν φύσιν συνάπτεται; Ὡς γὰρ ἐκεῖ τὸ ἀπρόσιτον διέστησι τὰς φύσεις, οὕτως ἐνταῦθα τὸ ὁμότιμον εἰς ταυτὸν ἀλλήλοις συνάγει. Ἐκ μὴ ὄντων δὲ λέγοντες τὸν Υἱὸν καὶ τὰ ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενόμενα, καὶ κοινοποιοῦντες αὐτῶν κατὰ τοῦτο τὴν φύσιν, οὔ φασιν ὁμοίαν αὐτῷ πρὸς τὰ ἐκ μὴ ὄντων διδόναι τὴν οὐσίαν. Καὶ γὰρ αὖ καὶ τοῦτο, ὡς αὐτὸς Κύριος ὧν, ὅσον βούλεται παρέχειν τῷ Μονογενεῖ τῆς ἀξίας, οὕτω ποιεῖται τοὺς λόγους" Τοσαύτην γὰρ αὐτῷ νέμομεν, φησὶ, τὴν ὑπεροχὴν, ὅσον ὑπερέχειν ἀναγκαῖον τῶν ἰδίων ποιημάτων τὸν ποιητήν. Οὐχ εἶπε, Κατειλήφαμεν ἣ δοξάζομεν, ὡς ἐπὶ Θεοῦ προσῆκον ἦν" ἀλλὰ, Νέμομεν, ὡς αὐτὸς τοῦ μέτρου τῆς διανομῆς κατάρχων. Πόσην δὲ καὶ δίδωσι τὴν ὑπεροχήν; Ὅσον ὑπερέχειν, φησὶν, ἀναγκαῖον τῶν ἰδίων ποιημάτων τὸν ποιητήν. Οὔπω τοῦτο τῆς κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν διαφορᾶς τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἔχει. Ἄνθρωποι γὰρ τέχνῃ μὲν ὑπερέχουσι τῶν οἰκείων ἔργων, ὁμοούσιοι δὲ ὅμως αὐτοῖς καθεστῆκασιν" ὡς ὁ κεραμεὺς τῷ πηλῷ, καὶ ὁ ναυπηγὸς τοῖς ξύλοις. Σώματα γὰρ ὁμοίως ἀμφότερα, καὶ αἰσθητὰ ὁμοίως, καὶ γήινα.

### English translation (Claude)

[19] But those who speak wickedness against the height did not shrink from calling the Son "not being." "The fool has said in his heart, There is no God"; but these men not only thought it, but spoke in wickedness and did not refuse to hand it down in writing to later times, daring to name God "not being." And since they see that not even the demons deny that God is, they go back in their argument to the time before, and there fulfill their impious desire, blaspheming that the Son once was not, as though by his own nature he were not, but had been brought into being by grace by God. Then the word that Paul uttered about idols, saying, "You served gods that by nature are not," and Jeremiah, "And they swore by those that are not gods," and the most wise Esther, "Do not give over your scepter, Lord, to those who are not": this word these men have spoken of the true God. How could they still rightly lay claim to the name of Christians? For elsewhere too this same Apostle, speaking in the Spirit of God, names the Gentiles "things that are not" because they were deprived of the knowledge of God, saying, "God chose the things that are not." For since God is the One who is, and truth, and life, those who were not united by faith to God who is, but had been made akin to the nonexistence of falsehood through the error of idols, were fittingly, I think, called "not being," because of the privation of truth and estrangement from life. But writing to the Ephesians as to those genuinely united to the One who is through knowledge, he named them in a special way "those who are," saying, "To the saints who are, and faithful in Christ Jesus." For so those before us have handed it down, and we too have found it in the old copies. But he did not bring himself to grant our God even the name that the servants of Christ share, but called "not being" the one who brought creation from not being into being. One may learn his contempt even more from the words by which he pretends to extol the Lord:

EUNOMIUS: "We do not make the essence of the Only-Begotten common," he says, "with the things that came to be from what is not, since what is not is not an essence; but we assign him as much superiority as the maker must have over his own works."

BASIL: Having led his argument to this point by his constructions, he plays the generous man in words, and says that he does not make the essence of the Only-Begotten common with the things from what is not. Yet if the God of the universe, because he is unbegotten, necessarily differs from begotten things, and all begotten things have in common their subsistence from what is not, how are these not necessarily joined in nature? For as there inaccessibility separates the natures, so here equality of honor brings them together into the same. Saying that the Son and the things made by him are from what is not, and making their nature common in this respect, they say that they do not give him an essence like the things from what is not. And again, as though he himself were lord, he frames his words as if granting the Only-Begotten as much dignity as he wishes: "We assign him," he says, "as much superiority as the maker must have over his own works." He did not say, "We have grasped" or "We glorify," as was fitting in speaking of God, but "We assign," as if he himself controlled the measure of the distribution. And how much superiority does he give? "As much," he says, "as the maker must surpass his own works." This does not yet bear witness to a difference in essence. For human beings surpass their own works in art, and yet are of the same essence as them, as the potter with the clay and the shipbuilder with the timbers; for both alike are bodies, alike perceptible, and alike earthy.

### Scripture references

- Ps 73:8 (72:8 LXX): echo, medium confidence
- Ps 14:1 (13:1 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Jas 2:19: allusion, medium confidence
- Gal 4:8: quotation, high confidence
- Jer 5:7: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 1:28: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 1:1: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Add Esth C 22 (Additions to Esther): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 19 of Book 2. Migne's Latin and notes are removed by logged corrections. The quotation is Eunomius's Apology.
- Ps 73:8; Ps 14:1 (LXX 13:1); Jas 2:19; Gal 4:8; Jer 5:7; 1 Cor 1:28; Eph 1:1 ('to the saints who are': Basil notes the reading of the old copies, which lack 'in Ephesus'). Esther's prayer is in the Greek additions to Esther (Addition C 22).

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 2.19 (PG 29:519; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-17/#p-2-19).

## Against Eunomius 2.20

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-17/#p-2-20
- Source: PG 29:519
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil rejects Eunomius's redefinition of 'Only-Begotten' as 'begotten and created by the only one,' briefly treats Prov 8:22 ('The Lord created me,' rendered by other translators 'acquired me'), and shows the absurd consequences of calling the Son a mere minister.

### Greek text

Τοσοῦτον δὲ τῷ Υἱῷ πρὸς τὴν κτίσιν τὸ διάφορὸν συγχωρῶν, ἤδη καὶ περὶ αὐτὴν τὴν ἔννοιαν τοῦ … ΕΥ̓͂Ν. Διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ, φησὶ, Μονογενὴς, ἐπειδὴ, μόνος παρὰ μόνου τῇ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου δυνάμει γεννηθεὶς καὶ κτισθεὶς, τελειότατος γέγονεν ὑπουργός. ΒΑΣ. Οὐκ οἶδα πρὸς ὅ τι χρὴ πλέον τῶν εἰρημένων ἀγανακτῆσαι· πότερον διὰ τὴν πανουργίαν, ἣν περὶ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ἐκακούργησε, παρά τε τὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων συνήθειαν, καὶ παρὰ τὴν εὐσεβῆ τῶν Γραφῶν παράδοσιν ἐκλαμβάνων αὐτοῦ τὴν διάνοιαν (Μονογενὴς γὰρ οὐχ ὁ παρὰ μόνου γενόμενος, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ μόνος γεννηθεὶς, ἐν τῇ κοινῇ χρήσει προσαγορεύεται)" ἣ περὶ τῆς τοῦ κτίσματος βλασφημίας, ἣν ἐξεπίτηδες συνῆψε τῷ γεννηθείς " ἵνα δείξῃ, ὅτι οὐδὲν διαφερόντως παρὰ τὰ κτίσματα τῆς τοῦ γεγεννῆσθαι προσηγορίας μέτεστι τῷ Κυρίῳ" ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ τὸ, Υἱοὺς ἐγέννησα καὶ ὕψωσα, καὶ τὸ, Υἱὸς πρωτότοκός μου Ἰσραήλ· οὕτω καὶ τὸν Κύριον Υἱὸν ὠνομάσθαι, οὐχὶ ἔχοντα τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα, ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ ἴσου τοῖς ἄλλοις τῆς προσηγορίας … …γουσι λέξιν· κἀκεῖθεν, ὥσπερ ἐξ ὁρμητηρίου τινὸς, τῆς πίστεως κατατρέχουσι. Διὰ γὰρ τὸ ἐκ προσώπου τῆς Σοφίας εἰρῆσθαι τὸ, Κύριος ἔκτισέ με, ἐξεῖναι αὐτοῖς κτίσμα λέγειν τὸν Κύριον ὑπειλήφασιν. Ἐγὼ δὲ πολλὰ ἔχων εἰπεῖν περὶ τῆς φωνῆς ταύτης πρῶτον μὲν, ὅτι ἅπαξ ἐν πάσαις ταῖς Γραφαῖς εἴρηται ἔπειθ᾽, ὅτι ἐν βίβλῳ πολὺ τὸ κεκρυμμένον τῆς διανοίας ἐχούσῃ, καὶ διὰ παροιμιῶν τε καὶ παραβολῶν καὶ σκοτεινῶν λόγων καὶ αἰνιγμάτων ὡς τὰ πολλὰ προτγμένῃ, ὥστε μηδὲν ἀναμφισβήτητον μηδὲ τηλαυγὲς ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς εἶναι λαβεῖν " παρίημι λέγειν, ἵνα μὴ μακροτέροις ἐπεισοδίοις τὸν λόγον ἀπομηκύναιμι " ἄλλως τε καὶ ἐν ἰδίῳ τόπῳ τῆς περὶ τῶν κακῶς αὐτοῖς νοηθέντων ἐξετάσεως ἡμῖν ὑπερτεθείσης, ἐν ᾧ καὶ τοῦτο τὸ μέρος, Θεοῦ διδόντος, διευθυνθήσεται. Καὶ οἶμαί γε, ὅ τι σὺν Θεῷ δὲ εἰρήσθω, πολλῷ ἀκολουθοτέραν ἔννοιαν τῆς προκειμένης λέξεως, καὶ μηδένα κίνδυνον φέρουσαν ἀναφανήσεσθαι τῇ ἐξετάσει. Τέως γε μὴν μηδὲ ἐκεῖνο ἀπαρασήμαντον χαταλέπωμεν " ὅτι ἄλλοι τῶν ἑρμηνέων, οἱ καιριώτερον τῆς ση… Ἐκτήσατό με ἀντὶ τοῦ, Ἔκτισεν, ἐκδεδώκασιν. Ὅπερ μέγιστον αὐτοῖς ἐμπόδιον ἔσται πρὸς τὴν βλασφημίαν τοῦ κτίσματος. Ὁ γὰρ εἰπὼν, ᾿Εκτησάμην ἄνθρωπον διὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὐχὶ κτίσας τὸν Κάϊν, ἀλλὰ γεννήσας, ταύτῃ φαίνεται χρησάμενος τῇ φωνῇ. Ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐπανίωμεν. ΕΥΝ. Διὰ τοῦτο, φησὶ, Μονογενὴς, ἐπειδὴ, παρὰ μόνου γεννηθεὶς καὶ κτισθεὶς, τελειότατος γέγονεν ὑπουργός. ΒΑΣ. Εἰ τοίνυν μὴ παρὰ τὸ μόνος γεγεννῆσθαι, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ παρὰ μόνου Μονογενὴς εἴρηται, ταυτὸν δέ ἐστι κατὰ σὲ τὸ ἐκτίσθαι τῷ γεγεννῆσθαι" τί οὐχὶ καὶ μονόκτιστον αὐτὸν ὀνομάζεις, ᾧ πάντα σὺ ῥᾳδίως καὶ διανοούμενος καὶ ἐκφέρων; Μονογενὴς δὲ, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἀνθρώπων οὐδεὶς, κατά γε τὸν ἡμέτερον λόγον διὰ τὸ ἐκ συνδυασμοῦ πᾶσιν ὑπάρχειν τὴν γέννησιν. Οὐδὲ ἡ Σάρα μήτηρ μονογενοῦς ἦν παιδὸς, διότι οὐχὶ μόνη αὐτὸν, ἀλλὰ μετὰ τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ ἐτεκνώσατο. Καὶ ἐάν γε κρατῇ τὰ ὑμέτερα, ἀνάγκη ὅλον τὸν βίον μεταμαθεῖν, μὴ μονώσεως ἀδελφῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐρημίας τῶν συντικτόντων δηλωτικὸν εἶναι τοὔνομα. Ἤδη δὲ καὶ ἡ κτίσις παρὰ τὴν αἰτίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγον πρὸς τὴν ἀξίαν ἠλάττωται, παρὰ τοσοῦτον τοῦ καὶ αὐτὴ μονογενὴς εἶναι διαμαρτοῦσα, παρ᾽ ὅσον ὁ Υἱὸς τῆς δημιουργίας τῷ Πατρὶ συνεφήψατο " καίτοιγε οὐδὲ τοῦτο παρ᾽ αὐτῶν συγχωρεῖται. Ὑπουργὸν γὰρ τελειότατον αὐτὸν ὀνομάζουσι. Πῶς οὖν οὐχὶ παρὰ μόνου καὶ ἡ κτίσις γέγονε καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς, οἷόν τι ὄργανον ἄψυχον τὸν Θεὸν Λόγον τῷ Πατρὶ προστιθέντας, εἰ μὴ καὶ τὸν ναυπηγὸν ἀφαιρήσεταί τις μόνον πεποιηκέναι τὴν ναῦν, ὅτι δὴ ὀργάνοις πρὸς τὴν κατασκευὴν συνεχρήσατο; Ὥστε μονογενὴς καὶ ἡ κτίσις, καὶ τὰ μέρη ταύτης οὐ μόνον αἱ ἀόρατοι δυνάμεις, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ αἰσθητὰ σώματα, καὶ τούτων τὰ εὐτελέστατα, σκνῖπες, καὶ ἀκρίδες, καὶ βάτραχοι. Αὐτὸς γὰρ εἶπε, καὶ ἐγενήθησαν. Τίνος γὰρ ἂν καὶ ὑπουργίας δέοιτο ὁ θελήματι μόνῳ δημιουργῶν, ὁμοῦ τῇ βουλήσει συνυφισταμένης τῆς κτίσεως; ᾿Αλλὰ τί; πῶς καὶ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τὰ πάντα; Ὅτι τὸ θεῖον βούλημα, οἷον πηγῆς τινος τῆς πρώτης αἰτίας ἀφορμηθέν, διὰ τῆς … Ὁ δὲ τὸν μονογενῆ Υἱὸν ὑπουργὸν …σε, τοῦτο αὐτῷ προστιθεὶς μέγα, ὅτι εὔθετος πρὸς τὴν διακονίαν τῶν ἐπιτασσομένων ἐστίν. Εἰ γὰρ οὐχ ἐν τῷ Θεὸς εἶναι τέλειος τὴν δόξαν κέκτηται, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ ὑπουργὸς ἀκριβὴς, τί διοίσει τῶν λειτουργικῶν πνευμάτων, ἀμέμπτως τὸ ἔργον τῆς διακονίας ἐπιτελούντων; Διὰ ταῦτα τῷ γεννηθεὶς τὸ κτισθεὶς συνῆψεν, ἵνα κἀντεῦθεν μηδεμίαν οὖσαν Υἱοῦ καὶ κτίσματος διαφορὰν ἐπιδείξῃ.

### English translation (Claude)

[20] Having granted the Son only so much difference from creation, he now does mischief also with the very notion of the …:

EUNOMIUS: "For this reason he is Only-Begotten: because, begotten and created alone by the only one through the power of the unbegotten, he became the most perfect minister."

BASIL: I do not know at which of the things he has said I should be more indignant. Is it at the knavery he has worked on the name "Only-Begotten," taking its sense against both the usage of human beings and the pious tradition of the Scriptures (for in common usage "only-begotten" is said not of one who came to be from only one, but of one who alone was begotten)? Or at the blasphemy of "creature," which he deliberately joined to "begotten," to show that the Lord shares the name "having been begotten" no differently from creatures, but that, as in "I have begotten sons and raised them up" and "Israel is my firstborn son," so the Lord too has been named Son, not having the name that is above every name, but [counted worthy] of the designation equally with the others … the text, and from there, as from a base of operations, they overrun the faith. For because "The Lord created me" was said in the person of Wisdom, they have supposed they may call the Lord a creature. For my part, though I have much to say about this word (first, that it is said only once in all the Scriptures; then, that it is in a book that has much of its sense hidden and proceeds for the most part by proverbs, parables, dark sayings, and riddles, so that nothing undisputed or clear can be taken from it), I pass over saying it, so as not to lengthen the discourse with longer digressions, especially since the examination of what they have understood badly has been deferred by us to its own place, in which this part too, God granting, will be set right. And I think, if this may be said with God's help, that a much more consistent sense of the text before us, and one that brings no danger, will appear in the examination. Meanwhile let us not leave this unremarked: that other translators, who have hit upon the meaning … more aptly, have rendered "acquired me" instead of "created." This will be the greatest obstacle for them to the blasphemy of "creature." For the one who said, "I have acquired a man through God," plainly used this word not of creating Cain but of begetting him.

[21] But let us return to the beginning.

EUNOMIUS: "For this reason," he says, "he is Only-Begotten: because, begotten and created from the only one, he became the most perfect minister."

BASIL: If, then, he is called Only-Begotten not because he alone was begotten but because he is from the only one, and in your view being created is the same as being begotten, why do you not also call him "only-created," you who think and say everything so easily? By our reckoning, then, it seems, no human being is only-begotten, since everyone is born of a pair. Nor was Sarah the mother of an only-begotten child, since she bore him not alone but with Abraham. And if your views prevail, we must relearn the whole of life: the name will indicate not the absence of brothers but the lack of co-parents. And now creation too falls short in dignity of the cause, God the Word, only so far as it misses being itself only-begotten, in so far as the Son had a hand with the Father in the work of creation; and yet not even this is granted by them, for they name him the most perfect minister. How then, on your view, has creation not come to be from the only one, when you add God the Word to the Father as a kind of lifeless instrument? Unless one will deny that the shipbuilder alone made the ship because he used tools to build it. So creation too is only-begotten, and its parts: not only the invisible powers but also perceptible bodies, and the cheapest of them, gnats and locusts and frogs. "For he spoke, and they came to be." What ministry would he need who creates by will alone, creation coming to subsist together with his willing? What then? How, on our view, are all things through the Son? Because the divine will, issuing as from a spring of the first cause, through … But he has [named] the only-begotten Son a minister, adding to him this great thing: that he is well suited to the service of what is commanded. For if he has his glory not in being perfect God but in being an exact minister, how will he differ from the ministering spirits, who accomplish the work of their service blamelessly? That is why he joined "created" to "begotten," so that from this too he might show that there is no difference between the Son and a creature.

### Scripture references

- Isa 1:2: quotation, high confidence
- Exod 4:22: quotation, high confidence
- Phil 2:9: quotation, high confidence
- Prov 8:22: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 4:1: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 148:5: quotation, high confidence
- Heb 1:14: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapters 20 and 21 of Book 2 (marked [20], [21]). Lost lines are marked …; Migne's Latin and notes are removed by logged corrections. The quotations are from Eunomius's Apology.
- Isa 1:2; Exod 4:22; Phil 2:9; Prov 8:22 (Septuagint ἔκτισε; 'other translators', i.e. the later Greek versions, ἐκτήσατο); Gen 4:1; Ps 148:5 (also Ps 33:9); Heb 1:14; gnats, frogs, locusts: Exod 8-10.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 2.20 (PG 29:519; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-17/#p-2-20).

## Against Eunomius 2.22

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-17/#p-2-22
- Source: PG 29:519
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil answers Eunomius's warning against a 'human' begetting: faith in Father and Son, into whom Christians are baptized, is the heart of the Gospel, and the names indicate a relation, not bodily passion.

### Greek text

Ἄξιον δὲ ἀκοῦσαι καὶ τῆς παραινέσεως. ΕΥ̓͂Ν. Οὐ χρὴ, φησὶ, τῇ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ προσέχοντας προσηγορίᾳ ἀνθρωπικὴν αὐτοῦ τὴν γέννησιν ἐννοεῖν, κἀκ τῶν ἐν ἀνθρώποις γενέσεων ἀναγομένους, τοῖς τῆς μετουσίας ὀνόμασι καὶ πάθεσιν ὑπάγειν τὸν Θεόν. ΒΑΣ. Ἡ μὲν παραίνεσις, μὴ δεῖν τὴν κατ᾽ οὐσίαν Υἱοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς ὁμοιότητα ἐννοεῖν. Τοῦτο γὰρ αὐτῷ βούλεται ἡ τῆς μετουσίας ἀπαγόρευσις, ὡς ἀκοινωνήτου τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσίας πρὸς τὴν τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ὑπαρχούσης. Διὰ ταῦτα αἱ σεμναὶ ἐκεῖναι τῶν ὀνομάτων διαστολαὶ, ὧν τὸν ὄχλον ἡμεῖς ὑπερέθεμεν· ὡς οὐχὶ ὅσων αἱ ἐκφωνήσεις αἱ αὐταὶ, ταῦτα καὶ τῷ σημαινομένῳ ἤδη ταυτὰ, ἵνα τὸ Πατέρα εἶναι τοῦ Υἱοῦ τὸν Θεὸν διὰ τοὺς ἐπὶ γῆς πατέρας ὀνομαζομένους ἀφέληται. Ἐγὼ δὲ, πολλῶν ὄντων, ἃ τὸν Χριστιανισμὸν ἀπὸ τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς … …δὲν ἡγοῦμαι κυριώτερον δόγμα τῆς εἰς Πατέρα καὶ Υἱὸν πίστεως τῷ Εὐαγγελίῳ τῆς σωτηρίας ἡμῶν ἐνυπάρχειν. Ἐπεὶ τό γε κτίστην εἶναι καὶ δημιουργὸν τὸν Θεὸν καὶ οἱ καθ᾽ ὁποιανδήποτε ἀπεσχισμένοι συντίθενται. Ὁ δὲ Πατέρα ψευδώνυμον, καὶ Υἱὸν μέχρι προσηγορίας ψιλῆς καταγγέλλων, καὶ οὐδὲν ἡγούμενος διαφέρειν, ἢ Πατέρα ὁμολογεῖν ἣ κτίστην, καὶ ἤτοι Υἱὸν λέγειν ἣ ποίημα, ποῦ τετάξεται παρ᾽ ἡμῶν; ἣ τῆς ποίας εἶναι μερίδος ἀριθμηθήσεται τῆς Ἰουδαίων, ἣ τῆς Ἑλλήνων; Οὐ γὰρ δὴ Χριστιανοῖς ἑαυτὸν εἰσποιήσει, ὁ τὴν δύναμιν τῆς εὐσεβείας, καὶ τὸν οἱονεὶ χαρακτῆρα τῆς λατρείας ἡμῶν ἀρνούμενος. Οὐ γὰρ εἰς δημιουργὸν καὶ ποίημα … …σαμεν· ἀλλ᾽ εἰς Πατέρα καὶ Υἱὸν διὰ τῆς ἐν τῷ βαπτίσματι χάριτος ἐσφραγίσθημεν. Ὥστε ὁ ταύτας τολμῶν ἀθετεῖν τὰς φωνὰς πᾶσαν ὁμοῦ παραγράφει τῶν Εὐαγγελίων τὴν δύναμιν, Πατέρα μὴ γεννήσαντα, καὶ Υἱὸν μὴ γεννηθέντα κηρύσσων. ᾿Αλλὰ ταῦτα λέγω, φησὶ, τὴν τοῦ πάθους ἔννοιαν τὴν ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς φωνῆς ἐγγινομένην ἐκκλίνων. Ἐχρῆν δὲ δήπου τόν γε εὐσεβεῖν ἐγνωκότα, τὸ ἀπεμφαῖνον τῆς ἐν τοῖς ῥήμασι τούτοις διανοίας, εἴ τι ἄρα καὶ ἐνυπῆρχε, μὴ πᾶσαν ἀθρόως τὴν φωνὴν ἀθετεῖν, μηδὲ τῇ προφάσει τοῦ ἀπρεποῦς καὶ τὸ ὅσον ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς χρήσιμὸν συνεκβάλλειν· ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ μὲν τῶν ταπεινῶν καὶ σαρκικῶν νοημάτων ἐν τοῖς περὶ Θεοῦ δόγμασι καθαρεύειν, γέννησιν δὲ τῇ ἁγιωσύνῃ καὶ τῇ ἀπαθείᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ πρέπουσαν ἐννοεῖν" τὸν μὲν τρόπον, καθ᾽ ὃν ἐγέννησεν ὁ Θεὸς, ὡς ἄῤῥητον καὶ ἀπερινόητον ἀφιέντα, πρὸς δὲ τὴν κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ὁμοιότητα ἐκ τῆς τοῦ γεννᾷν προσηγορίας ὁδηγούμενον. Καίτοιγε …ρὸν σκοπουμένῳ, ὅτι οὐ σωματικῶν παθῶν κυρίως καὶ πρώτως ἔννοιαν ἐμποιεῖν ταυτὶ πέφυκε τὰ ὀνόματα, ὁ πατὴρ, λέγω, καὶ ὁ υἱός " ἀλλὰ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὰ μὲν λεγόμενα, τὴν πρὸς ἄλληλα σχέσιν ἐνδείκνυται μόνην. Πατὴρ μὲν γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ἑτέρῳ τοῦ εἶναι κατὰ τὴν ὁμοίαν ἑαυτῷ φύσιν τὴν ἀρχὴν παρασχών" υἱὸς δὲ ὁ ἐξ ἑτέρου γεννητῶς τοῦ εἶναι τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐσχηκώς.

### English translation (Claude)

[22] The exhortation also deserves a hearing:

EUNOMIUS: "One must not," he says, "attending to the designation of Father and Son, conceive his begetting in a human way, and, being led up from generations among human beings, subject God to the names and passions of participation."

BASIL: The exhortation is that one must not conceive a likeness in essence between Son and Father. For this is what his prohibition of participation means: as if the Father's essence had no communion with that of the Only-Begotten. That is the purpose of those solemn distinctions of names, whose crowd we have passed over: that things whose utterances are the same are not therefore the same in meaning, so that he might take away God's being Father of the Son because of those on earth who are called fathers. For my part, among the many things that set Christianity apart from Greek … , I think no doctrine in the Gospel of our salvation is more decisive than faith in Father and Son. For that God is creator and maker even those who have broken away in any way at all agree. But the one who proclaims a falsely named Father, and a Son only in bare name, and thinks it makes no difference whether one confesses Father or creator, or says Son or thing made: where will he be ranked by us? To which party will he be counted, that of the Jews or that of the Greeks? For he will surely not enroll himself among the Christians, he who denies the power of piety and, as it were, the stamp of our worship. For we did not … believe in a maker and a thing made, but were sealed by the grace of baptism into Father and Son. So the one who dares to set aside these words strikes out at once the whole power of the Gospels, proclaiming a Father who did not beget and a Son who was not begotten. "But I say this," he says, "to avoid the notion of passion that arises from the word Father." Yet one who knows how to be pious ought surely, if anything incongruous is present in the sense of these words, not to set aside the word wholesale, nor on the pretext of what is unfitting to throw out with it whatever is useful in it, but in doctrines about God to keep himself clean of lowly and fleshly notions and to conceive a begetting befitting the holiness and impassibility of God: leaving the manner in which God begot as ineffable and incomprehensible, but being guided by the name "begetting" to likeness in essence. And yet it is plain to anyone who examines it that these names, I mean "father" and "son," do not in their proper and primary sense naturally produce a notion of bodily passions; said by themselves, they indicate only their relation to each other. For a father is one who has provided another with the beginning of being in a nature like his own; a son is one who has had the beginning of his being from another by way of begetting.

### Scripture references

- Eph 3:15: echo, medium confidence
- 2 Tim 3:5: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 28:19: allusion, high confidence
- Eph 1:13: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 22 of Book 2. Lost lines are marked …; Migne's Latin and notes are removed by logged corrections. The quotation is Eunomius's Apology.
- 'Fathers on earth' recalls Eph 3:15; 'the power of piety', 2 Tim 3:5; baptism into Father and Son, Matt 28:19; 'sealed', Eph 1:13. The remark on Jews and Greeks is translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 2.22 (PG 29:519; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-17/#p-2-22).

## Against Eunomius 2.23

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-17/#p-2-23
- Source: PG 29:519
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil argues that the names Father and Son, applied to God, point to the impassible cause, and that Christ himself transfers the name 'Father' from human beings to God.

### Greek text

Ὅταν μὲν οὖν ἀκούσωμεν, ὅτι ἄνθρωπος πατὴρ, τότε καὶ τὴν τοῦ πάθους ἔννοιαν προσλαμβάνομεν· ὅταν δὲ, ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς Πατὴρ, ἐπὶ τὴν ἀπαθῆ αἰτίαν τοῖς λογισμοῖς ἀνατρέχομεν. Ὁ δὲ, ἐπὶ τῆς ἐμπαθοῦς φύσεως τῇ προσηγορίᾳ ταύτῃ συνεθισθεὶς, τὸ ὑπὲρ τὴν κατάληψιν τῶν ἑαυτοῦ λογισμῶν ὡς ἀδύνατον ἀπαρνεῖται. Οὐ γὰρ, τῷ πάθει τῶν φθαρτῶν προσέχοντα, τῇ ἀπαθείᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀπιστεῖν προσῆκεν, οὐδὲ, τῇ ῥευστῇ φύσει καὶ μυρίαις ὑποκειμένῃ μεταβολαῖς, τὴν ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον οὐσίαν παρατιθέντα. Μηδ᾽ ὅτι τὰ θνητὰ ζῶα διὰ πάθους γεννᾷ, καὶ τὸν Θεὸν ἐχρῆν οὕτως οἴεσθαι" ἀλλ᾽ ἐντεῦθεν μᾶλλον ὁδηγεῖσθαι πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν" ὅτι, ἐπειδὴ τὰ φθαρτὰ οὕτως, ὁ ἄφθαρτος ἐναντίως. Καὶ μὴν οὐδὲ ἐκεῖνό γε ἄν εἴποι, ὡς κυρίως καὶ πρώτως ἐπὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τεταγμένων τῶν ὀνομάτων τούτων, καταχρηστικῶς ἡμεῖς ἐπιλέγομεν τῷ Θεῷ. Ὁ γάρ τοι Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς, πρὸς τὴν πάντων ἀρχὴν καὶ τὴν ἀληθῆ τῶν ὄντων αἰτίαν ἐπανάγων ἡμᾶς, Ὑμεῖς δὲ μὴ καλέσητε, φησὶ, πατέρα ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς" εἷς γάρ ἐστι Πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος. Πῶς οὖν ὡς σαρκικῶν παθῶν προηγουμένως ἐνδεικτικὰς ταύτας ἡμᾶς ἀξιοῖ τὰς φωνὰς ἀποπέμπεσθαι, ἃς ὁ Κύριος, ὡς τῇ ἀπαθείᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ πρεπούσας, ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων πρὸς αὐτὸν μετατίθησιν; Εἰ δὲ καὶ …
… τῷ ἡμετέρῳ μάχεται. Ὁ γὰρ τετοκὼς βώλους δρόσου, κατὰ τὸν τοῦ Ἰὼβ λόγον, οὐχ ὁμοίως τάς τε βώλους καὶ τὸν Υἱὸν ἐτεκνώσατο. Ἢ εἰ τοῦτο λέγειν τολμήσουσιν, ὥστε ἐν ἴσῃ τάξει καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν τῆς δρόσου υἱὸν ὀνομάζειν, παντὸς ἡμᾶς τοῦ πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἀπαλλάξουσι λόγου, εἰς περιφανεστάτην ἀναισχυντίαν τὴν βλασφημίαν προαγαγόντες. Οὐδὲ γὰρ ὅταν Πατὴρ πάντων ἡμῶν λέγηται ὁ Θεός, κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἡμῶν τε καὶ τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ἔστι Πατήρ. Εἰ δὲ ὅτι πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, καὶ πρωτότοκος ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς, ὁ Κύριος προσηγόρευται, τοῦτο αὐτοὺς παιδοτριβεῖ πρὸς ἀσέβειαν" διδασκέσθωσαν ἐκ τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου, ὅτι καὶ μητέρα ἑαυτοῦ καὶ ἀδελφοὺς ὁ Κύριος τοὺς ἐκ τῶν ἔργων τῆς ἀρετῆς οἰκειωθέντας προσαγορεύει. Τίς γάρ ἐστι, φησὶ, ἡ μήτηρ μου, καὶ τίνες οἱ ἀδελφοί μου, ἣ οἱ ποιοῦντες τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς; Ὥστε Πατὴρ ἡμῶν ὁ Θεὸς οὐ καταχρηστικῶς οὐδ᾽ ἐκ μεταφορᾶς, ἀλλὰ κυρίως, καὶ πρώτως, καὶ ἀληθινῶς ὀνομάζεται " διὰ τῶν σωματικῶν γονέων εἰς τὸ εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος παραγαγὼν, καὶ ταῖς κηδεμονίαις … …μένους. Εἰ δὲ ἡμῶν τῶν χάριτι τῆς υἱοθεσίας ἀξιουμένων ἀληθῶς κεκλῆσθαι Πατέρα τὸν Θεὸν λέγομεν, τίς ἀφαιρήσεται λόγος τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν Υἱοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ προελθόντος, μὴ οὐχὶ πρεπόντως αὐτὸν Πατέρα προσαγορεύεσθαι; ΕΥ̓͂Ν. Οὐ χρὴ, φησὶ, διὰ τὴν Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ προσηγορίαν ἀνθρωπικὴν τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου γέννησιν ἐννοεῖν. ΒΑΣ. Φημὶ κἀγώ. Θείαν μέντοι καὶ ἀπαθῆ τί κωλύει πιστεύειν τοὺς εὐσεβεῖς; ᾿Αλλ᾽, οἶμαι, οὐχ ἵνα ἀπαθῶς γεγεννηκότα τὸν Θεὸν ἐπιδείξῃ, χρῆται τοῖς λόγοις τούτοις, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα μηδὲ γεννήσαντα ὅλως. Πῶς οὖν ἐν τοῖς ἄνω λόγοις, ὦ βέλτιστε, γέννημα εἶναι τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ἀπεφαίνου; Εἰ γὰρ μὴ γεγέννηται, πόθεν αὐτῷ τὸ γέννημα εἶναι κατὰ τὸν σὸν λόγον προσῆν; ᾿Αλλὰ διὰ μὲν τὴν τοῦ γεννητοῦ πρὸς τὸ ἀγέννητον ἐναντίωσιν γέννημα οὖσαν
δεικνύναι τὴν οὐσίαν ἐφιλονείκει " νυνὶ δὲ, πάλιν τὴν τῆς οὐσίας οἰκείωσιν διὰ τῆς φωνῆς ταύτης … ὁρῶν, τὸ γεγεννῆσθαι τοῦ γεννήματος ἀφαιρεῖται Καὶ μὴν εἰ τοῦτο ὡς πάθους δηλωτικὸν παραιτεῖται, τί κωλύει καὶ τὸ δημιουργὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι διὰ τὰς αὐτὰς αἰτίας μὴ παραδέχεσθαι; Διότι πάσαις ταῖς σωματικαῖς ἐνεργείαις ἣ πλείων τις πάντως ἣ ἐλάττων κόπος συνέζευκται, κατὰ τὴν ἀναλογίαν τῆς τοῦ ποιοῦντος δυνάμεως καὶ τῆς πρὸς τὰ μεγέθη τῶν ἐνεργουμένων διαφορᾶς. Τήν γε μὴν θείαν καὶ μακαρίαν φύσιν καμάτῳ λέγειν συνέχεσθαι οὐχ ἧττον ἀσεβὲς, ἣ τοῖς αἰσχίστοις αὐτὴν πάθεσιν ὑποβάλλειν. Εἰ δὲ ἀπαθῶς κτίζει, ἀπαθῆ εἶναι δέξασθε καὶ τὴν γέννησιν.

### English translation (Claude)

[23] So when we hear that a man is a father, we take in with it the notion of passion; but when we hear that God is Father, we run up in our reasonings to the impassible cause. But he, accustomed to this name in the case of the nature subject to passion, denies as impossible what is beyond the grasp of his own reasonings. For it was not right, attending to the passion of corruptible beings, to disbelieve the impassibility of God, nor to set the unchanging and unalterable essence beside the flowing nature that is subject to countless changes. Nor, because mortal animals beget through passion, should one have thought the same of God; rather, one should have been guided from this toward the truth: that since corruptible beings beget in this way, the incorruptible one does so in the opposite way. Nor indeed would he say this: that these names are applied properly and primarily to human beings, and that we apply them to God by a misuse of terms. For our Lord Jesus Christ, leading us up to the beginning of all things and the true cause of beings, says, "Call no one your father on earth; for you have one Father, the heavenly one." How then does he think we should reject these words as indicating fleshly passions in the first place, when the Lord transfers them from human beings to himself as befitting the impassibility of God? And if … … is in conflict with ours. For the one who has brought forth the drops of dew, in the words of Job, did not bring forth the drops and the Son in the same way. Or if they dare to say this, so as to call the substance of the dew "son" in the same rank, they will release us from all argument with them, having carried their blasphemy on to the most manifest shamelessness. For not even when God is called Father of us all is he Father of us and of the Only-Begotten in the same way. And if the fact that the Lord has been called "firstborn of all creation" and "firstborn among many brothers" trains them for impiety, let them learn from the Gospel that the Lord also calls "mother" and "brothers" those made akin to him by the works of virtue: "Who," he says, "is my mother, and who are my brothers, but those who do the will of my Father in heaven?" So God is named our Father not by a misuse of terms nor by metaphor, but properly, primarily, and truly, since he has brought us from not being into being through our bodily parents, and by his care … If, then, we say that God is truly called Father of us, who are counted worthy of the grace of adoption, what argument will take away from the Son by nature, who came forth from his essence, that he fittingly calls him Father?

EUNOMIUS: "One must not," he says, "because of the designation of Father and Son, conceive the Lord's begetting as human."

BASIL: I say so too. But what prevents the pious from believing in one that is divine and impassible? But, I think, he uses these words not to show that God begot impassibly, but that he did not beget at all. How then, my good man, did you declare in your earlier arguments that the essence of the Only-Begotten is offspring? For if he has not been begotten, from where did being offspring belong to him, by your argument? But because of the opposition of begotten to unbegotten he strove to show that the essence is offspring; but now, seeing again that the kinship of essence is … by this word, he takes away from the offspring its having been begotten. Yet if he rejects this as indicating passion, what prevents him, for the same reasons, from not admitting that he is creator either? For with all bodily activities some greater or lesser toil is joined, in proportion to the power of the maker and the difference in the magnitudes of the works. But to say that the divine and blessed nature is held by weariness is no less impious than to subject it to the most shameful passions. If, then, he creates impassibly, accept that the begetting too is impassible.

### Scripture references

- Matt 23:9: quotation, high confidence
- Job 38:28: quotation, high confidence
- Col 1:15: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 8:29: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 12:48: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 12:50: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 23 of Book 2; it continues in staged 2.25 and 2.26. Migne's Latin is removed by logged corrections; the passage breaks off at the end (marked …).
- Matt 23:9.
- Continuation of chapter 23 of Book 2. Lost words at the opening and after 'by his care' are marked …; Migne's notes of variant readings are removed by logged corrections. The quotation is Eunomius's Apology.
- Job 38:28 (Septuagint); Col 1:15; Rom 8:29; Matt 12:48-50.
- End of chapter 23 of Book 2. The opening of this scan page is Migne's notes and Latin, removed by logged corrections; a damaged word is marked ….

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 2.23 (PG 29:519; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-17/#p-2-23).

## Against Eunomius 2.24

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-17/#p-2-24
- Source: PG 29:519
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil argues that even if 'Father' were taken figuratively, Scripture's language of begetting points to kinship of nature, not passion; the manner of the begetting is ineffable but must be believed; and Eunomius contradicts himself about names and essences.

### Greek text

Ὡς μὲν οὖν κυρίως καὶ προσηκόντως Πατὴρ λέγεται ὁ Θεός, καὶ ὡς οὐχὶ πάθους, ἀλλ᾽ οἰκειώσεώς ἔστιν ὄνομα, ἣ τῆς κατὰ χάριν, ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἣ τῆς κατὰ φύσιν, ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ Μονογενοῦς, ἱκανῶς εἴρηται " δῶμεν δὲ εἶναι τροπικήν, καὶ ἐκ μεταφορᾶς λέγεσθαι ὥσπερ καὶ ἄλλας μυρίας καὶ τὴν φωνὴν ταύτην. Ὡς τοίνυν, ὀργιζόμενον, καὶ ὑπνοῦντα, καὶ πετόμενον ἀκούοντες τὸν Θεὸν, καὶ ἄλλων τοιούτων ἀπρεπεῖς κατὰ τὸν πρόχειρον νοῦν τὰς ἐμφάσεις παρεχομένων, οὔτε τὰς φωνὰς τοῦ Πνεύματος διαγράφομεν, οὔτε σωματικῶς τῶν λεγομένων ἀκούομεν " τί δήποτε οὐχὶ καὶ, τῆς φωνῆς ταύτης οὔτω συνεχῶς παραληφθείσης ὑπὸ τοῦ Πνεύματος, τὰς θεοπρεπεῖς αὐτῆς ἐννοίας διερευνώμεθα; ἢ μόνην ταύτην τῆς Γραφῆς ἀπαλείψομεν, ἐκ τῆς ἀνθρωπικῆς χρήσεως συκοφαντοῦντες αὑτήν; Οὑτωσὶ δὲ σκοπῶμεν. Δύο σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς τοῦ γεννᾷν προσηγορίας κατὰ τὴν ὧδε συνήθειαν, πάθους τε τοῦ γεννῶντος καὶ τῆς πρὸς τὸ γεννώμενον οἰκειώσεως, ὅταν παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς τῷ Μονογενεῖ λέγηται τὸ, Ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐγέννησά σε, καὶ τὸ, Υἱός μου εἶ σὺ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε" πότερον τούτων παρίστασθαι φῶμεν διὰ τοῦ ῥήματος; τὸ ἐμπαθὲς τῶν γεννώντων, ἣ τὴν τῆς φύσεως οἰκειότητα; Ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ τοῦτό φημι καὶ οὐδὲ τούτους ἡγοῦμαι ποτε μὴ οὐχὶ εἰς λαμπρὰν μελαγχολίαν παρενεχθέντας ἐναντιώσεσθαι. Ὥστε εἰ μὲν οἰκεία τῷ Θεῷ ἡ φωνὴ, τί ἀτιμάζεις ὡς ἀλλοτρίαν; εἰ δὲ ἐκ τῶν …, φύγε τὸ χεῖρον τῶν δηλουμένων. Ἔξεστι γὰρ δήπου ἐν πολυσήμῳ τῇ λέξει, πρὸς τὴν ὀρθὴν ἔννοιαν ὁδηγηθέντα διὰ τοῦ ῥήματος, τὸ ταπεινὸν καὶ αἰσχρὸν τῆς ἐμφάσεως ὑπερβῆναι. Καὶ μή μοι λέγε· Τίς δὲ ἡ γέννησις; καὶ ποταπή; καὶ πῶς ἂν γένοιτο αὕτη; Οὐ γὰρ, ἐπειδὴ ὁ τρόπος ἄῤῥητος καὶ ἀπερινόητος παντελῶς, ἤδη καὶ τὸ πάγιον τῆς εἰς Πατέρα καὶ Υἱὸν πίστεως ἐκβαλοῦμεν. Εἰ γὰρ μέλλοιμεν πάντα τῇ καταλήψει μετρεῖν, καὶ τὸ τοῖς λογισμοῖς ἀπερίληπτον μηδὲ εἶναι τὸ παράπαν ὑπολαμβάνειν, …ται μὲν ὁ τῆς πίστεως, οἰχήσεται δὲ ὁ τῆς ἐλπίδος μισθός, Πῶς δ' ἂν εἴημεν ἔτι τῶν μακαρισμῶν ἄξιοι, τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει τῶν ἀοράτων ἀποκειμένων οἱ μόνοις τοῖς κατὰ λογισμὸν ἐναργέσι πειθόμενοι Πόθεν ἐματαιώθη τὰ ἔθνη, καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ἡ ἀσύνετος αὐτῶν καρδία; Οὐχ ἐπειδὴ τοῖς ἐκ τῶν λογισμῶν φαινομένοις ἀκολουθοῦντες, τῷ κηρύγματι τοῦ Πνεύματος ἀπειθοῦσι; Τίνας δὲ ὁ ᾿Ησαΐας ὡς ἀπολωλότας ὀδύρεται; Οὐαὶ οἱ σοφοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, καὶ … Πολλὰ τοίνυν ὑπερβὰς τῶν ἐν μέσῳ, ὅσα τε περὶ τοῦ μὴ γεγεννῆσθαι τὸν Υἱὸν ἐκ τοῦ προφανοῦς διετείνατο, καὶ ὅσα περὶ τοῦ παραδεχθῆναι αὐτῷ τὸ κτίσμα εἶναι καὶ ποίημα τὸν Μονογενῆ ἐτεχνάσατο, ἐπὶ τὰ καιριώτατα τῆς ἀσεβείας τρέψομαι, τοσοῦτον μόνον τοῖς παρεθεῖσιν ἐπισημηνάμενος, ὅτι ἦν προλαβὼν τῷ ἔργῳ κατεσκεύασε βλασφημίαν, ταύτην βουληθεὶς ἐπισκιάσαι τῷ ῥήματι, καὶ τὸ ἀναιδὲς τοῦ λόγον καταπραῦναι, ἔφη κοινοποιεῖν τὸν Μονογενὴ πρὸς τὴν κτίσιν, ἐπιλαθόμενος αὐτὸς τῶν ἑαυτοῦ δογμάτων, ἃ ἐν τοῖς κατόπιν λόγοις γυμνῇ καὶ ἀπαρακαλύπτῳ τῇ φωνῇ ἐξετίθετο. Ὑφ᾽ ὧν πρὸς … ἐξέπεσε. Γράφει δὲ οὕτως " ΕΥ̓͂Ν. Μηδεὶς δὲ, τὸν Υἱὸν ἀκούων ποίημα, δυσχεραινέτω, ὡς κοινοποιουμένης τῆς οὐσίας ὑπὸ τῆς τῶν ὀνομάτων κοινωνίας. ΒΑΣ. Πῶς οὖν, ὦ σοφώτατε, εἰ τῇ διαφορᾷ τῶν ὀνομάτων τὸ παρηλλαγμένον τῆς οὐσίας ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἕπεται (μεμνήμεθα γὰρ δήπου ἐν τοῖς ἄνω λόγοις ταῦτα διεξιόντος), οὐχὶ νῦν τῇ κοινωνίᾳ τῶν ὀνομάτων τὸ κοινὸν τῆς οὐσίας ἀκολουθήσει; Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἅπαξ, οὐδὲ ἐκ παρέργου τοῦτον τὸν λόγον παραφθεγξάμενος φαίνεται. Ἐπεὶ καὶ νῦν εὐθὺς, ὥσπερ μεταμεληθεὶς ἐφ᾽ οἷς εἴρηκεν, ὅτι ἡ τῶν ὀνομάτων κοινωνία οὐ κοινοποιήσει καὶ τὰς οὐσίας, πάλιν ἐπάγει μετὰ μικρὸν, τῶν ἀντιδιατιθεμένων αὐτῷ καθαπτόμενος· ΕΥ̓͂Ν. Ὅτι ἐχρῆν, εἴπερ αὐτοῖς ἣν τῆς ἀληθείας … ὁμολογεῖν καὶ τὰς οὐσίας. ΒΑΣ. Πῶς ἄν τις εὐκολώτερον χρήσαιτο λόγοις; ὅς γε δι᾽ ὀλίγου πρὸς τὰ ἐναντία περιτρεπόμενος, νῦν μέν φησι τὴν διαφορὰν τῶν ὀνομάτων ἀναγκαίως τῶν οὐσιῶν τὴν παραλλαγὴν ὑποφαίνειν" νῦν δὲ πάλιν τὴν κοινωνίαν μὴ κοινοποιεῖν τὰς οὐσίας; ᾿Αλλ᾽, οἶμαι, προσόμοιόν τι ποιοῦμεν τοῖς τὸν ἀνδροφόνον ἐκ λοιδορίας, ἣ πληγῆς, ἢ τινος τῶν τοιούτων ἁμαρτημάτων κρίνουσιν, …

### English translation (Claude)

[24] That God is called Father properly and fittingly, then, and that this is a name not of passion but of kinship, either by grace, as with human beings, or by nature, as with the Only-Begotten, has been said sufficiently. But let us grant that this word too, like countless others, is figurative and said by metaphor. When we hear that God is angry, and sleeps, and flies, and other such things that present meanings unfitting by the ready sense, we neither strike out the words of the Spirit nor take what is said in a bodily way. Why then, when this word is used so constantly by the Spirit, do we not search out its meanings worthy of God? Or shall we erase this one alone from Scripture, slandering it from human usage? Let us consider it thus. Two things are signified by the name "to beget" in our usage here: the passion of the one begetting and the kinship with the one begotten. When the Father says to the Only-Begotten, "From the womb before the morning star I have begotten you," and, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you," which of these shall we say is presented by the word: the passion of those who beget, or the kinship of nature? For my part, I say the latter, and I do not think that even these men, unless carried off into a manifest frenzy, will oppose it. So, if the word is proper to God, why do you dishonor it as foreign? And if it is [taken] from …, flee the worse of the things it indicates. For surely, with a word of many meanings, one may be guided by the word to the right notion and pass beyond what is lowly and shameful in its suggestion. And do not say to me, "What, then, is the begetting? Of what kind? And how could it take place?" For since the manner is ineffable and wholly incomprehensible, we shall not on that account throw out the firm foundation of our faith in Father and Son. For if we are to measure everything by our comprehension, and suppose that what cannot be grasped by our reasonings does not exist at all, the reward of faith will be gone, and the reward of hope will be gone. How could we still be worthy of the blessings laid up for faith in things unseen, if we trust only what is evident to reasoning? Why did the nations become futile, and their senseless heart darkened? Was it not because, following what appeared from their reasonings, they disobeyed the proclamation of the Spirit? And whom does Isaiah lament as lost? "Woe to those who are wise in themselves, and …"

Passing over much of what lies between, then, all that he contended openly about the Son's not having been begotten, and all that he contrived about the Only-Begotten's admitting to be a creature and a thing made, I will turn to the most critical points of his impiety, noting only this about what has been passed over: that, wishing to overshadow with words the blasphemy he had previously constructed in deed, and to soften the shamelessness of his argument, he said that he [did not] make the Only-Begotten common with creation, forgetting his own doctrines, which he set out in his earlier arguments in bare and undisguised language. By them he has fallen into … Now he writes thus:

EUNOMIUS: "Let no one, hearing that the Son is a thing made, be troubled, as if the essence were made common by the commonness of the names."

BASIL: How then, most wise sir, if difference of essence necessarily follows the difference of names (for we surely remember him going through this in his earlier arguments), will not commonness of essence now follow commonness of names? For he does not appear to have uttered this argument once, or in passing. And now immediately, as if repenting of what he had said, namely that commonness of names will not make the essences common, he again adds a little later, attacking his opponents:

EUNOMIUS: "That, if they had any concern for the truth, they ought … to confess that the essences too [differ]."

BASIL: How could anyone use words more lightly? Turning round to opposites in a short space, he says now that difference of names necessarily indicates difference of essences, and now again that their commonness does not make the essences common. But, I think, we are doing something like those who judge a murderer on charges of abuse, or a blow, or some such offense …

### Scripture references

- Ps 78:65 (77:65 LXX): allusion, medium confidence
- Ps 18:10 (17:11 LXX): allusion, medium confidence
- Ps 110:3 (109:3 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 2:7: quotation, high confidence
- Heb 11:1: echo, medium confidence
- Rom 1:21: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 5:21: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 24 of Book 2. Lost lines are marked …; Migne's Latin and notes are removed by logged corrections. In 'he said that he [did not] make the Only-Begotten common with creation' the negative is not in the scan and is supplied from the sense of the following quotation. The quotations are from Eunomius's Apology.
- Divine anger, sleep, flight: e.g. Ps 78:65 (LXX 77:65), Ps 18:10 (LXX 17:11); Ps 110:3 (LXX 109:3); Ps 2:7; Heb 11:1 (things unseen); Rom 1:21; Isa 5:21.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 2.24 (PG 29:519; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-17/#p-2-24).

## Against Eunomius 2.25

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-25/#p-2-25
- Source: PG 29:519
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil quotes Eunomius's dilemma about the Father and Son as 'light' and shows that the opposition he posits between unbegotten and begotten admits no common ground.

### Greek text

Ἐπὶ οὖν τὸ κεφάλαιον τῶν κακῶν αὐτοῦ μεταβῶμεν. Θεασάμενος οὗτος, ὅτι κοινὴ ἢ πρόληψις πᾶσιν ὁμοίως Χριστιανοῖς ἐνυπάρχει (τοῖς γε ὡς ἀληθῶς τῆς προσηγορίας ταύτης ἀξίοις) περὶ τοῦ … φῶς εἶναι τὸν Υἱὸν γεννητὸν, ἐκ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου φωτὸς ἀπολάμψαντα, καὶ αὐτοζωὴν, καὶ αὐτοάγαθον ἐκ τῆς ζωοποιοῦ πηγῆς τῆς πατρικῆς ἀγαθότητος προελθόντα " εἶτα ἐνθυμηθεὶς, ὅτι, εἰ μὴ ταύτας ἡμῶν τὰς ἐννοίας διασαλεύσειεν, οὐδὲν αὐτῷ πλέον τῶν σοφισμάτων γενήσεται, ὡς τοῦ γε φῶς ὁμολογοῦντος τὸν Πατέρα, φῶς δὲ καὶ τὸν Υἱὸν, τῆς τοῦ φωτὸς ἐννοίας μιᾶς καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς ὑπαρχούσης, αὐτομάτως εἰς τὴν ὁμολογίαν τῆς κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν οἰκειότητος ὑπαχθησομένον " φωτὶ γὰρ πρὸς φῶς, κατ᾽ αὐτὸν τὸν τοῦ φωτὸς λόγον, οὐδεμία, οὔτε κατὰ τὴν προφοράν, οὔτε κατ᾽ αὐτὴν τὴν ἔννοιαν, ἐστὶ παραλλαγή ἵνα οὖν τοῦτο ἡμῶν ἀφέληται, τοῖς τῶν τεχνασμάτων δικτύοις τὸν τῆς … καὶ ἀκοινώνητα παντελῶς ἀλλήλοις εἶναι διδάσκων, καὶ τὴν τοῦ ἀγεννήτου πρὸς τὸ γεννητὸν ἀντίθεσιν, ταύτην καὶ τῷ φωτὶ πρὸς τὸ φῶς εἶναι λέγων, ἣ τοῦτο φεύγοντας ἡμᾶς σύνθετον εἶναι τὸν Θεὸν ὁμολογεῖν ἀναγκάζων. Μᾶλλον δὲ αὐτῆς αὐτοῦ τῆς λέξεως ἀκούσωμεν. ΕΥ̓͂Ν. Πότερον ἄλλο τι σημαίνει, φησὶ, τὸ φῶς ἐπ᾽ ἀγεννήτου παρὰ τὸ γεννητὸν, ἢ ταυτὸν ἑκάτερον; Εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἕτερόν τι καὶ ἕτερον, εὔδηλον, ὅτι καὶ σύνθετον τὸ ἐξ ἑτέρου καὶ ἑτέρου συγκείμενον " τὸ δὲ σύνθετον οὐχ ἀγέννητον" εἰ δὲ ταὐτὸν, ὅσον παρήλλακται τὸ γεννητὸν πρὸς τὸ ἀγέννητον, τοσοῦτον ἀνάγκη παρηλλάχθαι τὸ φῶς πρὸς τὸ φῶς, καὶ τὴν ζωὴν πρὸς τὴν ζωὴν, καὶ τὴν δύναμιν πρὸς τὴν δύναμιν. … Ὅσον, φησὶ, τὸ ἀγέννητον τοῦ γεννητοῦ διενή…, τοσοῦτον διοίσει τὸ φῶς πρὸς τὸ φῶς, καὶ ἢ ζωὴ πρὸς τὴν ζωὴν, καὶ ἢ δύναμις πρὸς τὴν δύναμιν. Ἐρωτήσωμεν τοίνυν αὑτόν" Τὸ δὲ ἀγέννητον τοῦ γεννητοῦ πόσῳ μέτρῳ διώρισται; ἄρα μικρῷ τινι, καὶ τοσούτῳ ὥστε δύνασθαι ποτε καὶ εἰς ταυτὸν ἀλλήλοις συμβῆναι; ἣ τοῦτο παντελῶς ἀμήχανον, καὶ πλέον ἀδυνατώτερον τοῦ τὸν αὑτὸν ζῆν ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ καὶ τεθνάναι, καὶ ὑγιαίνειν κατὰ ταυτὸν καὶ νοσεῖν, καὶ ἐγρηγορέναι ὁμοῦ καὶ καθεύδειν; Τοιαῦτα γὰρ ὅσα κατὰ τὴν ἄκραν ἀντίθεσιν ἀλλήλοις ἀντικαθέστηκεν, ὥστε παρόντος τοῦ ἑτέρου ἀναγκαίως θάτερον …, ἃ καὶ ἀσυνύπαρκτα παντελῶς καὶ ἀσύμβατα εἶναι πέφυκε.

### English translation (Claude)

[25] Let us pass on, then, to the chief of his evils. This man saw that a common preconception is present in all Christians alike (in those, at least, who are truly worthy of this name) concerning the … : that the Son is begotten light, shining forth from the unbegotten light, and life itself and good itself, come forth from the life-giving spring of the Father's goodness. Then he reflected that unless he shook these notions of ours, he would gain nothing more from his sophisms, since the one who confesses the Father to be light and the Son also light, the notion of light being one and the same, would be led of himself to the confession of kinship in essence; for between light and light, by the very account of light, there is no difference either in utterance or in the notion itself. In order, then, to take this away from us, he [throws] around the … of … the nets of his tricks, teaching that they are wholly without fellowship with one another, and saying that the opposition of the unbegotten to the begotten is also that of light to light, or else forcing us, if we flee this, to confess that God is composite. But let us rather hear his very words.

EUNOMIUS: "Does light," he says, "signify something different in the unbegotten from the begotten, or the same in each? If one thing and another, it is clear that what is composed of one thing and another is composite; and what is composite is not unbegotten. But if the same, then as much as the begotten differs from the unbegotten, so much must light differ from light, life from life, and power from power."

BASIL: … "As much," he says, "as the unbegotten differs from the begotten, so much will light differ from light, life from life, and power from power." Let us ask him, then: by what measure is the unbegotten separated from the begotten? By some small one, so small that they could sometimes come together into the same? Or is this wholly impossible, more impossible even than for the same person to be alive and dead at the same time, to be well and ill at once, to be awake and asleep together? For such are all things that stand opposed to one another in extreme opposition, so that when one is present the other must necessarily …, things that by nature cannot coexist at all and are incompatible.

### Translation notes

- Chapter 25 of Book 2. Lost lines are marked …; Migne's Latin and notes are removed by logged corrections. The quotation is Eunomius's Apology; Basil repeats it at once with slight differences of wording.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 2.25 (PG 29:519; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-25/#p-2-25).

## Against Eunomius 2.26

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-25/#p-2-26
- Source: PG 29:519
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil shows that Eunomius's reasoning would make the Son's 'light' the opposite of light, that is, darkness, and exposes the logical fallacy that consequents of contraries must themselves be contraries.

### Greek text

Κατὰ δὴ οὖν τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον πρὸς τὸ γεννητὸν τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ τῆς ἀντιθέσεως οὔσης, ὁ τὸν Πατέρα φῶς ὀνομάζων, φῶς δὲ καὶ τὸν Υἱὸν, τοσοῦτον δὲ τοῦτο τὸ φῶς ἐκείνου τοῦ φωτὸς διωρίσθαι λέγων, ὅσον τὸ γεννητὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου διώρισται, οὐχὶ δῆλός ἐστι, κἂν τῷ ῥήματι προσποιῆται φιλανθρωπεύεσθαι, φῶς ὀνομάζων δῆθεν καὶ τὸν Υἱὸν, ἀλλὰ τῇ γε δυνάμει τῶν λεγομένων πρὸς τὸ ἐναντίον ἀπάγων τὴν ἔννοιαν; Σκοπεῖτε γὰρ τί ἀντίκειται τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ, ἄλλο ἀγέννητον, ἣ τὸ γεννητόν; Τὸ γεννητὸν δηλονότι. Τί δὲ ἀντίκειται τῷ φωτί; φῶς ἕτερον, ἣ τὸ σκότος; Τὸ σκότος πάντως. Εἰ τοίνυν ὅσον παρήλλακται τὸ γεννητὸν πρὸς τὸ ἀγέννητον, τοσοῦτον ἀνάγκη παρηλλάχθαι τὸ φῶς πρὸς τὸ φῶς, τίνι τῶν ἀπάντων ἄδηλος ἢ ἀσέβεια, ὅτι, ἐν προσηγορίᾳ φωτὸς τὸ ἀντικείμενον τῷ φωτὶ παρεισάγων, ἐναντίαν εἶναι τῇ τοῦ φωτὸς φύσει τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ὑποβάλλει; Ἢ δεικνύτω ἡμῖν φῶς ἀντικείμενον τῷ φωτὶ, κἀκεῖνο τὸ μέτρον τῆς ἀντιθέσεως ἔχον, ὃ τῷ γεννητῷ πρὸς τὸ ἀγέννητόν ἔστιν. Εἰ δὲ τοῦτο οὔτε ἐστὶν, οὔτ᾽ ἂν αὐτὸς ἐπινοήσειε, μὴ ἀγνοείσθω ἡ τέχνη μεθ᾽ ἧς βαθέως κατασκευάζει τὸ βλάσφημον. Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ οἴεται τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ τὸ γεννητὸν κατ᾽ ἐναντίωσιν ἀντικεῖσθαι, τὴν αὐτὴν τῷ φωτὶ πρὸς τὸ φῶς ἀντίθεσιν ἐφαρμόζει, ἵνα διὰ πάντων τὴν τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσίαν ἀντίπαλον καὶ πολεμίαν τῇ τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ἐπιδείξῃ. Διὰ ταῦτα ἡ καινὴ αὕτη τῶν δογμάτων νομοθεσία - Ὅσον παρήλλακται τὸ γεννητὸν τοῦ ἀγεννήτου, τοσοῦτον ἀνάγκη παρηλλάχθαι τὸ φῶς πρὸς τὸ φῶς. Καίτοι τῷ μὲν ἀγεννήτῳ πρὸς τὸ γεννητόν ἐστί τις, κατὰ τὴν θέσιν τῶν ῥημάτων, εἰ καὶ μὴ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν τῶν πραγμάτων, ἀντίθεσις, ὅπερ οὗτοι κατασκευάζουσι " φωτὶ δὲ πρὸς τὸ φῶς οὔτε κατὰ τὴν προφορὰν οὔτε κατὰ τὴν ἔννοιαν ἐπινοῆσαί τινα δυνατὸν ἐναντίωσιν. ᾿Αλλὰ γὰρ ἔοικε σοφίσμασιν ἀπατηλοῖς ἑαυτὸν παρακρούεσθαι. Οἴεται γὰρ, ὅτι τὰ τοῖς ἐναντίοις ἑπόμενα τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει πρὸς ἄλληλα μάχην, ἧνπερ ἂν ἔχει καὶ τὰ ἡγούμενα " καὶ ὅταν τῷ ἑτέρῳ τῶν ἐναντίων τὸ ἐναντίον ὑπάρχῃ, καὶ τῷ ἑτέρῳ πάντως τὸ ἐναντίον ἀκολουθήσει. Οἷον, εἰ τῇ ὁράσει τὸ φῶς ἕπεται, τῇ τυφλότητι τὸ σκότος " εἰ τῷ ζῇν τὸ αἰσθάνεσθαι, τῷ τεθνηκέναι τὸ ἀναισθητεῖν. Τοῦτο δὲ ὡς ἀσθενὲς καὶ διαπῖπτον τὸ παρατήρημα, παντὶ γνώριμον τῷ καὶ μικρὸν ἐπιστήσαντι. Οὐ γὰρ ἐπειδὴ τῷ ἐγρηγορέναι τὸ ζῇν ἕπεται, τῷ καθεύδειν ἀκολουθεῖ πάντως τὸ τεθνάναι. ᾿Αλλ᾽ οὔτε ἐναντίως ἔχει τὸ γεννητὸν πρὸς τὸ ἀγέννητον. Εἰ γὰρ ἐναντία καὶ φθαρτικὰ ἀλλήλων, ὅπερ εἰς κεφαλὴν τοῖς βλασφημοῦσι τρέποιτο, ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε τῇ φύσει πολέμια, οὔτε μὴν τὰ ἑπόμενα τούτοις τὴν αὐτὴν ἀναγκαίως ἕξει διάστασιν, ἣν ἐδείκνυτο ἔχειν καὶ τὰ ἡγούμενα.

### English translation (Claude)

[26] Since, then, the opposition of the begotten to the unbegotten is of this kind, the one who names the Father light and the Son also light, and says that this light is separated from that light as much as the begotten is separated from the unbegotten—is it not plain that, even if in word he pretends to be generous, naming the Son also, supposedly, light, yet by the force of what he says he carries the notion to the opposite? For see: what is opposed to the unbegotten, another unbegotten or the begotten? The begotten, clearly. And what is opposed to light, another light or darkness? Darkness, surely. If, then, as much as the begotten differs from the unbegotten, so much must light differ from light, to whom of all is the impiety not plain: that, bringing in under the name of light what is opposed to light, he suggests that the essence of the Only-Begotten is contrary to the nature of light? Or let him show us a light opposed to light, having the measure of opposition that the begotten has to the unbegotten. But if this neither exists nor could he himself conceive it, let the art not go unnoticed with which he constructs the blasphemy so deeply. For since he thinks that the begotten is opposed to the unbegotten as a contrary, he applies the same opposition to light in relation to light, so that through everything he may show the essence of the Father to be hostile and at war with that of the Only-Begotten. That is the purpose of this new legislation of doctrines: "As much as the begotten differs from the unbegotten, so much must light differ from light." Yet between the unbegotten and the begotten there is some opposition according to the position of the words, if not according to the nature of the things (which is what these men are constructing); but between light and light one cannot conceive any opposition, either in utterance or in notion. But it seems that he deceives himself with deceptive sophisms. For he thinks that what follows from contraries has the same conflict with one another that the antecedents have, and that when a contrary belongs to one of the contraries, the contrary will surely follow the other as well. For example, if light follows sight, darkness follows blindness; if sensation follows living, insensibility follows being dead. That this observation is weak and collapses is known to anyone who pays even a little attention. For since life follows being awake, it does not by any means follow that death follows sleeping. Nor is the begotten contrary to the unbegotten. For even if they were contraries and destructive of each other (may that fall on the heads of the blasphemers!), still they are not hostile by nature, nor will what follows from them necessarily have the same distance that he was showing the antecedents to have.

### Translation notes

- Chapter 26 of Book 2. Migne's Latin and notes are removed by logged corrections.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 2.26 (PG 29:519; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-25/#p-2-26).

## Against Eunomius 2.27

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-25/#p-2-27
- Source: PG 29:519
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil argues that Eunomius's formula would deny that the Son is light, life, and power, contrary to Scripture, and explains that darkness, death, and weakness belong to the powers that fell away by choice, not to any essence.

### Greek text

Ἢ τοίνυν ἀπάλειψόν σου τὸ ῥήματα, ἣ μὴ ἀρνοῦ τὴν ἀσέβειαν. Σὴ γάρ ἐστιν ἡ βλασφημία τοῦ εἰπόντος - Ὅσον παρήλλακται τοῦ γεννητοῦ τὸ ἀγέννητον, τοσοῦτον ἀνάγκη παρηλλάχθαι τὸ φῶς πρὸς τὸ φῶς, Οὐκοῦν ὡς οὐδέποτε μεθέξει τῆς ἀγεννησίας ὁ γεννητὸς, οὕτως οὐδέποτε αὐτῷ τοῦ φωτὸς μεταδώσεις. Καὶ ἔσται, κατὰ σὲ, ἡ οὐσία τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ἴσον ἀπέχουσα τοῦ γε ἀγέννητος εἶναι, καὶ τοῦ φῶς νοεῖσθαι καὶ ὀνομάζεσθαι. ᾿Αλλὰ Ἰωάννης μὲν τῇ μεγαλοφωνίᾳ τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐμβοᾷ σοι λέγων Ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν" σοὶ δὲ οὐχ ἔστιν ὦτα τοῦ ἀκούειν, οὐδὲ καρδία τοῦ συνιέναι - ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὴν ἀντίπαλον φύσιν, καὶ ἀσυνύπαρχτον τῷ φωτὶ τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ Μονογενοῦς, τοῖς σοφίσμασιν ἀπελαύνεις. Οὐ γὰρ δὴ ἐκεῖνο ἰσχυρὸν ἐρεῖς, ὅτι καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ Μονογενοῦς τὴν προσηγορίαν τοῦ φωτὸς οὐχ ἀφείλου. Οὐ γὰρ ἐν ψόφῳ ἀέρος, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῇ δυνάμει τῶν σημαινομένων τὸ εὐσεβές. Ὁ δὲ οὐχ ἐπὶ τούτων ἔστη, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν ζωὴν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν τῷ αὐτῷ μέτρῳ τῆς εἰς ἐναντίον ἀποστάσεως συνεπάγει, εἰπών· Ὅσον παρήλλακται τὸ γεννητὸν πρὸς τὸ ἀγέννητον, τοσοῦτον ἀνάγκη παρηλλάχθαι τὸ φῶς πρὸς τὸ φῶς, καὶ τὴν ζωὴν πρὸς τὴν ζωὴν, καὶ τὴν δύναμιν πρὸς τὴν δύναμιν. Οὐκοῦν οὔτε ζωὴ, κατὰ σὲ, οὔτε δύναμις ὁ Μονογενής. ᾿Αλλὰ παραγράφῃ μὲν αὐτὸν τὸν Κύριον λέγοντα· Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ζωή" παραγράφῃ δὲ Παῦλον τὸν εἰπόντα " Χριστὸς Θεοῦ δύναμις. Ἃ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς κατόπιν ἐδείκνυτο, ταῦτα καὶ τοῖς νῦν ἐφαρμόσει. Οὔτε γὰρ ζωὴν οὔτε δύναμιν τῇ ζωῇ καὶ τῇ δυνάμει ἀντικεῖσθαι φαίη τις ἄν· ἀλλὰ θάνατον καὶ ἀδυναμίαν τὴν τελεωτάτην ἀντίθεσιν ἐκπληροῦν. Ἄπερ οὗτος, ἐν παν… καὶ περικεκαλυμμένως τὸ φρικτὸν τῆς ἀσεβείας κατασκευάζει, καὶ τοῖς τῶν λόγων τεχνάσμασι πρὸς τὸ ἐναντίον τῷ Πατρὶ τὴν φύσιν τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ἀποστήσας, μόνην καταλείπει τὴν εὐφημίαν τῶν ὀνομάτων. Τί οὖν ἡμεῖς; πῶς, καὶ ἀγέννητον τὸν Πατέρα καὶ γεννητὸν τὸν Υἱὸν ὁμολογοῦντες, τὴν κατ' αὐτὸ τὸ εἶναι διαφύγοιμεν ἐναντίωσιν; τί λέγοντες; Ὅτι ἀγαθοῦ μὲν Πατρὸς ἀγαθὸς ὁ Υἱός " φωτὸς δὲ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου φῶς ἐξέλαμψε τὸ ἀΐδιον, καὶ ἐκ τῆς ὄντως ζωῆς ἡ ζωοποιὸς προῆλθε πηγὴ, καὶ ἐκ τῆς αὐτοδυνάμεως ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ δύναμις ἐξεφάνη" σκότος δὲ, καὶ θάνατος, καὶ ἀσθένεια τῷ ἄρχοντι τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, καὶ τοῖς κοσμοκράτορσι τοῦ σκότους, καὶ τοῖς πνευματικοῖς τῆς πονηρίας, καὶ πάσῃ τῇ ἐχθρᾷ τῆς θείας φύσεως δυνάμει συντέτακται, οὐδὲ τούτοις κατ᾽ αὐτὴν τὴν οὐσίαν πρὸς τὸ ἀγαθὸν λαχοῦσι τὴν ἐναντίωσιν (οὕτω γὰρ ἂν ἡ μέμψις ἐπὶ τὸν Δημιουργὸν ἐπανίοι), ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τῆς οἰκείας προαιρέσεως ἐν τῇ τοῦ καλοῦ στερήσει πρὸς τὴν κακίαν ἀπορρυεῖσιν. Ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως εἰς ταύτην τὴν τάξιν ἡ θεομάχος γλῶσσα τὴν φύσιν τοῦ Μονογενοῦς περιαγαγεῖν ἐπεχείρησεν. Οὐ γὰρ δὴ ἐκεῖνο εἰπεῖν ἔχει, ὅτι, τὴν τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσίαν φῶς εἶναι τιθέμενος, ὑπερβάλλον δόξῃ τε καὶ λαμπρότητι, τὴν τοῦ Μονογενοῦς φῶς καὶ αὐτὴν, ἀμαυρότερον δέ πως καὶ οἱονεὶ τεθολωμένον ὑπέλαβεν. Εὐσεβοῦς μὲν γὰρ διανοίας οὐδὲ ταῦτα, τῷ τῆς εἰκόνος ἐν τῇ ἀμαυρότητι παραιρεῖσθαι τὴν ὁμοιότητα. Πλὴν ἀλλ᾽ εὐχῆς ἄξιον ταῦτα αὐτὸν ἔχειν αἰτιᾶσθαι. Οὐ πολλοῦ γὰρ ἂν ἔδει τοῦ ἀγῶνος ἡμῖν εἰς διόρθωσιν. … πανουργίᾳ λόγων τὸν δόλον ἀποκρυψάμενος, τὸ κρυπτὸν τῆς …

### English translation (Claude)

[27] Either, then, erase your words, or do not deny the impiety. For yours is the blasphemy of the one who said, "As much as the unbegotten differs from the begotten, so much must light differ from light." So, as the begotten will never share in ingeneracy, so you will never grant him a share of light. And by your account the essence of the Only-Begotten will be as far from being thought and named light as from being unbegotten. But John cries out to you with the loud voice of the Spirit, saying, "He was the true light"; but you have no ears to hear nor heart to understand, but with your sophisms you drive the essence of the Only-Begotten to the opposing nature, which cannot coexist with light. For you will not call this a strong point: that even in the case of the Only-Begotten you did not take away the name of light. For piety lies not in a noise of air but in the force of the things signified. But he did not stop at these; he also brings in life and power with the same measure of departure toward the opposite, saying, "As much as the begotten differs from the unbegotten, so much must light differ from light, life from life, and power from power." So by your account the Only-Begotten is neither life nor power. But you strike out the Lord himself, who says, "I am the life," and you strike out Paul, who said, "Christ the power of God." For what was shown earlier will fit these too. For no one would say that life is opposed to life, or power to power; rather, death and powerlessness complete the most perfect opposition. These things this man constructs in … and covertly, the horror of his impiety, and having removed the nature of the Only-Begotten, by the tricks of his words, to the opposite of the Father, he leaves only the fair sound of the names. What then do we say? How, confessing the Father unbegotten and the Son begotten, shall we escape contrariety in their very being? By saying what? That from a good Father the Son is good; from the unbegotten light the eternal light has shone forth; from the true life the life-giving spring has come forth; and from power itself the power of God has appeared. But darkness and death and weakness are ranked with the ruler of this world, the world-rulers of darkness, the spiritual forces of wickedness, and every power hostile to the divine nature; not that these were allotted their contrariety to the good in their very essence (for so the blame would rise to the Creator), but because they flowed away into wickedness of their own choice, in the privation of the good. Nevertheless, the God-fighting tongue has tried to bring the nature of the Only-Begotten round into this rank. For he cannot say that, positing the essence of the Father as light surpassing in glory and brilliance, he supposed that of the Only-Begotten also to be light, but somewhat dimmer and, as it were, clouded. Not even this belongs to a pious mind, to take away the likeness of the image by its dimness. Still, it would be something to wish for, that this was his view; for we would not need much of a struggle to correct it. … hiding his deceit in knavery of words, … the hidden part of …

### Scripture references

- John 1:9: quotation, high confidence
- Deut 29:4: echo, medium confidence
- John 14:6: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 1:24: quotation, high confidence
- John 12:31: allusion, high confidence
- Eph 6:12: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 27 of Book 2. Lost lines are marked …; Migne's Latin and notes are removed by logged corrections.
- John 1:9; ears and heart: Deut 29:4, Isa 6:9-10; John 14:6; 1 Cor 1:24; John 12:31; Eph 6:12.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 2.27 (PG 29:519; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-25/#p-2-27).

## Against Eunomius 2.28

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-25/#p-2-28
- Source: PG 29:519
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil argues that 'unbegotten' and 'begotten' are distinguishing properties of Father and Son within one essence, not opposed essences, so that the one Godhead is known as Father and Son without contrariety.

### Greek text

Νυνὶ δὲ τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ πρὸς τὸ γεννητὸν οὐχὶ κατὰ τὸ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον ἡ διαφορὰ, ὡς τῷ ἐλάττονι φωτὶ πρὸς τὸ πλεῖον, ἀλλ᾽ ὅση ἡ τῶν πάντη ἀλλήλοις ἀσυνυπάρκτων διάστασις. ᾿Αμήχανον γὰρ ᾧ θάτερον συνυπάρχει, ἐκ μεταβολῆς ὅν ποτε πρὸς τὸ ἀντικείμενον μεταβῆναι, ὥστε ἣ ἐξ ἀγεννήτου γεννητὸν γενέσθαι, ἣ ἀνάπαλιν, ἀπὸ τοῦ γεννητοῦ μεταβαλεῖν πρὸς τὸ ἀγέννητον. Τῷ τοίνυν ἅπαξ ἀποφηναμένῳ, ὅτι ὅσον παρήλλακται τὸ γεννητὸν πρὸς τὸ … πρὸς τὸ φῶς, οὐδ᾽ οὗτος ὁ λόγος πρὸς ἀποφυγὴν ἀπολείπεται. Φῶς μὲν γὰρ τὸ ἀκραιφνὲς τοῦ οἷον ἐξιτήλου καὶ ἀμαυροτέρου φωτὸς, τῷ γένει ταυτὸν ὑπάρχον, τῇ ἐπιτάσει διενήνοχε μόνῃ " τὸ δὲ ἀγέννητον οὐχὶ ἐπίτασίς ἐστι τοῦ γεννητοῦ " οὐδὲ μὴν τὸ γεννητὸν ὕφεσίς τίς ἔστι τοῦ ἀγεννήτου" ἀλλ᾽ οἷονεὶ κατὰ διάμετρον τούτων ἐστὶν ἡ ἀπόστασις. Τοῖς μὲν οὖν οὐσίαν τιθεμένοις τὸ γεννητὸν καὶ ἀγέννητον ταῦτα καὶ ἔτι πλείω τούτων ἀκολουθήσει τὰ ἄτοπα. Ἔσται γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ ἐναντίου τὸ ἐναντίον γεγξννημένον " καὶ ἀντὶ τῆς φυσικῆς οἰκειώσεως ἀναγκαία τις αὐτοῖς καὶ κατ᾽ αὐτὴν τὴν οὐσίαν ἡ στάσις ἀναφανήσεται. Τοῦτο δὲ πλείω τῆς ἀσεβείας τὴν ἀμαθίαν ἔχει, τὴν οὐσίαν λέγειν καὶ ᾧτινιοῦν τῶν ἁπάντων ἐναντίαν εἶναι τῇ οὐσίᾳ, πάλαι διωμολογημένου καὶ παρὰ τοῖς ἔξω σοφοῖς (οὗς, ὅταν μὴ εὕρωσιν οὗτοι συναγωνιζομένους ταῖς βλασφημίαις αὑτῶν, ὡς οὐδενὸς ἀξίους παραλογίζονται), ἀμήχανον ὑπάρχειν ἐν οὐσίᾳ τὴν ἐναντίωσιν. Εἰ δ᾽ ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἀληθὲς, γνωριστικάς τινας ἰδιότητας ἐπιθεωρουμένας τῇ οὐσίᾳ δέχοιτό τις εἶναι τὸ γεννητὸν καὶ τὸ ἀγέννητον, πρὸς τὴν τρανὴν καὶ ἀσύγχυτον Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ χειραγωγούσας ἔννοιαν, τόν τε τῆς ἀσεβείας διαφεύξεται κίνδυνον, καὶ τὸ ἐν τοῖς λογισμοῖς ἀκόλουθον διασώσει. Αἱ γάρ τοι ἰδιότητες, οἱονεὶ χαρακτῆρές τινες καὶ μορφαὶ ἐπιθεωρούμεναι τῇ οὐσίᾳ, διαιροῦσι μὲν τὸ κοινὸν τοῖς ἰδιάζουσι χαρακτῆρσι· τὸ δὲ ὁμοφυὲς τῆς οὐσίας οὐ διακόπτουσιν. Οἷον, κοινὴ μὲν ἡ θεότης, ἰδιώματα δέ τινα πατρότης καὶ υἱότης " ἐκ δὲ τῆς ἑκατέρου συμπλοκῆς, τοῦ τε κοινοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἰδίου, ἡ κατάληψις ἡμῖν τῆς ἀληθείας ἐγγίνεται" ὥστε, ἀγέννητον μὲν φῶς ἀκούσαντας, τὸν Πατέρα νοεῖν, γεννητὸν δὲ φῶς, τὴν τοῦ Υἱοῦ λαμβάνειν ἔννοιαν" καθὸ μὲν φῶς καὶ φῶς, οὐδεμιᾶς ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐναντιότητος ὑπαρχούσης, καθὸ δὲ γεννητὸν καὶ ἀγέννητον, ἐπιθεωρουμένης τῆς ἀντιθέσεως. Αὕτη γὰρ τῶν ἰδιωμάτων ἣ φύσις, ἐν τῇ τῆς οὐσίας ταυτότητι δεικνύναι τὴν ἑτερότητα " καὶ αὐτὰ μὲν πρὸς ἄλληλα ἀντιδιαιρούμενα πολλάκις τὰ ἰδιώματα, πρὸς τὸ ἐναντίον διίστασθαι, τὴν γε μὲν ἑνότητα τῆς οὐσίας μὴ διασπᾶν· ὡς τὸ πτηνὸν καὶ τὸ πεζόν, καὶ τὸ ἔνυδρον καὶ τὸ χερσαῖον, καὶ τὸ λογικὸν καὶ τὸ ἄλογον. Μιᾶς γὰρ οὐσίας τοῖς πᾶσιν ὑποκειμένης, τὰ ἰδιώματα ταῦτα οὐχ ἀλλοτριοῖ τὴν οὐσίαν, οὐδὲ οἱονεὶ συστασιάζειν ἑαυτοῖς ἀναπείθει - τῇ ἐνεργείᾳ δὲ τῶν γνωρισμάτων, ὥσπερ τι φῶς ταῖς ψυχαῖς ἡμῶν ἐντιθέντα, πρὸς τὴν ἐφιχτὴν ταῖς διανοίαις σύνεσιν ὁδηγεῖ. ᾿Αλλ᾽ οὗτος, τὴν τῶν ἰδιωμάτων ἀντίθεσιν πρὸς τὴν οὐσίαν μετακομίσας, ἐντεῦθεν τὴν ἀφορμὴν τῆς ἀσεβείας ἐφέλκεται, ὥσπερ παῖδας ἡμᾶς μορμολυσσόμενος τοῖς σοφίσμασι … ἀναγκαίως σύνθετος ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν ἀποδειχθήσεται.

### English translation (Claude)

[28] But as it is, the difference of the unbegotten from the begotten is not by more and less, as of a lesser light from a greater, but as great as the distance between things wholly incapable of coexisting with each other. For it is impossible that what has the one should ever pass by change to its opposite, so as to become begotten from unbegotten or, conversely, to change from begotten to unbegotten. For the one, then, who has once declared that "as much as the begotten differs from the … so much must light differ from light," not even this argument is left as a way of escape. For pure light differs from light that is, so to speak, faded and dimmer only by intensity, being the same in kind; but the unbegotten is not an intensification of the begotten, nor is the begotten a diminution of the unbegotten; rather, their distance is, as it were, diametrical. For those who make begotten and unbegotten essence, these absurdities and still more will follow. For the contrary will have been begotten from its contrary, and instead of natural kinship a necessary strife will appear for them in the very essence. And this shows more ignorance than impiety: to say that an essence is contrary to any essence at all, when it has long been agreed even among the wise outside (whom these men, when they do not find them fighting on the side of their blasphemies, set aside as worthless) that contrariety cannot exist in essence. But if, as is true, one accepts that begotten and unbegotten are certain distinguishing properties contemplated in the essence, leading us by the hand to a clear and unconfused notion of Father and Son, he will escape the danger of impiety and preserve consistency in his reasonings. For the properties, like certain marks and forms contemplated in the essence, divide what is common by their distinguishing characters, but do not cut apart the sameness of nature of the essence. For example, the Godhead is common, but fatherhood and sonship are certain properties; and from the combination of both, the common and the proper, the comprehension of the truth arises in us. So, when we hear "unbegotten light," we think of the Father, and when we hear "begotten light," we receive the notion of the Son. Insofar as they are light and light, there is no contrariety in them; insofar as they are begotten and unbegotten, the opposition is contemplated. For this is the nature of properties: to show otherness in the sameness of the essence. The properties themselves, divided against each other, often stand apart to the point of opposition, but they do not tear apart the unity of the essence, as winged and footed, aquatic and terrestrial, rational and irrational. For one essence underlies them all, and these properties do not estrange the essence or persuade it, as it were, to revolt against itself; by the activity of the distinguishing marks, placing a kind of light in our souls, they guide us to the understanding our minds can attain. But this man, transferring the opposition of the properties to the essence, draws from there the occasion for his impiety, frightening us like children with his sophisms: … God will necessarily be shown to be composite.

### Translation notes

- Chapter 28 of Book 2. Lost lines are marked …; Migne's Latin and notes are removed by logged corrections. In 'as much as the begotten differs from the …' a line of the repeated quotation is lost in the scan.
- Properties (ἰδιότητες, ἰδιώματα) are distinguished from essence (οὐσία); the passage is a central statement of Basil's terminology and is translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 2.28 (PG 29:519; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-25/#p-2-28).

## Against Eunomius 2.29

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-25/#p-2-29
- Source: PG 29:519
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil answers the charge that God would be composite unless 'light' and 'unbegotten' were identical: God is wholly light, life, and goodness, and 'unbegotten' indicates a property, as do the other divine names.

### Greek text

Ἐγὼ δὲ τί φημι; Ὅτι, εἰ μὴ ἕτερόν τι εἴη τοῦ ἀγεννήτου τὸ φῶς, οὐκέτι τῷ Υἱῷ δυνατὸν ἐπιλέγεσθαι, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ αὐτὸ τὸ ἀγέννητον. Μάθοι δ᾽ ἄν τις κἀκεῖθεν τῶν σημαινομένων ὑπὸ τῶν φωνῶν τὸ διάφορον. Φῶς οἰκεῖν εἴρηται ὁ Θεὸς, καὶ ἀναβάλλεσθαι φῶς, οὐδήπου ἐνοικεῖν αὐτὸν τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ἀγεννησίᾳ, οὐδὲ ἔξωθεν ἑαυτῷ περικειμένην ἔχειν, τοῦ λόγου λέγοντος ταῦτα μὲν καταγέλαστα) - τὸ δὲ γεννητὸν καὶ ἀγέννητον γνωριστικαί τινές εἰσιν ἰδιότητες. Εἰ γὰρ μηδὲν εἴη τὸ τὴν οὐσίαν χαρακτηρίζον, οὐδενὶ ἂν τρόπῳ πρὸς τὴν σύνεσιν ἡμῶν διικνοῖτο. Μιᾶς γὰρ οὔσης θεότητος, ἀμήχανον ἰδιάζουσαν ἔννοιαν Πατρὸς λαβεῖν ἣ Υἱοῦ, μὴ τῇ τῶν ἰδιωμάτων προσθήκῃ τῆς διανοίας διαρθρουμένης. ᾿Αλλὰ μὴν πρός γε τὸ σύνθετον ἀναφανήσεσθαι τὴν Θεὸν, εἰ μὴ ταυτὸν ληφθείη τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ τὸ φῶς, ἐκεῖνο εἰπεῖν ἔχομεν, ὅτι, εἰ μὲν ὡς μέρος τῆς οὐσίας τὸ ἀγέννητον ἐλαμβάνομεν, εἶχεν ἂν αὐτοῦ χώραν ὁ λόγος, σύνθετον εἶναι λέγων τὸ ἐκ διαφόρων συγκείμενον" εἰ δὲ οὐσίαν μὲν Θεοῦ τὸ φῶς τιθέμεθα, ἣ τὴν ζωὴν, ἣ τὸ ἀγαθὸν, ὅλον, ὅπερ ἐστὶ, ζωὴν ὄντα, καὶ ὅλον φῶς, καὶ ὅλον ἀγαθὸν, παρεπόμενον δὲ ἔχει ἡ ζωὴ τὸ ἀγέννητον" πῶς οὐχ ἀσύνθετος ὁ κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν ἁπλοῦς; Οὐ γὰρ δὴ οἱ δεικτικοὶ τῆς ἰδιότητος αὐτοῦ τρόποι τὸν τῆς ἁπλότητος λόγον παραλύσουσιν " ἣ οὕτω γε πάντα, ὅσα περὶ Θεοῦ λέγεται, σύνθετον τὸν Θεὸν ἡμῖν ἀναδείξει. Καὶ, ὡς ἔοικεν, εἰ μέλλοιμεν τὴν τοῦ ἁπλοῦ καὶ ἀμεροῦς ἔννοιαν διασώζειν, ἣ οὐδὲν ἐροῦμεν περὶ Θεοῦ πλὴν τὸ ἀγέννητον, καὶ παραιτησόμεθα αὐτὸν ὀνομάζειν ἀόρατον, ἄφθαρτον, ἀναλλοίωτον, δημιουργὸν, κριτὴν, καὶ πάντα ὅσα νῦν εἰς δοξολογίαν παραλαμβάνομεν· ἣ δεχόμενοι τὰ ὀνόματα ταῦτα, τί καὶ ποιήσομεν; πότερον εἰς τὴν οὐσίαν ἅπαντα φέροντες καταθήσομεν; Οὐκοῦν οὐχὶ μόνον σύνθετον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ ἀνομοιομερῶν αὐτὸν συγκείμενον ἀποδείξομεν, διὰ τὸ ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλο ὑφ᾽ ἑκάστου τούτων τῶν ὀνομάτων σημαίνεσθαι " ἀλλ᾽ ἔξω τῆς οὐσίας ἐκληψόμεθα; Ὅνπερ τοίνυν ἂν ἐπ᾽ ἐκείνων ἑκάστου λόγον …σωσι, τοῦτον καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ ἀγεννήτου προσηγορίας …

### English translation (Claude)

[29] What do I say? That if light were not something other than the unbegotten, it could no longer be said of the Son, just as the unbegotten itself cannot. One may also learn the difference of what the words signify from this: God is said to dwell in light and to put on light as a garment, but the word nowhere says that he dwells in his own ingeneracy or has it lying around him from outside (these things are ridiculous). Begotten and unbegotten are certain distinguishing properties. For if there were nothing that characterizes the essence, it would in no way reach our understanding. For since the Godhead is one, it is impossible to grasp a distinct notion of Father or of Son unless our thought is articulated by the addition of the properties. As for God's appearing composite unless light is taken as the same as the unbegotten, we can say this: if we took the unbegotten as a part of the essence, his argument that what is made of different things is composite would have a place. But if we posit that the essence of God is light, or life, or the good, that he is, in what he is, wholly life, wholly light, wholly good, while life has the unbegotten as a concomitant, how is the one who is simple in essence not incomposite? For the modes that indicate his property will surely not undo the account of his simplicity; or else in this way everything said of God will show us that God is composite. And it seems that, if we are to preserve the notion of the simple and partless, either we shall say nothing about God except "unbegotten," and refuse to name him invisible, incorruptible, unchangeable, creator, judge, and all that we now take up to glorify him; or, accepting these names, what shall we do? Shall we put them all into the essence? Then we shall show him not only composite but composed of unlike parts, since each of these names signifies something different. Or shall we take them as outside the essence? Then whatever account they give for each of those, let them give the same for the designation "unbegotten" too …

### Scripture references

- 1 Tim 6:16: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 104:2 (103:2 LXX): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 29 of Book 2. A line lost in the scan is marked …, and the passage breaks off at the end; Migne's Latin and notes are removed by logged corrections.
- 1 Tim 6:16; Ps 104:2 (LXX 103:2).

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 2.29 (PG 29:519; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-25/#p-2-29).

## Against Eunomius 2.30

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-25/#p-2-30
- Source: PG 29:519
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil rebuts Eunomius's claim that a 'law of nature' separates the Son's essence from the Father's, arguing that natural law, if anything, makes the offspring akin to the begetter.

### Greek text

Ἐμπλήσας δὲ τὸν λόγον φλυαρίας κενῆς, καὶ πάντων ὁμοῦ τῶν πώποτε περὶ τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ γνῶσιν ἐσχολακότων κατεπαρθεὶς, ὡς αὐτὸς ὁδόν τινα καινὴν καὶ πρόσφατον τετμηκὼς πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν φέρουσαν, ἣν οὐδεὶς τῶν προτέρων ἐξεῦρε, τελευταῖον ἐπάγει, ὡς παρ᾽ αὐτῆς δεδιδαγμένος τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς οὐσίας, τὴν κατὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ βλασφημίαν. ΕΥ̓͂Ν. Ὅτι ἡ μὲν ἀνωτέρω βασιλείας καὶ πάντη γενέσεως ἀνεπίδεκτος, τούτοις παιδεύουσα τὴν μετ᾽ εὐνοίας προσιοῦσαν διάνοιαν, ἀπωθεῖν ὡς ποῤῥωτάτω παρακελεύεται νόμῳ φύσεως τὴν πρὸς ἕτερον σύγκρισιν. … ἠξιώθη τῆς τῶν ἀποῤῥήτων ἀποκαλύψεως, μετ᾽ εὐνοίας τὴν διάνοιαν προσαγαγὼν τῷ Θεῷ; Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀπωθεῖται ὡς ποῤῥωτάτω τὸν Μονογενῆ τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς κοινωνίας, μηδὲ εἰς σύγκρισιν αὐτὸν ἀξιῶν παραδέχεσθαι" ἀλλὰ καὶ νόμῳ φύσεως τὴν τοῦ Μονογενοῦς οὐσίαν ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς διωρίσθαι φησί. Τί τοῦτο λέγων; Ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς τῶν ὅλων οὐδὲ βουλόμενος ἐδύνατο πρὸς τὴν τῆς οὐσίας οἰκειότητα τὸν Μονογενῆ παραδέξασθαι, νόμῳ φύσεως τῆς συναφείας τῆς πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐξειργόμενος, οὐχ ὤν, ὡς ἔοικεν, αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ κύριος, ἀλλὰ τοῖς τῆς ἀνάγκης ὅροις ὑπεζευγμένος. Τοιαῦτα γάρ ἐστι τὰ τῷ τῆς φύσεως νόμῳ κατειλημμένα, ἀπροαιρέτως εἰς τὸ τῇ φύσει δοκοῦν ὑπαγόμενα. Ὡς γὰρ τῷ πυρὶ φύσει τὸ θερμαίνειν, οὐ προαιρέσει, καὶ ἀναγκαίως ἀνεπίδεκτόν ἔστι τῆς ψυχρότητος, τῷ τῆς φύσεως νόμῳ τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸ κοινωνίαν ἀφῃρημένον· οὕτω βούλεται καὶ τὸν Θεὸν καὶ Πατέρα νόμῳ φύσεως ἠλλοτριωμένην ἔχειν πρὸς τὸν Υἱὸν τὴν οὐσίαν. Καίτοιγε οἱ τῆς φύσεως νόμοι οὐχὶ διάστασιν ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων Υἱῷ πρὸς Πατέρα, ἀλλ᾽ ἀναγκαίαν καὶ ἄρρηκτον τὴν κοινωνίαν ποιοῦσιν. Εἰ μὲν γὰρ βουλήσει ἔλεγε τὸ πρὸς ἑαυτὸν ἀκοινώνητον κατεσκευακέναι τὸν Θεὸν τῶν ὅλων, οὐδ᾽ οὕτω μὲν ἂν ὁ τῆς ἀγαθότητος τοῦ Θεοῦ συνεχώρει λόγος πιθανὸν εἶναι τὸν λέγοντα ἀκοινώνητον εἶναι τὸν Πατέρα τῶν αὐτῷ παρόντων πρὸς τὸν ἐξ αὐτοῦ " εἶχε δ᾽ ἂν ὅμως ἀκολουθίαν τὰ εἰρημένα, Νόμῳ δὲ φύσεως λέγειν ὑπάρχειν τὴν ἀλλοτρίωσιν, οὐδὲ τὴν ἐν τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς ἐστι φύσιν ἐπεσκεμμένου· καθ᾽ ἣν οὐχὶ τὰ ἀλλότρια, οὐδὲ τὰ ἐναντία, τὰ οἰκεῖα δὲ μᾶλλον καὶ τὰ προσήκοντα ἀπογεννᾶσθαι πέφυκεν ὑφ᾽ ἑκάστου.

### English translation (Claude)

[30] Having filled his argument with empty chatter, and exalting himself over all who have ever devoted themselves to the knowledge of God, as though he had cut a new and fresh road leading to God that none of his predecessors found, he finally brings in, as though taught by the very essence of God, the blasphemy against the Son:

EUNOMIUS: "That the [essence] which is above kingship and wholly incapable of generation, teaching these things to the mind that approaches it with goodwill, bids us thrust away as far as possible, by a law of nature, comparison with another."

BASIL: … he was counted worthy of the revelation of unspeakable things, having brought his mind to God with goodwill? And for this reason he thrusts the Only-Begotten as far as possible from fellowship with the Father, not even deeming him worthy to be admitted to comparison; and he also says that the essence of the Only-Begotten has been separated by a law of nature from that of the Father. What does he mean by this? That the God of the universe, even if he wished, could not admit the Only-Begotten to kinship of essence, being shut out by a law of nature from union with him; not being, it seems, master of himself, but yoked under the limits of necessity. For such are the things held by the law of nature: they are led without choice to what seems good to the nature. As heat belongs to fire by nature, not by choice, and it necessarily cannot admit cold, being deprived by the law of nature of fellowship with it, so he wants God the Father too to have his essence estranged from the Son by a law of nature. And yet the laws of nature make not a separation of the Son from the Father, but a necessary and unbreakable fellowship. If he had said that the God of the universe had by his will established that the Son should have no fellowship with himself, not even so would the account of God's goodness allow it to be credible, that the Father gives the one from him no share in what is his; yet what he said would at least be consistent. But to say that the estrangement exists by a law of nature belongs to one who has not even examined the nature found in sensible things, according to which each thing naturally begets not what is foreign or contrary, but rather what is akin and fitting.

### Scripture references

- Heb 10:20: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 30 of Book 2. A line lost at the start of Basil's reply is marked …; Migne's Latin and notes are removed by logged corrections. The quotation is Eunomius's Apology.
- 'A new road' recalls Heb 10:20.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 2.30 (PG 29:519; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-25/#p-2-30).

## Against Eunomius 2.31

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-25/#p-2-31
- Source: PG 29:519
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil shows that Eunomius contradicts himself by calling the Father's essence 'free of all laws' and yet bound by a 'law of nature,' and turns his chain of dignity, activity, and image into a proof that the Son is the image of the Father's essence.

### Greek text

Πάλιν οὖν καὶ ἐνταῦθα οὐ συνεῖδε τὴν πρὸς ἑαυτὰ τῶν εἰρημένων ἐναντιότητα. Ἐν γὰρ τοῖς κατόπιν ἀγανακτῶν, πρὸς τοὺς ὅμοιον κατ᾽ οὐσίαν τὸν Μο. τῷ Πατρὶ λέγοντας, ἔγραψεν οὕτως " ΕΥΝ. Τὴν ἀρχὴν δὲ δοκοῦσί μοι οἱ τὴν ἀδέσποτον, καὶ πάσης μὲν αἰτίας κρείττονα, πάντων δὲ νόμων ἐλευθέραν οὐσίαν τῇ γεννητῇ καὶ πατρικοῖς δουλευούσῃ συγκρίνειν τολμήσαντες, ἣ μηδὲ ὅλως τὴν τῶν ὅλων φύσιν ἐπεσκέφθαι, ἣ μὴ καθαρᾷ τῇ διανοίᾳ τὰς περὶ τούτων ποιεῖσθαι κρίσεις. ΒΑΣ. Πῶς οὖν ἡ ἀδέσποτος καὶ πάντων νόμων ἐλευθέρα ἀνεφάνη νῦν οὐχ ἑκούσιον ἔχουσα τὸ ἀσύγκριτον, ἀλλὰ νόμῳ φύσεως προειλημμένη, καὶ ἀπροαιρέτως τῆς πρὸς ἑαυτὴν κοινωνίας τὸ γεννητὸν ἀπελαύνουσα, ὥστε διὰ τοῦτο καὶ αὑτῷ τυγχάνειν τῷ Μονογενεῖ ἀπροσπέλαστος; Τοσοῦτον μὲν οὖν ἐν τοῖς λεγομένοις ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τὸ ἀσύμφωνον " τὸ δὲ ἀσεβὲς ὅσον; ᾿Αδέσποτον μὲν καὶ ἐλευθέραν τὴν τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσίαν προσαγορεύει (εἴπερ οὖν ἀδέσποτος ἡ τῷ νόμῳ τῆς φύσεως ὑποχύπτουσα) δουλικὴν δὲ εἶναι ἐξ ἀντιθέτου τὴν τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ἀποφαίνεται, καὶ ἐντεῦθεν τὸ ὁμότιμον τῆς φύσεως ἀφαιρούμενος. Δύο γὰρ ὄντων πραγμάτων, κτίσεώς τε καὶ θεότητος " καὶ τῆς μὲν κτίσεως ἐν δουλείᾳ καὶ ὑπακοῇ τεταγμένης, ἀρχικῆς δὲ οὔσης καὶ δεσποτικῆς τῆς θεότητος " ὁ ἀφαιρούμενος τῆς δεσποτείας τὸ ἀξίωμα, καὶ εἰς τὸ τῆς δουλείας ταπεινὸν καταβάλλων, οὐχὶ δῆλός ἔστι καὶ διὰ τοῦτο συστοιχοῦντα αὐτὸν τῇ πάσῃ κτίσει δεικνύς; Οὐ γὰρ δὴ τοῦτο σεμνὸν αὐτῷ, εἰ τῶν ὁμοδούλων προέξει. ᾿Αλλ᾽ εἰ μὴ βασιλεὺς καὶ Δεσπότης ὁμολογοῖτο, οὐ τῇ τῆς φύσεως ἐλαττώσει, τῇ ἀγαθότητι δὲ τῆς προαιρέσεως καταδεχόμενος τὸ ὑπήκοον τοῦτο χαλεπὸν καὶ φρικτὸν, καὶ ὄλεθρον φέρον τοῖς ἀρνουμένοις. Ὁ δὲ προστίθησιν" ΕΥ̓͂Ν. Ὅτι τοῖς νόμοις τῆς φύσεως ἑπομένη ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐσία, οὔτε τὴν πρὸς ἕτερον σύγκρισιν ἐπιδέχεται, καὶ παρέχει ἡμῖν ἀκόλουθον καὶ προσήκουσαν τῷ ἰδίῳ ἀξιώματι νοεῖν αὐτῆς τὴν ἐνέργειαν. Α ΒΑΣ. Τοῦτο εἴρηται μὲν ἐκείνῳ εἰς ἀπόδειξιν τῆς ἀλλοτριώσεως τοῦ Μονογενοῦς πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα" συνίστησι δὲ τὸν ἡμέτερον λόγον. Εἰ γὰρ ἀκόλουθον καὶ προσήκουσαν τῷ ἰδίῳ ἀξιώματι παρέχει νοεῖν καὶ τὴν ἐνέργειαν ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐσία, ἀξίωμα μέν ἔστιν ἡ ἀγεννησία, ὡς Εὐνομίῳ δοκεῖ· τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ καὶ οὐσία κατὰ τὸν τούτων λόγον, ἐνέργεια δὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὁ Μονογενὴς, ἣ ἐνεργείας εἰκών. Καὶ τοῦτο κατὰ τὸν τούτων λόγον · ὥστε τούτοις ἀντιλέγειν πάρελκον ἂν εἴη, οὐδὲν ἔχουσιν. Ἢ πολλοῦ ἂν τιμησαίμην ἀρνεῖσθαι αὐτοὺς βλασφημίαν ταύτην " πλὴν, ἐπειδήπερ εἰρήκασιν, ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν τούτοις εἰρημένων συλλογισώμεθα, ὅτι εἰς ἀξίωμα μὲν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ ἀγεννησία, τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ καὶ οὐσία, ἀκόλουθος δὲ καὶ προσήκουσα τῷ ἀξιώματι τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ ἐνέργεια, αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς κατὰ τὴν τούτων ὑπόληψιν, οἰκεῖος ἄρα καὶ προσήκων τῇ οὐσίᾳ ἔσται τοῦ Θεοῦ. Καὶ τούτων οὐδέν ἐστιν ἡμέτερον. Αὐτὰ γὰρ τὰ τούτων συνθέντες ῥήματα, ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν τὴν δεῖξιν ποιούμεθα. Τῇ οὐσίᾳ, φησὶ, τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀκολουθεῖ τὸ ἀξίωμα " τῷ ἀξιώματι ἀναλογοῦσά ἔστιν ἡ ἐνέργεια" τῆς ἐνεργείας εἰκὼν ὁ Μονογενής" καὶ ἀνάπαλιν, εἰ τῆς μὲν ἐνεργείας ὁ Μονογενὴς εἰκὼν, ἡ δὲ ἐνέργεια τοῦ ἀξιώματος, τὸ δὲ ἀξίωμα τῆς οὐσίας, ὁ Μονογενὴς ἔσται τῆς οὐσίας εἰκών. Οὕτω καὶ αὐτοὶ πολλάκις οἱ ἐργάται τοῦ ψεύδους, ὑπὸ τῆς ἐνεργείας ἀγχόμενοι, μαρτυροῦσι τῇ ἀληθείᾳ καὶ μὴ βουλόμενοι. Ἐπεὶ καὶ οἱ δαίμονες οὐχὶ εὐαγγελιστῶν ἐποίουν ἔργον, ἀλλ᾽ ἀντιβλέπειν μὴ δυνάμενοι τῷ τῆς ἀληθείας φωτὶ, ἐβόων " Οἵδαμέν σε τίς εἶ, ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ Θεοῦ.

### English translation (Claude)

[31] Here again, then, he did not notice the contradiction of his statements with each other. For in his earlier arguments, indignant at those who say that the Only-Begotten is like the Father in essence, he wrote thus:

EUNOMIUS: "In the first place, those who have dared to compare the essence that is masterless, superior to every cause and free of all laws, with the one that is begotten and serves paternal laws, seem to me either never to have examined the nature of the universe at all, or not to make their judgments about these things with a pure mind."

BASIL: How then has the masterless essence, free of all laws, now appeared as having its incomparability not voluntarily but held fast by a law of nature, and driving the begotten from fellowship with itself without choice, so that for this reason it is unapproachable even to the Only-Begotten himself? So great is the inconsistency in what he says; and how great the impiety? He calls the essence of the Father masterless and free (if indeed what bows to the law of nature is masterless), and by contrast declares that of the Only-Begotten servile, and by this too he takes away the equality of honor in nature. For since there are two things, creation and Godhead, and creation is set in servitude and obedience, while the Godhead is ruling and sovereign, the one who takes away from him the dignity of lordship and casts him down to the lowliness of servitude: is he not plainly showing him by this too to be ranked with all creation? For it is surely no honor to him to be foremost among fellow servants. But not to confess him King and Lord, who accepts this obedience not through any inferiority of nature but through the goodness of his choice, is grievous and dreadful and brings destruction on those who deny it. And he adds:

EUNOMIUS: "For the essence of God, following the laws of nature, does not admit comparison with another, and grants us to conceive its activity as consequent upon and fitting to its own dignity."

BASIL: This was said by him to prove the estrangement of the Only-Begotten from the Father, but it establishes our argument. For if the essence of God grants us to conceive its activity too as consequent upon and fitting to its own dignity, then the dignity is ingeneracy, as Eunomius thinks; this same thing is also essence, by their argument; and the Only-Begotten is God's activity, or the image of his activity, this too by their argument; so that it would be pointless for them to contradict this, since they have nothing to say. I would give much for them to deny this blasphemy; but since they have said it, let us reason from their own statements: that God's dignity is ingeneracy; that the same thing is also essence; and that the activity consequent upon and fitting to God's dignity is, on their supposition, Christ. Therefore he will be proper to and fitting for the essence of God. None of this is ours; we make the demonstration against them by putting their own words together. "Dignity," he says, "follows the essence of God; the activity is proportionate to the dignity; the Only-Begotten is the image of the activity." And conversely, if the Only-Begotten is the image of the activity, and the activity of the dignity, and the dignity of the essence, the Only-Begotten will be the image of the essence. So the workers of falsehood themselves, often constrained by the force of it, bear witness to the truth even against their will. For the demons too were not doing the work of evangelists, but, unable to look upon the light of truth, they cried out, "We know who you are, the Holy One of God."

### Scripture references

- Phil 2:8: allusion, medium confidence
- Mark 1:24: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 31 of Book 2. Migne's Latin and notes are removed by logged corrections. The quotations are from Eunomius's Apology.
- Obedience by choice: Phil 2:7-8; Mark 1:24 (Luke 4:34).

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 2.31 (PG 29:519; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-25/#p-2-31).

## Against Eunomius 2.32

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-25/#p-2-32
- Source: PG 29:519
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil argues that works reveal a maker's power, not his essence, and that if divine power and essence coincide, Eunomius's argument from works proves the likeness, not the unlikeness, of Father, Son, and Spirit.

### Greek text

Ἴδωμεν δὲ καὶ τὰ ἀκόλουθα. ΕΥ̓͂Ν. Εἴτε γὰρ, φησὶν, ἐκ τῶν δημιουργημάτων σκοπούμενός τις, ἐκ τούτων ἐπὶ τὰς οὐσίας ἀνάγοιτο … ἐκ Μονογενοῦς τὸν Παράκλητον, κἀκ τῆς τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ὑπεροχῆς τὴν τῆς ἐνεργείας διαφορὰν πιστούμενος, ἀναμφισβήτητον λαμβάνει καὶ τῆς κατ᾽ οὐσίαν παραλλαγῆς τὴν ἀπόδειξιν. ΒΑΣ. Πρῶτον μὲν οὖν πῶς δυνατὸν ἐκ τῶν δημιουργημάτων τὰς οὐσίας ἀναλογίζεσθαι, ἐγὼ μὲν οὐχ ὁρῶ. Δυνάμεως γὰρ, καὶ σοφίας, καὶ τέχνης, οὐχὶ δὲ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτῆς ἐνδεικτικά ἔστι ποιήματα, Καὶ οὐδὲ αὐτὴν πᾶσαν τοῦ δημιουργοῦ τὴν δύναμιν ἀναγκαίως παρίστησιν, ἐκδεχομένου ποτὲ τὸν τεχνίτην μὴ πᾶσαν ἑαυτοῦ τὴν ἰσχὺν ἐναποθέσθαι ταῖς ἐνεργείαις, ἀλλ' ὑφειμένοις πολλάκις ἐπὶ τῶν ἔργων τῆς τέχνης τοῖς τόνοις χρήσασθαι. Εἰ δὲ καὶ ὅλην τὴν δύναμιν ἐπὶ τὸ ἔργον ἀνακινήσειε, καὶ οὕτως ἂν ὑπάρχοι τὴν ἰσχὺν αὐτοῦ διὰ τῶν ἔργων ἀναμετρεῖσθαι, οὐχὶ δὲ τὴν οὐσίαν, ἥτις ποτέ ἐστι, καταλαμβάνεσθαι. Εἰ δὲ διὰ τὸ ἁπλοῦν καὶ ἀσύνθετον τῆς θείας φύσεως τῇ μὲν δυνάμει σύνδρομον τίθεται τὴν οὐσίαν, καὶ διὰ τὴν προσοῦσαν ἀγαθότητα τῷ Θεῷ ὅλην μὲν κεκινῆσθαι λέγοι τὴν τοῦ Πατρὸς δύναμιν εἰς τὴν γέννησιν τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ὅλην δὲ πάλιν τὴν τοῦ Μονογενοῦς εἰς τὴν ὑπόστασιν τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, ὥστε ἐκ μὲν τοῦ Πνεύματος τὴν τοῦ Μονογενοῦς δύναμιν θεωρεῖσθαι, ὁμοῦ δὲ καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ Μονογενοῦς πάλιν τὴν τοῦ Πατρὸς δύναμίν τε καὶ οὐσίαν καταλαμβάνεσθαι" σκοπεῖτε τὸ συναγόμενον. Ἐξ ὧν γὰρ ἐπεχείρησε τὸ ἀνόμοιον συστῆσαι τῆς οὐσίας, ἐκ τούτων ἐφάνη κατασκευάζων τὴν ὁμοιότητα. Εἰ μὲν γὰρ οὐδὲν ἔχει κοινὸν ἣ δύναμις πρὸς τὴν … τῆς οἰκίας τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ οἰκοδόμου καταλ… …μεώς ἐστιν ἀποτελέσματα, πρὸς τὴν κατάληψιν αὐτῆς ὡδηγήθη; εἰ δὲ ταυτὸν οὐσία τέ ἐστι καὶ δύναμις, τὸ τὴν δύναμιν χαρακτηρίζον χαρακτηρίσει πάντως καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν. Ὥστε τὰ δημιουργήματα, ὡς σὺ φῂς, οὐ πρὸς τὸ ἀνόμοιον τῆς οὐσίας, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὴν ἀκρίβειαν τῆς ὁμοιότητος φέρει. Πάλιν μέντοι καὶ τοῦτο τὸ ἐγχείρημα τὸν ἡμέτερον μᾶλλον ἣ τὸν αὑτοῦ λόγον συνίστησιν. Ἢ γὰρ οὐδαμόθεν ἔχει παρασχέσθαι τῶν εἰρημένων τὰς ἀποδείξεις, ἢ εἴπερ ἐκ τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων τὰς εἰκόνας λαμβάνοι, εὑρήσει οὐχ ἐκ τῶν ἔργων τοῦ τεχνίτου ἐν περινοίᾳ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ γινομένους ἡμᾶς, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ γεννηθέντος τὴν … δυνατόν· ἐκ μέντοι τοῦ γεννήματος νοῆσαι ῥάδιον τοῦ γεγεννηκότος τὴν φύσιν. Ὥστε εἰ μὲν δημιούργημα ὁ Μονογενῆς, οὐ παρίστησιν ἡμῖν τοῦ Πατρὸς τὴν οὐσίαν" εἰ δὲ γνωρίζει ἡμῖν δι᾽ ἑαυτοῦ τὸν Πα… εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ὑποστάσεως χαρακτήρ.

### English translation (Claude)

[32] Let us see what follows as well.

EUNOMIUS: "For if one, considering things from the works, is led up from them to the essences, … the Paraclete from the Only-Begotten, and, confirming the difference of activity from the superiority of the Only-Begotten, he receives an undisputed proof of the difference of essence too."

BASIL: First, then, how it is possible to infer the essences from the works I do not see. For things made indicate power and wisdom and art, not the essence itself. And they do not necessarily present even the whole power of the maker, since it is possible for the craftsman not to put all his strength into his activities, but often to use the slackened tensions of his art in his works. And even if he set his whole power in motion for the work, even so it would be possible to measure his strength through his works, but not to grasp his essence, whatever it is. But if, because of the simplicity and incompositeness of the divine nature, he sets the essence as coinciding with the power, and because of the goodness that belongs to God says that the whole power of the Father was moved to the begetting of the Son, and in turn the whole power of the Only-Begotten to the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, so that from the Spirit the power of the Only-Begotten is contemplated, and with it the essence, and from the Only-Begotten in turn the power and essence of the Father are grasped: see the conclusion. From the very things by which he tried to establish the unlikeness of the essence, he has been shown to construct its likeness. For if power has nothing in common with … from the house the essence of the builder … which are the results of power, led to the grasp of it? But if essence and power are the same, what characterizes the power will surely characterize the essence too. So the works, as you say, lead not to unlikeness of essence but to exactness of likeness. Again, then, this attempt too establishes our argument rather than his. For either he has nowhere to furnish proofs of what he has said, or, if he takes images from human things, he will find that we come to an understanding of a craftsman's essence not from his works but from the one begotten … it is possible; but from the offspring it is easy to understand the nature of the begetter. So if the Only-Begotten is a work, he does not present to us the essence of the Father; but if he makes known to us through himself the Father, … image of God and stamp of the hypostasis.

### Scripture references

- Col 1:15: allusion, high confidence
- Heb 1:3: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 32 of Book 2. This scan page is badly damaged: Greek lines are cut and interleaved with Migne's Latin and notes, which are removed by logged corrections; lost words are marked …. The quotation is Eunomius's Apology.
- Col 1:15; Heb 1:3.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 2.32 (PG 29:519; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-25/#p-2-32).

## Against Eunomius 2.33

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-25/#p-2-33
- Source: PG 29:519
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil denounces Eunomius as the first to call the Holy Spirit a 'work,' a blasphemy he uses to argue the Son's inferiority.

### Greek text

Ἡ δὲ παρενθήκη τῆς βλασφημίας ὅση; Καταφρονήσας τῆς ἐν τοῖς Εὐαγγελίοις ἀπειλῆς, ἣν ὁ Κύριος τοῖς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον βλασφημήσασι φοβερωτάτην ἐπανετείνατο, δημιούργημα λέγει τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον" μικροῦ μηδὲ ζῶον αὐτὸ εἶναι διδοὺς, τοῖς ἀψύχοις, ὡς τὰ πολλὰ, τῆς προσηγορίας ταύτης ἐφαρμοζούσης. Οὐ γὰρ δὴ, ὅτι προέλαβε τῇ βλασφημίᾳ ταύτῃ τὸν Κύριον, καθυφεῖναι τι ἡμᾶς τῆς ἀγανακτήσεως ἄξιον. Οὐ γὰρ παραμυθία τοῦτο τῆς ἀσεβείας, ἀλλὰ προσθήκη τῆς κατακρίσεως. Ἐπεὶ καὶ ὁ Κύριος τὴν μὲν εἰς αὐτὸν βλασφημίαν δι᾽ ἀγαθότητα συνεχώρησε τὴν δὲ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἀναπόδραστον εἶναι τοῖς τολμήσασιν …νατο. Πρῶτος τοίνυν τῶν ἀφ᾽ οὗ τὸ κήρυγμα τῆς … ταύτην ἐτόλμησε τὴν φωνὴν ἀφεῖναι περὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος. Οὔκουν τινὸς μέχρι τήμερον ἀκηκόαμεν δημιούργημα τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα προσειπόντος, ἡ ἐν τοῖς καταλειφθεῖσιν ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν λόγοις τὴν προσηγορίαν ταύτην εὑρήκαμεν. Εἶτά φησιν" ΕΥ̓͂Ν. Εἰ ἐκ τῶν δημιουργημάτων ἀνάγοιτό τις πρὸς τὴν τῆς οὐσίας κατάληψιν, εὑρήσει τοῦ μὲν ἀγεννήτου τὸν Υἱὸν ποίημα, τοῦ δὲ Μονογενοῦς τὸν Παράκλητον. ΒΑΣ. Ἄλλος οὗτος τρόπος τῆς ἀσεβείας · διπλᾶ βλασφημεῖν ἐν ἑνὶ ῥήματι, καὶ τὴν τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἐξουδένωσιν ὡς ὁμολογουμένην λαβόντα, ἐντεῦθεν ὁρμῆσαι πρὸς τὴν ἀπόδειξιν τῆς τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ἐλαττώσεως. Καὶ, ὡς ἔοικεν, Οἱ μὲν οὐρανοὶ διηγοῦνται δόξαν Θεοῦ" τὸ δὲ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον τὴν τῆς δόξης ἐλάττωσιν τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ἀναγγέλλει. Καὶ ὁ μὲν Κύριος περὶ τοῦ Παρακλήτου λέγων, Ἐκεῖνος ἐμὲ δοξάσει, φησίν " ἡ δὲ κατήγορος γλῶττα ἐμπόδιον εἶναι τῷ Υἱῷ τῆς πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα συγκρίσεως ἀποφαίνεται. Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ τοῦ Πνεύματος. φησὶ, ποιητὴς ὁ Υἱὸς (Ἵλεως δὲ ἡμῖν, Κύριε, ἐπὶ τοῖς λαλουμένοις εἴης), τοῦτο δὲ τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν, ὡς μηδεμίαν σεμνότητα τῷ δημιουργήσαντι προστιθέναι, διὰ τοῦτο οὐδὲ συγκρίνεσθαι τῷ Πατρὶ ἄξιος, ἐκ τῆς ὧν ἐποίησεν εὐτελείας τὸ ὁμότιμον τῆς ἀξίας ἀφῃρημένος .

### English translation (Claude)

[33] And how great is the addition to his blasphemy? Despising the threat in the Gospels, the most fearful one, which the Lord held over those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit, he calls the Holy Spirit a work, all but refusing even to grant that he is a living being, since this designation fits lifeless things for the most part. For the fact that he first directed this blasphemy against the Lord is surely no reason for us to relax any of our indignation; it is no mitigation of the impiety but an addition to the condemnation. For the Lord pardoned the blasphemy against himself because of his goodness, but [declared] the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit inescapable for those who dared it. He is the first, then, of all since the proclamation of … to have dared to utter this word about the Spirit. For to this day we have not heard of anyone calling the Holy Spirit a work, nor have we found this designation in the writings they have left. Then he says:

EUNOMIUS: "If one is led up from the works to the comprehension of the essence, he will find the Son a thing made of the unbegotten, and the Paraclete of the Only-Begotten."

BASIL: This is another manner of impiety: to blaspheme doubly in one statement, and, taking the disparagement of the Holy Spirit as agreed, to set out from there to prove the inferiority of the Only-Begotten. And so, it seems, "the heavens declare the glory of God," but the Holy Spirit announces the diminution of the glory of the Only-Begotten! The Lord, speaking of the Paraclete, says, "He will glorify me"; but the accusing tongue declares that he is an obstacle to the Son's comparison with the Father. For since, he says, the Son is the maker of the Spirit (be gracious to us, Lord, in what we say!), and this is such as to add no dignity to the one who made it, therefore the Son is not worthy to be compared with the Father, being deprived of equality of dignity by the cheapness of what he made.

### Scripture references

- Matt 12:31: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 12:32: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 19:1 (18:2 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- John 16:14: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 33 of Book 2. A line lost in the scan is marked …; Migne's Latin and notes are removed by logged corrections. The quotation is Eunomius's Apology.
- Matt 12:31-32; Ps 19:1 (LXX 18:2); John 16:14.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 2.33 (PG 29:519; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-25/#p-2-33).

## Against Eunomius 2.34

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-25/#p-2-34
- Source: PG 29:519
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil concludes Book 2: making the Spirit a creature of the Son alone separates the Spirit from God and lowers the Son, contrary to Scripture, which calls the Spirit both God's and Christ's.

### Greek text

Ἆρα ἀκηκόατέ ποτε βλασφημίας χαλεπωτέρας; ἄρά τις οὕτω περιφανῶς εἰς τὸ ἄφυκτον κρῖμα τῆς εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον βλασφημίας κατέπεσε; Μόν… …τος, καὶ ὀνόμασί τε αὐτὸ ταπεινοῖς καθυβρίσαι, καὶ τὴν φύσιν αὐτοῦ τοσοῦτον ἐξευτελίσαι, ὥστε ἀδοξίαν εἰπεῖν τῷ πεποιηκότι προστρίβεσθαι. Μᾶλλον δὲ κἀκεῖνος ἔφυγεν ἂν ταπεινῶς εἰπεῖν τι περὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος, ὡς ἂν μὴ τὸν τῦφον ἑαυτοῦ καταβάλοι. Καὶ περὶ μὲν τούτου κατὰ σχολὴν ἐροῦμεν. Ἐκεῖνο δὲ τίνι τῶν πάντων ἄδηλον, ὅτι οὐδεμία ἐνέργεια τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἀποτετμημένη ἐστὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς, οὐδὲ ἐστί τι ἐν τοῖς οὖσι τῷ Υἱῷ ὑπάρχον, ὃ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἠλλοτρίωται; Πάντα γὰρ, φησὶ, τὰ ἐμὰ σά ἐστι, καὶ τὰ σὰ ἐμά. Πῶς οὖν τοῦ Πνεύματος τὴν αἰτίαν τῷ Μονογενεῖ μόνῳ προστίθησι, καὶ κατηγόρημα τῆς φύσεως αὐτοῦ τὴν τούτου λαμβάνει δημιουργίαν; Εἰ μὲν οὖν, δύο ἀρχὰς ἀντιπαρεξάγων … ἀλλήλαις, ταῦτά φησι, μετὰ Μανιχαίου καὶ Μαρκίωνος συντριβήσεται" εἰ δὲ μιᾶς ἐξάπτει τὰ ὄντα, τὸ παρὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ γεγενῆσθαι λεγόμενον πρὸς τὴν πρώτην αἰτίαν τὴν ἀναφορὰν ἔχει. Ὥστε κἂν πάντα εἰς τὸ εἶναι παρῆχθαι διὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου πιστεύωμεν, ἀλλὰ τὸ πάντων αἴτιον εἶναι τὸν Θεὸν τῶν ὅλων οὐχ ἀφαιρούμεθα. Πῶς δὲ οὐ φανερὸν ἔχει τὸν κίνδυνον διαιρεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα; τοῦτο μὲν τοῦ ᾿Αποστόλου συνημμένως ἡμῖν παραδιδόντος, καὶ νῦν μὲν Χριστοῦ λέγοντος, νῦν δὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐν οἷς γράφει" Εἰ δέ τις Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ οὐκ ἔχει, οὗτος οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτοῦ" καὶ πάλιν" Ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐ τὸ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ" τοῦτο δὲ τοῦ Κυρίου τὸ Πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας λέγοντος " ἐπειδὴ αὐτὸς ἡ ἀλήθεια, … καθαίρεσιν τῆς δόξης τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἀφαιρεῖ μὲν αὐτὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς, τῷ δὲ Μονογενεῖ διαφερόντως ἐπὶ καθαιρέσει τῆς δόξης προστίθησιν, ἐφυβρίζων, ὡς οἴεται, οὐδεμίαν ἐκδίκησιν ἐπὶ τοῖς πονηροῖς δόγμασιν ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀνταποδόσεως ἀναμένων.

### English translation (Claude)

[34] Have you ever heard a more grievous blasphemy? Has anyone fallen so openly into the inescapable judgment of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? [Only] … against the Spirit, both to insult him with lowly names and to cheapen his nature so far as to say that it brings dishonor on the one who made him. Rather, even that man would have avoided saying anything lowly about the Spirit, so as not to overthrow his own conceit. But of this we shall speak at leisure. To whom of all is it not plain that no activity of the Son is cut off from the Father, and that there is nothing among the things that are which belongs to the Son and is estranged from the Father? "For all that is mine," he says, "is yours, and yours is mine." How then does he assign the cause of the Spirit to the Only-Begotten alone, and take his creation of the Spirit as a predicate of his nature? If, then, he says this setting up two principles against each other …, he will be crushed together with Mani and Marcion; but if he attaches the things that are to one principle, what is said to have come to be from the Son has its reference to the first cause. So, even though we believe that all things were brought into being through God the Word, we do not take away from the God of the universe his being the cause of all. And how does it not carry an obvious danger to divide the Spirit from God? The Apostle hands him down to us as joined, speaking of him now as Christ's and now as God's, when he writes, "If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not his," and again, "But you [received] not the … but the [Spirit] that is from God"; and the Lord calls him the Spirit of truth, since he himself is the truth … to the lowering of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, he takes the Spirit away from the Father and assigns him specially to the Only-Begotten, to the lowering of his glory, insulting him, as he thinks, and expecting no vengeance for his wicked doctrines in the day of recompense.

### Scripture references

- John 17:10: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:3: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 8:9: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 2:12: quotation, high confidence
- John 15:26: allusion, high confidence
- John 14:6: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 34, the last of Book 2. Lines lost in the scan are marked …; the opening words of Basil's comparison ('[Only] … against the Spirit') name a predecessor whose name is lost in the scan, probably Montanus (whose claim to speak as the Paraclete is the 'conceit' Basil mentions). Migne's Latin and notes are removed by logged corrections. Mani and Marcion are named as teachers of two principles.
- John 17:10; John 1:3; Rom 8:9; 1 Cor 2:12; John 15:26; John 14:6.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 2.34 (PG 29:519; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/2-25/#p-2-34).

## Against Eunomius 3.1

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/3-1/#p-3-1
- Source: PG 29:655
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil opens Book 3: Eunomius claims the saints taught that the Spirit is third in dignity and order and infers on his own that he is third in nature; Basil answers that rank does not imply a different nature, as the ranks of angels show.

### Greek text

ΒΑΣ. Μόλις ποτὲ κορεσθεὶς τῶν εἰς τὸν Μονογενῇ βλασφημιῶν, ἐπὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον μετελήλυθεν, ἀκόλουθα τῇ ὅλῃ αὐτοῦ προαιρέσει καὶ περὶ τούτου διαλεγόμενος " γράφει δὲ οὕτως" ΕΥ̓͂Ν. ᾿Αρκούντων δὲ ἡμῖν τοσούτων περὶ τοῦ Μονογενοῦς, ἀκόλουθον ἂν εἴη καὶ περὶ τοῦ Παρακλήτου λοιπὸν εἰπεῖν " οὐ ταῖς ἀνεξετάστοις τῶν πολλῶν ἀκολουθοῦντας δόξαις, τὴν δὲ τῶν ἁγίων ἐν ἅπασι φυλάσσοντας διδασκαλίαν, παρ᾽ ὧν τρίτον αὑτὸ ἀξιώματι καὶ τάξει μαθόντες, τρίτον εἶναι καὶ τῇ φύσει πεπιστεύκαμεν. ΒΑΣ. Ὅτι μὲν γὰρ οὐχ οἴεται δεῖν τῇ ἁπλῇ καὶ ἀνεπιτηδεύτῳ πίστει τῶν πολλῶν ἐμμένειν, ἀλλὰ τεχνικοῖς τισι καὶ σεσοφισμένοις λόγοις πάλιν πρὸς πὸ δοκοῦν ἑαυτῷ παραχρούεσθαι τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ἰκανῶς ἐξ ὧν εἶπεν ἐδήλωσεν. ᾿Ατιμάζων γὰρ τὴν τῶν πολλῶν δόξαν, ἧ δοξάζουσι τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, προσποιεῖται τὴν τῶν ἀγίων φυλάσσειν διδασκαλίαν, καὶ τοὺς ταύτην αὐτῷ παραδεδωχότας ἀποσιωπᾷ, καὶ νῦν, ἅπερ κὰν τοῖς περὶ τοῦ Μονογενοῦς λόγοις ποιῶν ἀπεδείχθη. Εἶτά φησι παρὰ μὲν τῶν ἁγίων μεμαθηκέναι τὸ τρίτον εἶναι τῇ τάξει καὶ τῷ ἀξιώματι, παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ δὲ πεπιστευκέναι τὸ καὶ τρίτον εἶναι τῇ φύσει. Τίνες δὲ οἱ ἅγιοι, καὶ ἐν ποίοις λόγοις τὴν διδασκαλίαν πεποίηνται, εἰπεῖν οὐχ ἔχει. … γέγονεν οὕτω τολμηρὸς ἄνθρωπος, τὰς περὶ τῶν θείων δογμάτων καινοτομίας εἰσηγούμενος; Τίς γὰρ ἀνάγκη, εἰ τῷ ἀξιώματι καὶ τῇ τάξει τρίτον … ᾿Αξιώματι μὲν γὰρ δευτερεύειν τοῦ παραδίδωσιν ἴσως ὁ τῆς εὐσεβείας λόγος " φύσει δὲ τρίτῃ χρῆσθαι, οὔτε παρὰ τῶν ἁγίων Γραφῶν δεδιδάγμεθα, οὔτε ἐκ τῶν προειρημένων κατὰ τὸ ἀκόλουθον δυνατὸν συλλογίσασθαι. Ὡς γὰρ ὁ Υἱὸς τάξει μὲν, δεύτερος τοῦ Πατρὸς, ὅτι ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου " καὶ ἀξιώματι, ὅτι ἀρχὴ καὶ αἰτία, τῷ εἶναι αὐτοῦ πατέρα, καὶ ὅτι δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἣ πρόσοδος καὶ προαγωγὴ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν καὶ Πατέρα" φύσει δὲ οὐκέτι δεύτερος, διότι ἡ θεότης ἐν ἑκατέρῳ μία " οὕτω δηλονότι καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, εἰ καὶ ὑποβέβηκε τὸν Υἱὸν τῇ τε τάξει καὶ τῷ ἀξιώματι: (ἵνα καὶ ὅλως συγχωρήσωμεν), οὐκέτ᾽ ἂν εἰκότως, ὡς ἀλλοτρίας ὑπάρχον φύσεως, ἀκολουθεῖν, ἐκεῖθεν δῆλον. Αγγελοι πάντες ὥσπερ προσηγορίας μιᾶς, οὕτω καὶ φύσεως πάντως τῆς αὐτῆς ἀλλήλοις τυγχάνουσιν - ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως οἱ μὲν αὐτῶν ἐθνῶν προεστήχασιν, οἱ δὲ ἑνὶ ἑκάστῳ τῶν πιστῶν εἰσι παρεπόμενοι. “Ὅσῳ μέντοι προτιμότερον ἔθνος ὅλον Ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς, τοσούτῳ δήπου μεῖζον ὑπάρχειν ἀνάγκη ἀξίωμα τοῦ ἐθνάρχου ἀγγέλου παρὰ τὸ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἑκάστου τὴν προστασίαν Τὸ δὲ συνεῖναι ἑκάστῳ τῶν πιστῶν ἄγγελον, οἷον παιδαγωγόν τινα καὶ νομέα τὴν ζωὴν διευθύνοντα, οὐδεὶς ἀντερεῖ, μεμνημένος τῶν τοῦ Κυρίου λόγων, εἰπόντος " Μὴ καταφρονήσητε ἑνὸς τῶν ἐλαχίστων τούτων", ὅτι οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτῶν διὰ
παντὸς βλέπουσι τὸ πρόσωπον τοῦ Πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. Καὶ ὁ Ψαλμῳδός φησι καὶ, ἄγγελος ὁ ῥυσάμενός με ἐκ νεότητός μου" καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα. Ὅτι δὲ πάλιν εἰσί τινες ἄγγελοι καὶ ὅλων ἐθνῶν προεστῶτες, Μωσῆς ἡμᾶς διδάσκει διὰ τῆς ᾧδής λέγων“ "Ὅτε διεμέριζεν ὁ Ὕψιστος ἔθνη, ὡς διέσπειρεν υἱοὺς Ἀδὰμ, ἔστησεν ὅρια ἐθνῶν κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἀγγέλων αὖτοῦ. Καὶ ὁ σοφὸς Δανιὴλ ἐν τῇ τοῦ ἀγγέλου ὀπτασίᾳ ἤκουσεν αὐτοῦ λέγοντος ὅτι, Ἄρχων Περσῶν εἱστήκει ἐξεναντίας μου " καὶ ἰδοὺ εἷς τῶν ἀρχόντων τῶν πρώτων βοηθῆσαί μοι, καὶ αὑτὸν κατέλιπον ἐκεῖ μετὰ τοῦ ἄρχοντος βασιλέως Περσῶν. Καὶ μετ᾽ ὀλίγα φησὶν ὁ αὐτός" Καὶ ὁ ἄρχων τῶν ἤρχετο. ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ ἀρχιστράτηγός τις τῆς δυνάμεως Κυρίου λέγεται, ὁ Ἰησοῦ τῷ τοῦ Ναυῇ ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἰορδάνου φανερωθείς. Καὶ πάλιν τινὲς λέγονται λεγεῶνες τῶν ἀγγέλων, τοῦ Κυρίου εἰπόντος τοῖς μαθηταῖς - Ἢ δοκεῖτε ὅτι οὐ δύναμαι τὸν Πατέρα μου, καὶ παραστήσει μοι ὧδε πλείους ἣ δώδεκα ἀγγέλων; Ὃ τοίνυν ἀρχιστράτηγος τῶν ἐν ταῖς λεγεῶσι κατατεταγμένων ἀγγέλων ἄρχων ἐστὶ δηλονότι. Πρὸς τί οὖν ὁ λόγος ἡμῖν φέρει; Ὅτι οὐ πάντως, εἴ τι τῇ τάξει καὶ τῷ ἀξιώματι δεύτερόν ἐστι καὶ τρίτον, τοῦτο καὶ τὴν φύσιν ἑτέραν ἔχει. Ὡς γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀγγέλων ὁ μέν τις αὐτῶν ἄρχων, ὁ δὲ ἄγγελοι δὲ ὅμως τῇ φύσει πάντες" καὶ κατὰ ο μὲν τὸ ἀξίωμα ἡ διαφορὰ, κατὰ δὲ τὴν φύσιν ἡ κοινωνία (καὶ γὰρ ᾿Αστὴρ ἀστέρος διαφέρει ἐν δόξῃ" φύσις δὲ πάντων ἀστέρων μία " καὶ πολλαὶ μοναὶ παρὰ τῷ Πατρὶ, τουτέστιν, ἀξιωμάτων διαφοραί " φύσις δὲ ὁμοία τῶν δοξαζομένων) " οὕτω δηλονότι καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, εἰ καὶ ἀξιώματι καὶ τάξει ὑποβέβηκεν, ὡς λέγουσι (παρειλήφαμεν γὰρ αὐτὸ, φησὶ, τρίτον ἀπὸ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ ἀριθμούμενον" αὐτοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἐν τῇ παραδόσει τοῦ σωτηρίου βαπτίσματος παραδεδωκότος τὴν τάξιν ἐν οἷς εἶπε - Πορευθέντες, βαπτίζετε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς, καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος) " ἀλλ᾽ εἰς φύσιν τινὰ τρίτην ἀπὸ Υἱοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς ἐκβαλλόμενον, οὐδαμοῦ μεμαθήκαμεν. Δύο γὰρ λεγομένων πραγμάτων, θεότητός τε καὶ κτίσεως, καὶ δεσποτείας καὶ δουλείας, καὶ ἁγιαστικῆς δυνάμεως, καὶ τῆς ἀγιαζομένης, τῆς τε ἐκ φύσεως ἐχούσης τὴν ἀρετὴν καὶ τῆς ἐκ προαιρέσεως κατορθούσης, ἐν ποίᾳ μερίδι τὸ Πνεῦμα τάξομεν; Ἔν τοῖς ἀγιαζομένοις; ἀλλ᾽ αὐτό ἔστιν ἁγιασμός. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἐν τοῖς ἐξ ἀνδραγαθημάτων τὴν ἀρετὴν κτωμένοις; ἀλλὰ φύσει ἐστὶν ἀγαθόν. ᾿Αλλ’ ἐν τοῖς λειτουργικοῖς; ἀλλ᾽ ἕτερά εἰσι λειτουργικὰ πνεύματα πρὸς διακονίαν ἀποστελλόμενα. Οὐ τοίνυν ὁμόδουλον ἡμῖν λέγειν αὐτὸ θεμιτὸν, τὸ ἦγεμονικὸν τῇ φύσει, οὔτε τῇ κτίσει συναριθμεῖν, τὸ τῇ θείᾳ καὶ μακαρίᾳ Τριάδι συναριθμούμενον. Ἀρχαὶ μὲν γὰρ, καὶ ἐξουσίαι, καὶ πᾶσα ἡ τοιαύτη κτίσις, ἐκ προσοχῆς καὶ ἐπιμελείας τὸν ἁγιασμὸν ἔχουσαι, οὐχ ἂν εἰκότως φύσει ἅγιαι εἶναι λέγοιντο. Ἐπορεγόμεναι γὰρ τοῦ καλοῦ, κατὰ τὴν ἀναλογίαν τῆς πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἀγάπης, καὶ τοῦ μέτρου τῆς ἁγιωσύνης μεταλαμβάνουσι. Καὶ ὥσπερ ὁ σίδηρος, ἐν μέσῳ τῷ πυρὶ κείμενος, τὸ μὲν σίδηρος εἶναι οὐχ ἀποβέβληκε, τῇ δὲ σφοδροτάτῃ πρὸς τὸ πὺρ ὁμιλίᾳ ἐκπυρακτωθεὶς, καὶ πᾶσαν εἰς ἑαυτὸν τὴν τοῦ πυρὸς φύσιν ὑποδεξάμενος, καὶ χρώματι καὶ ἐνεργίᾳ πρὸς τὸ πῦρ μεταβέβηκεν᾽ οὕτω καὶ αἱ ἅγιαι δυνάμεις ἐκ τῆς πρὸς τὸ φύσει ἅγιον κοινωνίας δι᾽ ὅλης τῆς ἑαυτῶν τὸν ἀγιασμὸν ἔχουσι. Διαφορὰ δὲ αὐταῖς πρὸς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον αὕτη, ὅτι τῷ μὲν φύσις ἡ ἁγιωσύ(ὙΠ: ταῖς δὲ ἐκ μετουσίας ὑπάρχει τὸ ἁγιάζεσθαι. Οἷς δὲ ἐπισκευαστὸν καὶ ἑτέρωθεν ἐπιδεδομένον ὑπο ἄρχει τὸ ἀγαθὸν, τῆς μεταπτωτῆς εἶσι φύσεως, Οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἐξέπεσεν ὁ Ἑωσφόρος ὁ πρωΐ ἀνατέλλων, οὔτε συνετρίβη ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, εἰ φύσει ὑπῆρχε τοῦ χείρονος ἀνεπίδεκτος. Πῶς οὖν εὐσεβὲς τῇ κτίσει αὐτὸ συντάττειν, τοσούτῳ μέτρῳ διωρισμένον τῆς κτίσεως; Ἡ μὲν γὰρ κτίσις πέφυκεν ἄθλον πρὸ κοπῆς καὶ τῆς πρὸς Θεὸν εὐαρεστήσεως τὸν ἁγιᾶσμὸν ἔχουσα, φύσει δὲ χρωμένη αὐτεξουσίῳ, καὶ μεταῤῥέπειν ἐφ᾽ ἑκάτερα δυναμένη, πρὸς ἐκλογὴν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ καὶ τοῦ χείρονος τὸ δὲ τὸ ἅγιον πηγὴ ἁγιασμοῦ, Καὶ ὥσπερ φύσει ἅγιος ὁ Πατὴρ, καὶ φύσει ἅγιος ὁ Υἱὸς, οὕτω φύσει ἅγιον καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ τῆς ἀληθείας " διὸ καὶ ἐξαιρέτου καὶ ἰδιαζούσης τῆς τοῦ ἁγίου προσηγορίας ἠξίωται. Εἰ οὖν φύσις αὑτῷ ὁ ἁγιασμός ἐστιν, ὥσπερ Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ, πῶς τρίτης ἐστὶ καὶ ἀλλοτρίας φύσεως; Διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ, οἴμαι, καὶ παρὰ τῷ Ἡσαΐᾳ τὰ Σεραφὶμ τρίτον ἐκβοῶντα τὸ ἅγιος ἀναγέγραπται, ὅτι ἐν τρισὶ ταῖς ὑποστάσεσιν ὁ κατὰ φύσιν ἁγιασμὸς θεωρεῖται, Οὐ τοῦτο δὲ μόνον αὐτῷ κοινὸν πρὸς Πατέρα καὶ Υἱὸν τὸ τῆς ἁγιωσύνης ὄνομα, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὴ ἡ τοῦ πνεύματος προσηγορία. Πνεῦμα γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς, καὶ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας αὐτὸν ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ δεῖ προσκυνεῖν. Καὶ ὁ προφήτης φησί" Πνεῦμα πρὸ προσώπου ἡμῶν Χριστὸς Κύριος, οὗ εἴπαμεν" '᾽Εν τῇ σκιᾷ τῶν πτερύγων αὐτοῦ ζησόμεθα. Καὶ ὁ ᾿Απόστολος τὴν τοῦ πνεύματος προσηγορίαν ἐπὶ τὸν Κύριον ἀναφέρει λέγων " δὲ Κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν. Ἔκ δὲ τούτων παντὶ δῆλον, ὅτι οὐχὶ ἀλλοτρίωσιν τῆς φύσεως, ἀλλ᾽ οἰκείωσιν πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα καὶ Υἱὸν ἡ κοινωνία τῶν ὀνομάτων παρίστησι, Καὶ ἀγαθὸς ὁ Θεὸς εἴρηται, καὶ ἔστιν " ἀγαθὸν δὲ καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, οὐκ ἐπισκευαστὴν ἔχον τὴν ἀγαθότητα, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ φύσεως αὐτῷ συνυπάρχουσαν. Ἢ πάντων ἂν εἴη ἀλογώτατον τὸ φύσει ἅγιον μὴ φύσει λέγειν τὴν ἀγαθότητα ἔχειν, … -νην αὐτῷ. Ἐν ᾧ δὲ εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος ὅτι, Ἐγὼ ἐρωτήσω τὸν Πατέρα, καὶ δώσει ὑμῖν, καὶ αὐτὸς εἶναι Παράκλητος ἡμῶν ἐνδείκνυται. Ὥστε καὶ ἡ τοῦ παρακλήτου προσηγορία οὐ μικρὸν πρὸς ἀπόδειξιν τῆς δόξης τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος συντελεῖ.

### English translation (Claude)

[1] BASIL: Having at last had his fill of blasphemies against the Only-Begotten, he has passed on to the Holy Spirit, speaking about him too in keeping with his whole purpose. He writes thus:

EUNOMIUS: "Having said so much about the Only-Begotten, it would be fitting to speak next about the Paraclete as well, not following the unexamined opinions of the many, but keeping in all things the teaching of the saints, from whom we learned that he is third in dignity and order, and have believed that he is third in nature as well."

BASIL: That he does not think it right to abide by the simple and unaffected faith of the many, but by artful and sophistical arguments once again to twist the truth toward what seems good to him, he has shown well enough by what he said. For, dishonoring the opinion of the many, by which they glorify the Holy Spirit, he pretends to keep the teaching of the saints, and passes over in silence those who handed it down to him, doing now what he was shown to do in his arguments about the Only-Begotten too. Then he says that from the saints he learned that the Spirit is third in order and dignity, but that of himself he has believed that he is third in nature as well. Who the saints are, and in what writings they gave this teaching, he cannot say. … ever been so daring a man as to introduce innovations concerning the divine doctrines? For what necessity is there, if [the Spirit] is third in dignity and order, … Perhaps the word of piety hands down that he is second to the [Son] in dignity; but that he has a third nature we have neither been taught by the holy Scriptures, nor is it possible to infer it consistently from what has been said. For as the Son is second to the Father in order, because he is from him, and in dignity, because the Father is principle and cause by being his Father, and because through him is our approach and access to the God and Father, but no longer second in nature, because the Godhead in each is one; so plainly the Holy Spirit too, even if he is below the Son in order and dignity (to concede this entirely), would not on that account fittingly follow as being of a foreign nature. That is clear from this. All the angels, as they have one designation, so they are wholly of the same nature with one another; yet some of them preside over nations, while others accompany each one of the faithful. As much as a whole nation is more honorable than one man, so much greater, surely, must the dignity of the angel ruling a nation be than that of the one [entrusted with] the protection of each individual. That an angel is with each of the faithful, like a tutor and shepherd directing his life, no one will dispute who remembers the words of the Lord, who said, "Do not despise one of these least ones, for their angels continually behold the face of my Father who is in heaven." And the Psalmist says, "the angel who delivered me from my youth," and the like. That there are also angels who preside over whole nations, Moses teaches us in his song, saying, "When the Most High divided the nations, when he scattered the sons of Adam, he fixed the boundaries of the nations according to the number of his angels." And the wise Daniel, in the vision of the angel, heard him saying, "The prince of the Persians stood against me, and behold, one of the chief princes [came] to help me, and I left him there with the prince of the king of the Persians." And a little later the same says, "And the prince of the … was coming." Moreover, a certain chief captain of the Lord's host is spoken of, the one who appeared to Joshua son of Nun at the Jordan. And again certain legions of angels are mentioned, when the Lord said to his disciples, "Or do you think that I cannot [call upon] my Father, and he will provide me here with more than twelve [legions] of angels?" The chief captain, then, of the angels ranked in the legions is plainly a ruler.

[2] To what, then, does our argument lead? That it is not necessarily the case that, if something is second or third in order and dignity, it also has a different nature. For as among the angels one is a ruler and another … , yet all are angels by nature, and the difference is in dignity while the fellowship is in nature (for "star differs from star in glory," but the nature of all the stars is one; and there are "many dwelling places" with the Father, that is, differences of dignity, but the nature of those glorified is alike); so plainly the Holy Spirit too, even if he is below in dignity and order, as they say (for we have received him, he says, as numbered third after Father and Son, the Lord himself having handed down the order in the tradition of saving baptism when he said, "Go, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"), yet that he has been cast out into some third nature apart from the Son and the Father we have nowhere learned. For since two things are spoken of, Godhead and creation, lordship and servitude, sanctifying power and power that is sanctified, that which has virtue from nature and that which achieves it by choice: in which portion shall we rank the Spirit? Among the sanctified? But he is sanctification itself. Among those who acquire virtue by good deeds? But he is good by nature. Among the ministering? But the ministering spirits sent out for service are different. It is not lawful, then, to call him our fellow servant, who is sovereign by nature, nor to number him with creation, who is numbered with the divine and blessed Trinity. For principalities and powers and all such creation, having their sanctification from attention and diligence, could not fittingly be said to be holy by nature. For, reaching out for the good, they receive their measure of holiness in proportion to their love for God. And as iron placed in the midst of fire does not cast off being iron, but, set aglow by its most intense contact with the fire and receiving the whole nature of fire into itself, passes over to the fire in color and activity, so too the holy powers, from their fellowship with that which is holy by nature, have sanctification through their whole … . But this is their difference from the Holy Spirit: for him holiness is nature, while for them being sanctified comes from participation. Those to whom the good belongs as something acquired and given from elsewhere are of a nature that can fall. For the Morning Star that rose at dawn would not have fallen or been crushed upon the earth, if by nature he had been incapable of receiving what is worse. How then is it pious to rank him with creation, when he is set apart from creation by so great a measure? For creation is so constituted as to have sanctification as a prize for progress and for pleasing God, but it has a self-determining nature and can incline to either side, choosing the good or the worse; but the Holy [Spirit] is the spring of sanctification. And as the Father is holy by nature and the Son holy by nature, so the Spirit of truth too is holy by nature; therefore he has also been counted worthy of the special and distinctive designation 'holy.'

[3] If, then, sanctification is his nature, as it is for the Father and the Son, how is he of a third and foreign nature? For this reason, I think, Isaiah records the Seraphim crying out 'holy' three times: because holiness by nature is contemplated in three hypostases. And not only the name of holiness is common to him with the Father and the Son, but also the very designation 'spirit.' For "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." And the prophet says, "The Spirit before our face, Christ the Lord, of whom we said, 'In his shadow we shall live.'" And the Apostle refers the designation 'spirit' to the Lord, saying, "[Now] the Lord is the Spirit." From these it is plain to everyone that the fellowship of the names presents not an estrangement of nature but kinship with the Father and the Son. And God is said to be good, and is; and the Holy Spirit too is good, not having goodness as something acquired, but coexisting with him by nature. Otherwise the most irrational thing of all would be to say that what is holy by nature does not have goodness by nature, but … to him. And in that the Lord said, "I will ask the Father, and he will give you …," he shows that the Spirit too is our Paraclete. So the designation 'Paraclete' also contributes not a little to the demonstration of the glory of the Holy Spirit.

### Scripture references

- Matt 18:10: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 48:16: quotation, high confidence
- Deut 32:8: quotation, high confidence
- Dan 10:13: quotation, high confidence
- Dan 10:20: quotation, high confidence
- Josh 5:14: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 26:53: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:41: quotation, high confidence
- John 14:2: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 28:19: quotation, high confidence
- Heb 1:14: allusion, high confidence
- Isa 14:12: allusion, high confidence
- John 14:17: allusion, medium confidence
- Isa 6:3: allusion, high confidence
- John 4:24: quotation, high confidence
- Lam 4:20: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 3:17: quotation, high confidence
- John 14:16: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 1 of Book 3, on the Holy Spirit. The quotation is Eunomius's Apology. Migne's running heads, Latin, and notes (among them a note that some doubted Basil's authorship of this book because of certain harsh expressions, and notes of variant readings) are removed by logged corrections. Lost lines are marked …: one before 'ever been so daring a man' (the question begins 'Who has…'), and one after 'third in dignity and order' (the question ends 'must he also be third in nature?'). After 'the protection of each individual' a participle ('entrusted with') is lost and supplied in brackets. In 'second to the [Son]' the word 'Son' is supplied from the sense.
- Matt 18:10 (continued in the next passage).
- End of chapter 1 and chapters 2 and 3 of Book 3 (chapter numbers in brackets; their openings fall inside this staged passage). Migne's Latin, notes, and chapter numerals are removed by logged corrections. Lost words are marked …: the people named in Dan 10:20 ('the Greeks'); 'a subordinate' (after 'one is a ruler and another'); 'subsistence' (after 'through their whole'); 'as something supervening from outside' (before 'to him'); and 'another Paraclete' (John 14:16). Words lost but certain from the quotations are supplied in brackets.
- 'The Psalmist' is Basil's word; the quoted line is from Jacob's blessing, Gen 48:16. Deut 32:8 is quoted in the Septuagint form ('angels'). 'Three times': the scan reads τρίτον ('third'), an evident slip for τρίς. 'Hypostases' (ὑποστάσεις) is Basil's term for the three subsistences of the one Godhead.
- The iron in the fire is Basil's image for participation in holiness; translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 3.1 (PG 29:655; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/3-1/#p-3-1).

## Against Eunomius 3.4

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/3-1/#p-3-4
- Source: PG 29:658
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil turns from the Spirit's names to his activities: the Spirit makes the heavenly powers firm, perfects human beings, sends the Lord, and fills all things.

### Greek text

Καὶ τὰ μὲν ὀνόματα τοιαῦτα τοῦ μεγαλείου τῆς φύσεως ἐνδεικτικά " αἱ δὲ ἐνέργειαι τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος οἷαι; Τῷ τοῦ Κυρίου, φησὶν, οἱ οὐρανοὶ ἐστερεώθησαν, καὶ τῷ Πνεύματι τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ πᾶσα ἡ δύναμις αὐτῶν. Ὥς τοίνυν ὁ Θεὸς Λόγος δημιουργός ἐστι τῶν οὐρανῶν, οὕτω καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον τὸ στερεὸν καὶ πάγιον τῆς ἀρετῆς παρέχεται ταῖς οὐρανίαις δυνάμεσι. Καὶ πάλιν ὁ Ἰώβ - Πνεῦμα Κυρίου τὸ ποιῆσάν με’ οὐχ ἐπὶ τῆς δημιουργίας, ὡς οἶμαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τῆς κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπείαν ἀρετὴν τελειώσεως λέγων. Ὁ δὲ Ἡσαῖας ἐκ προσώπου Κυρίου διαλεγόμενος, κατὰ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον αὐτοῦ δηλονότι, Κύριος με, φησὶ, καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα αὑτοῦ. Καὶ πάλιν ὁ ψαλμὸς, δι᾿ ὅλων κεχωρηκέναι δύναμιν τοῦ Πνεύματος παριστὰς, Ποῦ πορευθῶ, φησὶ, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ Πνεύματός σου, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ προσώπου σου ποῦ φύγω; Αἱ δὲ εἰς ἡμᾶς ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ φθάνουσαι εὐεργεσίαι ὁποῖαί τινές εἰσι καὶ ἡλίχαι; “Ὥσπερ αὑτὸς ὁ Κύριος
… γενέσθαι, οὕτω καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα ἅγιον Πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας ἐστέ. Καὶ ὥσπερ διδάσκαλός ἐστιν ἀληθινὸς ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον - Ὑμεῖς δὲ μὴ καλέσατε ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς " εἷς γὰρ καθηγητὴς ὑμῶν ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός - οὕτω καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον διδάσκειν πάντας τοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Κυρίου πεπιστευκότας, ὑπ᾽ αὑτοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου μεμαρτύρηται, εἰπόντος: Ὁ δὲ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ὃ πέμψει ὁ Πατὴρ, ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς διδάξει πάντα. Καὶ ὥσπερ διαιρεῖν τὰ ἐνεργήματα εἰς τοὺς ἀξίους τῆς ὑποδοχῆς τῶν ἐνεργημάτων ὁ Πατὴρ λέγεται, καὶ διαιρεῖν τὰς δια κονίας ὁ Υἱὸς ἐν τοῖς τῆς διακονίας ἀξιώμασιν - οὕτω διαιρεῖν καὶ τὰ χαρίσματα τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον εἷς τοὺς ἀξίους τῆς τῶν χαρισμάτων ὑποδοχῆς μαρτυρεῖται. Διαιρέσεις γὰρ χαρισμάτων εἰσὶν, τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ Πνεῦμα" καὶ διαιρέσεις διακονιῶν εἰσιν, ὁ δὲ αὐτὸς Κύριος" καὶ διαιρέσεις ἐνεργημάτων εἰσὶν, ὁ δὲ αὐτὸς Θεός ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν. Ὁρᾷς πῶς καὶ ἐνταῦθα ἣ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἐνέργεια συντεταγμένη ἐστὶ τῇ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ ἐνεργείᾳ; Εἶτα καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἐπαγομένου μειζόνως τὸ θεῖον τῆς φύσεως τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος φανεροῦται. Τί γάρ φησι; Ταῦτα δὲ πάντα ἐνεργεῖ τὸ ἕν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ Πνεῦμα διαιροῦν ἰδίᾳ ἑκάστῳ, καθὼς βούλεται. Οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἣ αὐθεντικὴν καὶ δεσποτικὴν ἐξουσίαν αὐτῷ μαρτυρεῖ. Διόπερ ἐν τῇ Καινῇ Διαθήκη οἱ προφῆται ᾿ κεκράγασι" Τάδε λέγει τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. Τὸ δὲ ἐρευνᾷν τὰ βάθη τοῦ Θεοῦ, πόθεν τῷ Πνεύματι πρόσεστιν; “Ὥσπερ, φησὶν, οὐδεὶς οἷδεν ἀνθρώπων τὰ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου εἰ μὴ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ" οὕτω καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐδεὶς ἔγνωκεν εἰ μὴ τὸ Πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ. Ὥς γὰρ οὐθεὶς ἀλλότριος οὐδὲ ξένος τοὺς ἔνδον λογισμοὺς ἐποπτεύειν δύναται τῆς ψυχῆς, οὕτω δηλονότι, καὶ εἴ τι τῶν ἀποῤῥήτων κοινωνεῖ τῷ Θεῷ, οὐκ ἀλλότριον αὐτοῦ, οὐδὲ ξένον, διερευνᾷν τὰ βάθη τῶν κριμάτων τοῦ Θεοῦ δύναται. Εἶτα καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἡμῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ διὰ Χριστοῦ ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι χορηγεῖται. Ζωοποιεῖ μὲν γὰρ ὁ θεὸς, ὥς φησι Παῦλος: Παραγγέλλω σοι ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ζωοποιοῦντος τὰ πάντα" ζωὴν δὲ δίδωσιν ὁ Χριστός Τὰ πρόβατα γὰρ, φησὶ, τὰ ἐμὰ τῆς φωνῆς μου ἀκούουσι, καὶ ἐγὼ ζωὴν αἰώνιον δίδωμι αὐτοῖς. Ζωοποιούμεθα δὲ διὰ Πνεύματος, ὥς φησι Παῦλος: Ὃ ἐγείρας Χριστὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν' ζωοποιήσει καὶ τὰ θνητὰ σώματα ὑμῶν διὰ τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος αὐτοῦ Πνεύματος ἐν ὑμῖν. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ὁ πάντα τολμηρὸς οὗτος, καὶ μὴ ὑποπτήσσων τὸν ἐπηρτημένον κίνδυνον τοῖς τολμῶσι βλάσφημόν τι ῥῆμα εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἀποῤῥῖψαι, ἀμέτοχον αὐτὸ θεότητος ἀποφαίνεται, γράφων οὕτω περὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος " ΕΥ̓͂Ν. Τρίτον τάξει καὶ φύσει, προστάγματι μὲν τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἐνεργείᾳ δὲ τοῦ Υἱοῦ γενόμενον, τρίτῃ χώρᾳ τιμώμενον, ὡς πρῶτον καὶ μεῖζον ἀπάντων, καὶ μόνον τοιοῦτον τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ποίημα, θεότητος καὶ δημιουργικῆς δυνάμεως ἀπολειπόμενον. ΒΑΣ. Ὁ δὲ τοῦτο λέγων ἔοικε μηδὲ τὴν θεότητα πεπιστευκέναι ἐν ἡμῖν οἰκεῖν, τοῦ Ἰωάννου λέγοντος περὶ Θεοῦ᾽ Ἐκ τούτου γινώσκομεν, ὅτι ἐν ἡμῖν ἐστιν, ἐκ τοῦ Πνεύματος οὗ ἡμῖν ἔδωκε " καὶ τοῦ ᾿Αποστόλου: Οὐχ οἵδατε, ὅτι ναὸς Θεοῦ ἐστε, καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν; καὶ πάλιν' Ἐν ᾧ ἡ πᾶσα οἰκοδομὴ συναρμολογουμένη αὔξει εἰς ναὸν ἅγιον ἐν Κυρίῳ, ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς συνοικοδομεῖσθε εἰς κατοικητήριον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν Πνεύματι. Εἰ τοίνυν ἐν ἡμῖν ὁ Θεὸς ἐνοικεῖν λέγεται διὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος, πῶς οὐχὶ φανερᾶς ἀσεβείας ἐστὶν αὐτὸ τὸ Πνεῦμα λέγειν ἀμέτοχον τῆς θεότητος; Καὶ, εἰ θεοὺς ὀνομάζομεν τοὺς κατ᾽ ἀρετὴν τελείους, ἡ δὲ τελείωσις διὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος, πῶς τὸ ἑτέρους θεος ποιοῦν αὐτὸ τῆς θεότητος ἀπολείπεται; ᾿Αλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ εὐσεβὲς, ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος, μεθεχτὴν λέγειν αὐτοῦ τὴν θεότητα τετιμῆσθαι, καὶ οὐχὶ φύσει αὐτῷ συνυπάρχειν. Ὁ γὰρ χάριτι θεοποιούμενος τῆς μεταπτωτῆς ἔστι φύσεως, ἐξ ἀπροσεξίας ποτὲ καὶ ἀποῤῥεούσης τοῦ κρείττονος. Τοῦτο δὲ σαφῶς μάχεται τῇ παραδόσει τοῦ σωτηρίου βαπτίσματος. Πορευθέντες, φησὶ, βαπτίζετε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς, καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος. Ἔστι γὰρ τὸ βάπτισμα σφραγὶς τῆς πίστεως, ἡ δὲ πίστις θεότητος συγκατάθεσις. Πιστεῦσαι γὰρ δεῖ πρότερον, εἶτα τῷ βαπτίσματι ἐπισφραγίσασθαι. Τὸ δὲ βάπτισμα ἡμῶν ἔστι χατὰ τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου παράδοσιν, εἰς ὄνομα Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ᾿ οὐδενὸς κτίσματος, οὐδὲ δούλου Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ συντεταγμένον, ὡς τῆς θεότητος ἐν Τριάδι συμπληρουμένης. Τὸ δὲ ἔξω τούτων ὁμόδουλον ἅπαν ἐστὶ, κἂν τὰ μάλιστα ὑπερβολαῖς ἀξιωμάτων ἄλλα ἄλλων προτετιμημένα τυγχάνῃ. ᾿

### English translation (Claude)

[4] Such, then, are the names that indicate the greatness of his nature. But what are the activities of the Holy Spirit like? "By the [word] of the Lord," it says, "the heavens were made firm, and by the Spirit of his mouth all their power." As, then, God the Word is the maker of the heavens, so the Holy Spirit supplies the heavenly powers with the firmness and stability of virtue. And again Job: "The Spirit of the Lord, who made me," speaking, I think, not of creation but of perfection in human virtue. And Isaiah, speaking in the person of the Lord, plainly with reference to his humanity, says, "The Lord [has sent] me, and his Spirit." And again the psalm, showing that the power of the Spirit has passed through all things, says, "Where shall I go from your Spirit, and from your face where shall I flee?" And the benefits that reach us from him: what kind are they, and how great? As the Lord himself … … to become, so the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of adoption. And as our Lord is the true teacher, according to the saying, "Do not call anyone on earth your …, for one is your teacher, the Christ," so the Holy Spirit too is testified by the Lord himself to teach all who have believed in the name of the Lord, when he said, "But the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send, he will teach you all things." And as the Father is said to distribute the activities to those worthy to receive the activities, and the Son to distribute the services in the ranks of service, so the Holy Spirit is testified to distribute the gifts to those worthy to receive the gifts. For "there are distributions of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are distributions of services, but the same Lord; and there are distributions of activities, but it is the same God who works all things in all." Do you see how here too the activity of the Holy Spirit is ranked with the activity of the Father and the Son? Then, from what follows, the divinity of the Holy Spirit's nature is made still more manifest. For what does it say? "All these the one and the same Spirit works, distributing to each individually as he wills." This testifies to nothing else than his sovereign and lordly authority. That is why in the New Testament the prophets cried out, "Thus says the Holy Spirit." And searching the depths of God: from where does this belong to the Spirit? "As," it says, "no one among men knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man that is in him, so too no one has known the things of God except the Spirit of God." For as no outsider or stranger can look upon the inner thoughts of the soul, so plainly, if anything shares in God's secrets, it is not foreign or strange to him, and it can search out the depths of God's judgments. Then too life is supplied to us from God through Christ in the Holy Spirit. For God gives life, as Paul says: "I charge you before God, who gives life to all things"; and Christ gives life: "For my sheep," he says, "hear my voice, and I give them eternal life"; and we are made alive through the Spirit, as Paul says: "He who raised Christ from the dead will give life also to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you."

[5] But this man, daring in everything, and not cowering before the danger that hangs over those who dare to hurl a blasphemous word against the Holy Spirit, declares him to have no share in Godhead, writing thus about the Spirit:

EUNOMIUS: "Third in order and in nature, having come to be at the command of the Father and by the activity of the Son, honored in the third place, as the first and greatest of all and the only such work of the Only-Begotten, falling short of Godhead and of creative power."

BASIL: The one who says this seems not even to have believed that the Godhead dwells in us, though John says about God, "By this we know that he is in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us," and the Apostle, "Do you not know that you are God's temple and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?" and again, "In whom the whole building, joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit." If, then, God is said to dwell in us through the Spirit, how is it not manifest impiety to call the Spirit himself without share in the Godhead? And if we name "gods" those who are perfect in virtue, and perfection comes through the Spirit, how does he who makes others gods himself fall short of Godhead? Nor is it pious to say that the Spirit, as with human beings, has been honored with a Godhead that is participated, and not one that coexists with him by nature. For whoever is made god by grace is of a nature that can fall, sometimes flowing away from what is better through inattention. And this plainly conflicts with the tradition of saving baptism: "Go," it says, "baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." For baptism is the seal of faith, and faith is assent to Godhead; for one must first believe, and then be sealed with baptism. And our baptism, according to the Lord's tradition, is into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit, no creature and no servant being ranked with Father and Son, since the Godhead is completed in the Trinity. What is outside these is all fellow servant, even if some are honored above others by the greatest excesses of dignity.

### Scripture references

- Ps 33:6 (32:6 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Job 33:4: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 48:16: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 139:7 (138:7 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- John 1:12: allusion, medium confidence
- Rom 8:15: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 23:9: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 23:10: quotation, high confidence
- John 14:26: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 12:4: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 12:5: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 12:6: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 12:11: quotation, high confidence
- Acts 21:11: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 2:10: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 2:11: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Tim 6:13: quotation, high confidence
- John 10:27: quotation, high confidence
- John 10:28: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 8:11: quotation, high confidence
- 1 John 3:24: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 3:16: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 2:21: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 2:22: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 82:6 (81:6 LXX): echo, medium confidence
- Matt 28:19: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapter 4 of Book 3; it continues in the next passage. Migne's Latin and notes are removed by logged corrections; the end of the scan page is lost (marked …). Words missing from the quotations ('word', 'has sent') are supplied in brackets.
- Ps 33:6 (LXX 32:6); Job 33:4; Isa 48:16; Ps 139:7 (LXX 138:7).
- Continuation of chapter 4 and chapter 5 of Book 3 (number in brackets). The opening is lost in the scan (marked …): the comparison begins with the Lord's giving those who received him power to become children of God (John 1:12). Migne's Latin, variant notes, and chapter numeral are removed by logged corrections; a garbled 'κτίσματος' is restored. In Matt 23 a word is lost after 'your' (…). The quotation is Eunomius's Apology.
- 'Made god by grace' (θεοποιούμενος) and 'gods' for the perfect echo Ps 82:6 and John 10:34-35; translated as written.
- 'Since the Godhead is completed in the Trinity' (ὡς τῆς θεότητος ἐν Τριάδι συμπληρουμένης) could also be read 'as though the Godhead were completed in a Trinity [including a creature]'; either way the point is that baptism ranks no creature with Father and Son.
- John 1:12; Rom 8:15; Matt 23:9-10; John 14:26; 1 Cor 12:4-6, 11; Acts 21:11; 1 Cor 2:10-11; 1 Tim 6:13; John 10:27-28; Rom 8:11; 1 John 3:24; 1 Cor 3:16; Eph 2:21-22; Matt 28:19.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 3.4 (PG 29:658; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/3-1/#p-3-4).

## Against Eunomius 3.6

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/3-1/#p-3-6
- Source: PG 29:666
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Basil answers Eunomius's dilemma (creature, offspring, or unbegotten) by confessing that the manner of the Spirit's being is beyond our knowledge, while giving him the names Scripture gives; he then explains that Amos 4:13 speaks of wind and John 1:3 does not number the Spirit among created things.

### Greek text

Καὶ μή μοι πάλιν τὰ σοφὰ ταῦτα " ΕΥ̓͂Ν. Ἐὰν μὴ κτίσμα ἐστὶν, οὐκοῦν γέννημα, ἣ ἀγέννητον. Εἷς δὲ ἄναρχος Θεὸς καὶ ἀγέννητος. Οὔτε μὴν γέννημα. Λείπεται οὖν κτίσμα καὶ ποίημα αὐτὸ ὀνομάζεσθαι. ΒΑΣ. Ἐγὼ δὲ, εἰ μὲν πάντα διωριζόμην καταληπτὰ ἡμῶν εἶναι τῇ γνώσει, ἠσχύνθην ἂν ἴσως ὁμολογῆσαι τὴν ἄγνοιαν" νῦν δὲ μυρία οὐ τῶν ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι αἰῶνι ἀποκειμένων ἡ μῖν μόνον, οὔτε τῶν νῦν ὄντων ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ἀποκέκρυπται, ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε τῶν ὑπαρχόντων ἡμῖν ἐν τῷ σώματι τρανὴ καὶ ἀναντἰῤῥητός ἐστιν ἡ κατάληψις. Οἷον ἀμέλει περὶ τῆς ὄψεως, πότερον εἰσδεχόμενοι τὰς εἰκόνας τῶν ὁρατῶν, οὕτω τὰς ἀντιλήψεις ποιούμεθα." καὶ πῶς ὁρῶν τε παμμεγεθῶν, γῆς τε ἀπλέτου, καὶ ἀπείρου θαλάσσης, τι δὲ καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἡ εἰκὼν τῷ βραχεῖ μέτρῳ τῆς κόρης ἡμῶν περιέχεται" ἣ ἐκπέμποντές τι παρ᾽ ἑαυτῶν, καὶ προσπελάζοντος τούτου τοῖς ὁρατοῖς, οὕτως αὐτῶν τὴν αἴσθησιν ἔχομεν, καὶ τί ἔστι τοῦτο καὶ πόσον, ὥστε γῇ καὶ θαλάσσῃ ἐξαρχεῖν ἐφαπλούμενον, καὶ περᾷν μὲν τὸν μεταξὺ γῆς καὶ οὐρανοῦ τόπον, αὐτῷ τε προσβάλλειν τῷ οὐρανῷ τοσούτῳ τάχει κινούμενον, ὥστε ἐν ἴσῳ χρόνῳ τό τε περικείμενον σῶμα, καὶ τοὺς ἐν οὐρανῷ ἀστέρας καταμανθάνεσθαι. Καὶ τί δεῖ τἄλλα λέγειν; ᾿Αλλὰ αὐτὰ τὰ τοῦ νοῦ κινήματα, πότερον κτίζειν ἢ γεννᾷν πέφυκεν ἡ ψυχὴ, τίς ἂν ἀκριβῶς εἴποι; Τί οὖν θαυμαστὸν καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἀνεπαισχύντως ἡμᾶς τὴν ἄγνοιαν ὁμολογεῖν; τὴν μέντοι ἀναντιῤῥήτως αὐτῷ προσμαρτυρουμένην δοξολογίαν ἀποδιδόναι; Ὅτι μὲν γὰρ ὑπὲρ τὴν κτίσιν ἐστὶν, ( ἱκανῶς ἡμῖν παρίστησι τὰ διὰ τῶν Γραφῶν παραδιδόμενα, ἐπειδή γε ἀδύνατον τῆς αὐτῆς εἶναι φύσεως τό τε ἀγιάζον καὶ τὰ ἀγιαζόμενα, τὸ διδάσκον καὶ τὰ διδασκόμενα, τὸ ἀποκαλύπτον καὶ τὰ τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως προσδεόμενα. ᾿Αγέννητον δὲ οὐδεὶς οὕτως ἔξω παντελῶς ἐστι τοῦ φρονεῖν, ὥστε τολμησαι ἕτερον πλὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ τῶν ὅλων προσαγορεῦσαι, ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ Υἱὸν, τῷ ἕνα εἶναι τὸν Μονογενῆ. Τί οὖν αὐτὸ χρὴ καλεῖν Πνεῦμα ἅγιον, καὶ Πνεῦμα Θεοῦ, καὶ Πνεῦμα ἀληθείας, ἀποστελλόμενον παρὰ Θεοῦ, διὰ Υἱοῦ χορηγούμενον, οὐ δοῦλον, ἀλλ' ἅγιόν, ἀγαθὸν, ἡγεμονικόν Πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν, Πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας, ἐπιστάμενον πάντα τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Οὕτω δὴ καὶ ἐν τῇ Τριάδι ὁ τῆς μονάδος διασωθήσεται λόγος, ἕνα μὲν Πατέρα ὁμολογούντων, καὶ ἕνα Υἱὸν, " καὶ ἐν Πνεῦμα ἅγιον. Κομίζουσι δὲ ἀποδείξεις, πρὸς τὸ κτίσμα εἰρῆσθαι τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, μίαν μὲν ἐκ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος" στερεῶν βροντὴν, καὶ κτίζων πνεῦμα" ἑτέραν δὲ τὴν ἐκ τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου ὅτι, Πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο. Ἡμεῖς δὲ τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον οὐχ εἰς μὲν τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τὴν κοινὴν ταύτην πνοὴν, τὸ τοῦ ἀέρος πνεῦμα, πεπείσμεθα φέρειν. Δῆλον δὲ ἐκεῖθεν. Οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν, κτίσας πνεῦμα, ἀλλ᾽ κτίζων πνεῦμα. Ὡς γὰρ ἡ βροντὴ οὐχ ἐν ὑποστάσει τινί ἐστι σωματικῇ ἅπαξ χτισθεῖσα, ἀλλ᾽ ἀεὶ πρὸς τὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ βούλημα ἐπὶ φόβῳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐνεργουμένη γίνεσθαι καὶ διαλύεσθαι πέφυκεν, οὕτω καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα νῦν μὲν γίνεται δίκην ποταμοῦ ῥέοντος τοῦ ἀέρος " πάλιν δὲ παύεται ἀτρεμοῦντος τοῦ πρότερον κινουμένου, κατὰ τὸ βούλημα τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ καὶ συστάσει τῶν ὅλων οἰκονομοῦντος ᾿ ὥστε διὰ πάσης τῆς κτίσεως, ἔκ τε βροντῶν καὶ ἀνέμων καὶ τῆς λοιπῆς δημιουργίας τὸν δημιουργὸν ἀναγγέλλεσθαι. Διόπερ μετὰ τὸ εἰπεῖν" Ὃ στερεῶν βροντὴν, καὶ κτίζων πνεῦμα, φησί Καὶ ἀπαγγέλλων τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τὸν Χριστὸν αὐτοῦ. Ὥς γὰρ οἱ οὐρανοὶ διηγοῦνται δόξαν Θεοῦ τοῖς δυναμένοις ἐξ αὐτῶν τὴν τοῦ δημιουργοῦ τέχνην ἀναλογίζεσθαι, οὕτω καὶ βροντῆς ἦχοι, καὶ πνευμάτων κινήσεις, τὸν δημιουργὸν αὐτῶν ἀνακηρύττουσι. Τάχα δ᾽ ἂν τοῦτο καὶ προφητεία εἴη, πρὸς τὴν ἐνανθρώπησιν τοῦ Κυρίου φέρουσα " ὅτε ἡ μὲν φωνὴ, ἡ γενομένη ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, βροντὴ ἐδόκει τοῖς ἀκούσασιν εἶναι, ἥντινα ἀφῆκεν ὁ Θεὸς καὶ Πατὴρ, ὥστε δι᾽ αὐτῆς ἀναγγεῖλαι τὸν Χριστὸν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις" τὰ δὲ πνεύματα τὰ κινούμενα, καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν συνταράσσοντα, εἶτα κοπάσαντα τῷ προστάγματι τοῦ Κυρίου, σαφῶς καὶ αὐτὰ ἀνήγγειλε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τὸν Χριστὸν αὑτοῦ. Τὸ δὲ, Πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, οὐδαμῶς ἡ μῖν κτιστὸν εἶναι τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον παρίστησιν, ὡς συναριθμούμενον τοῖς πᾶσι τοῦ Πνεύματος. Εἰ γὰρ ἕν Πνεῦμα ἅγιον καὶ μόνον, πῶς ὃ τῆς μοναδικῆς ἔστι φύσεως, τοῖς πᾶσι συμπαραλαμβάνεσθαι δύναται; Καὶ μηδεὶς οἰέσθω ἀθέτησιν εἶναι τῆς ὑποστάσεως τὴν ἄρνησιν τοῦ κτίσμα εἶναι τὸ Πνεῦμα. Εὐσεβοῦς γάρ ἔστι διανοίας τὰ ἀποσιωπηθέντα ἐν ταῖς ἀγίαις Γραφαὶς εὐλαβεῖσθαι ἐπιφημίζειν τῷ ἀγίῳ Πνεύματι, πεπεῖσθαι δὲ τὴν ἐμπειρίαν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκριβῇ κατάληψιν εἰς τὸν ὕστερον ἡμῖν ἀποκεῖσθαι αἰῶνα, ὅταν, διαβάντες τὸ δι᾽ ἐσόπτρου καὶ αἰνίγματος ὁρᾷν τί τὴν ἀλήθειαν, τῆς πρὸς πρόσωπον θεωρίας ἀξιωθῶμεν.

### English translation (Claude)

[6] And do not again [bring] me these wise sayings:

EUNOMIUS: "If he is not a creature, then he is offspring or unbegotten. But there is one God without beginning and unbegotten. Nor yet is he offspring. It remains, then, that he is named creature and thing made."

BASIL: For my part, if I declared that all things were comprehensible to our knowledge, I would perhaps be ashamed to confess ignorance. But as it is, countless things are hidden from us, not only of those laid up in the age to come, nor only of those now in the heavens; but not even of the things that belong to us in the body is the comprehension clear and indisputable. For instance, about sight: do we form our perceptions by receiving the images of visible things? And how is the image of things vast in size, of the boundless earth and the infinite sea, and even of heaven itself, contained in the small measure of our pupil? Or do we send out something from ourselves, and when this approaches visible things, do we so have perception of them? And what is this, and how great, that it suffices to spread over earth and sea, to cross the space between earth and heaven, and to strike heaven itself, moving with such speed that in an equal time both the body around us and the stars in heaven are discerned? And why speak of the rest? Even the very motions of the mind: whether the soul is such as to create them or to beget them, who could say exactly? What wonder, then, if about the Holy Spirit too we confess our ignorance without shame, while yet rendering the glory that is indisputably attested to him? For that he is above creation, the things handed down through the Scriptures sufficiently show us, since it is impossible that what sanctifies and what is sanctified, what teaches and what is taught, what reveals and what needs revelation, should be of the same nature. But no one is so utterly out of his mind as to dare to call anything unbegotten except the God of the universe; nor yet Son, since the Only-Begotten is one. What, then, must we call him? Holy Spirit, and Spirit of God, and Spirit of truth, sent from God, supplied through the Son; not a servant, but holy, good, sovereign Spirit, life-giving Spirit, Spirit of adoption, knowing all the things of God. So too in the Trinity the account of the unity will be preserved, as we confess one Father, and one Son, and one Holy Spirit.

[7] They bring proofs that the Holy Spirit is called a creature: one from the prophet, who says, "He who makes firm the thunder and creates wind"; another from the Gospel: "All things came to be through him." But we are convinced that the prophetic saying refers not to the Holy Spirit but to this common breath, the wind of the air. That is clear from this: he did not say "who created wind" but "who creates wind." For as thunder is not something created once for all in some bodily subsistence, but is such as always to come into being and dissolve at the will of God, produced to make human beings fear, so too wind now arises, as the air flows like a river, and again ceases, when what was moving before is still, according to the will of him who orders all things for the salvation and preservation of the universe; so that through the whole creation, from thunders and winds and the rest of creation, the Creator is proclaimed. That is why, after saying "who makes firm the thunder and creates wind," it says, "and proclaims to human beings his Christ." For as "the heavens declare the glory of God" to those who can reckon from them the art of the Creator, so the sounds of thunder and the motions of winds proclaim their Creator. Perhaps this would also be a prophecy pointing to the Lord's becoming man: when the voice that came from heaven seemed to its hearers to be thunder, the voice which the God and Father sent forth to proclaim the Christ to human beings through it; and the winds that moved and stirred up the sea, then dropped at the Lord's command, plainly also proclaimed his Christ to human beings. And "All things came to be through him" in no way shows us that the Holy Spirit is created, as though the Spirit were numbered among all things. For if there is one Holy Spirit, and only one, how can what is of a singular nature be included with all things? And let no one think that denying that the Spirit is a creature is a setting aside of his hypostasis. For it belongs to a pious mind to beware of applying to the Holy Spirit what is passed over in silence in the holy Scriptures, and to be convinced that the experience and exact comprehension of him is laid up for us in the age to come, when, passing beyond seeing the truth through a mirror and in a riddle, we are counted worthy of contemplation face to face.

### Scripture references

- 1 Cor 2:11: allusion, medium confidence
- John 15:26: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 8:15: allusion, high confidence
- Amos 4:13: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:3: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 19:1 (18:2 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- John 12:29: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 8:26: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 13:12: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Chapters 6 and 7 (numbers in brackets), the end of Book 3. Migne's Latin, notes, and chapter numeral are removed by logged corrections. In Eunomius's syllogism the scan also prints a variant ('But he is not unbegotten, for there is one'); it is removed as part of Migne's notes. At the end, Migne notes that the editions add a doxology ('in Christ Jesus our Lord, with whom be glory to the Father and the Holy Spirit, now and always and for ever'); this note, and the title of the following (spurious) Book 4, are removed. The quotation is Eunomius's Apology.
- The two theories of sight (reception of images, emission from the eye) are those of the philosophical schools; translated as written.
- 1 Cor 2:10-11; John 15:26; Rom 8:15; Amos 4:13 (Septuagint, 'his Christ'); John 1:3; Ps 19:1 (LXX 18:2); John 12:28-29; Matt 8:26; 1 Cor 13:12.

### Citation (SBL)

Basil, Eun. 3.6 (PG 29:666; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/basil-contra-eunomium/3-1/#p-3-6).