Notes
Part VI: Further Reflections [231–277]
The Spirit makes believers good and holy like the Father and the Son do [231–237]
231. Our discussion of the testimony of the Prophet is sufficient and more than sufficient. Let us now proceed to what remains so that we may learn that the Holy Spirit is of one substance with the Father and the Son even from this: just as the Father and the Son make believers holy and good through communion with them, so too does the Holy Spirit render believers good and holy through participation in him.
232. The following saying is addressed to God in the psalms: Let your good Spirit guide me on a straight path [Ps 142.10]. Now we know that in some copies it is written: “Let your Holy Spirit.” Furthermore, in Esdras the Spirit is called good without any ambiguity: You gave your good Spirit to make them understand [Neh 9.20].
233. The Apostle writes that the Father sanctifies: May the God of peace sanctify you in every way [1 Thess 5.23]. And the Savior said: Father, sanctify them in the Truth; your Word is Truth [Jn 17.17]. Clearly, he is saying: “Sanctify them in me, who am your Word and your Truth, when they believe and share in me.” Elsewhere God is called good: No one is good, save one, God [Lk 18.19].
234. We also demonstrated above that the Son sanctifies, with which Paul is in agreement when he uses the same words: For he who sanctifies and they who are sanctified are all of them from one [Heb 2.11], signifying that it is Christ who sanctifies, and those who are sanctified can say: Christ became for us wisdom from God and righteousness and sanctification [1 Cor 1.30]. After all, he is also called the Spirit of sanctification [Rom 1.4]. This is why it is also said to him: And all the sanctified are under your hands and they are under you [Deut 33.3].
235. Our Lord Jesus Christ is good and is begotten of the good Father. Concerning him we read: We confess to the Lord for he is good [Ps 117.1]. Those who confess are those who implore the forgiveness of their sins or render thanks to his mercy for the kindnesses he has shown.
236. The Holy Spirit also sanctifies those whom he deigns to fill, as we have already demonstrated above when we showed that he can be participated in and received by many at the same time. And now the following testimony of Paul shows that he is the bestower of sanctification: But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, since God chose us as the first-fruits for salvation through the sanctification of the Spirit and faith in the truth [2 Thess 2.13]. Now in this passage, the gifts of God are best understood to exist in the Spirit, since one possesses faith and truth alike through the sanctification of the Spirit. 237. Therefore, since our statements on these matters are right and pious and true, the terms “holiness” and “goodness” apply equally to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
The various meanings of the term “spirit” [237–256]
The same holds true for the term “spirit.” For the Father is called “spirit,” as in the passage which says: God is spirit [Jn 4.24], and the Son is called “spirit”: The Lord is spirit [2 Cor 3.17]. And the term “spirit” is always used to name the Holy Spirit, not because he is considered along with the Father and the Son merely on the basis of a shared name, but because a single nature possesses a single name. And since the term “spirit” has many meanings, we ought briefly enumerate the realities to which this term applies.
(1) The term “spirit” is used for the wind
238. Wind is called “spirit,” as in Ezekiel: A third part you shall scatter in the spirit [Ezek 5.2], that is, “in the wind.” In addition, if you want to understand the following passage according to the historical sense: With a vehement spirit you shall shatter the ships of Tarshish [Ps 47.8], then take “spirit” there as meaning nothing other than “wind.” Moreover, among the many graces that Solomon received from God, he also received the gift of knowing “the tempers of the spirits,” meaning by this nothing other than that he had received the gift of knowing the fierce gusts of the winds and the causes that determine their nature.
(2) The term “spirit” is used for the soul
239. The soul is also called “spirit,” as in the epistle of James: as the body is dead without the spirit, and so forth [Jam 2.26]. For it is utterly clear that the “spirit” named here is nothing other than the soul. In this sense Stephen also called his soul “spirit”: Lord Jesus, receive my spirit [Acts 7.59]. In addition, there is what is said in Ecclesiastes: Who knows if the spirit of a human being ascends on high and the spirit of a beast descends below? [Eccl 3.21]. You could also consider whether the souls of beasts are also called spirits.
(3) The term “spirit” is used for the human spirit
240. Besides the soul and the Holy Spirit, some other spirit is also said to be in a human being, about which Paul writes: For who among human beings knows the things that belong to a human being except the human spirit that is in him? [1 Cor 2.11]. Now if anyone wants to argue that here the term “spirit” signifies the soul, who then is the man whose thoughts, intimate opinions, and the hidden secrets of his heart no one else knows except his spirit? Wanting to understand this passage as about the body alone is utterly foolish.
241. But if someone who maintains that these words are written about the Holy Spirit and strives through cunning deception to snatch them away, then when he carefully considers the words themselves he will stop asserting this lie. For thus it is written: For who among human beings knows the things that belong to a human being except the human spirit that is in him? Thus also no one knows the things that belong to God except the Spirit of God [1 Cor 2.11]. Just as human being is different from God, so too is the human spirit that is in him distinct from the Spirit of God who is in him. Now time and again we have demonstrated that the Spirit of God is the Holy Spirit.
242. But in another passage the same Apostle also distinguishes the Spirit of God from our spirit: The Spirit himself gives testimony with our spirit [Rom 8.16]. This means that the Spirit of God (that is, the Holy Spirit), bestows testimony on our spirit, which we have just now said is the human spirit. And to the Thessalonians: May your spirit and soul and body be sound [1 Thess 5.23]. For just as the soul is different from the body, so too is the spirit different from the soul, which is specifically mentioned in this passage. It is this spirit for which he prays, asking that it be kept sound along with the soul and the body. After all, it would be unbelievable and even blasphemous for the Apostle to pray that the Holy Spirit be kept sound, since he can admit of neither diminution nor increase. 243. Therefore, as we have said, the words of the Apostle in this passage also witness to the human spirit.
(4) The term “spirit” is used for good or bad rational powers
244. The heavenly and rational powers, which the Scriptures are in the habit of designating angels and forces, are also called by the term “spirit,” as here: He who makes his angels spirits [Heb 1.7], and elsewhere: Are not all of them ministering spirits? [Heb 1.14]. I think that what is written in the Acts of the Apostles should be understood in this sense as well: The spirit of the Lord carried off Philip, and the eunuch did not see him anymore [Acts 8.39]. In other words: “The angel of the Lord raised Philip up to the heights and conveyed him to another place.”
245. The other rational creatures who fall from good into evil through their own will are called wicked spirits and unclean spirits, as here: But when an unclean spirit departs from a man [Mt 12.43], and in what follows: he brings seven spirits more wicked than him [Mt 12.45]. 246. In the Gospels, the demons are also called spirits. But we ought to note that they are never called “spirit” without some qualification. Rather, the Gospels signify an adversarial spirit with some modifier, such as “unclean spirit” or “demonic spirit.” But those spirits which are holy are called “spirits” without qualification and without any modifier.
(5) The term “spirit” is used for the human will
247. We ought to know that the term “spirit” also means the human will and the thought of the mind. 248. After all, when the Apostle wanted a virgin to be holy not only in deed but also in mind (that is, not in body alone but also in the deep movements of her heart), he said: Let her be holy in body and in spirit [1 Cor 7.34]. By “spirit” he meant her will and by “body” her works. You could also consider whether what Isaiah says resonates with this: And they who erred in spirit will discover understanding [Is 29.24]. For those who mistake good things for bad through an error of judgment will receive understanding so that their error may be corrected and they may choose upright things in place of wicked things. Moreover, you could consider this: The strength of your spirit is vain [Is 33.11], and see whether this demonstrates the same thing.
(6) The term “spirit” is used for the understanding of Scripture
249. But above all, the term “spirit” means the deeper and mystical sense in the Holy Scriptures, as here: The letter kills, but the spirit gives life [2 Cor 3.6]. This says that the letter is the simple and obvious narrative in accordance with the historical sense, but that the spirit gives knowledge of what is holy and spiritual in the text read. The following is also in agreement with this sense: We are the circumcision who serve the Lord in the spirit and place no trust in the flesh [Phil 3.3].
250. Now there are those who do not mutilate their flesh through the letter but circumcise their heart through the spirit, removing from it everything superfluous that is attached and allied to coming to be. These people are truly circumcised in the spirit, being Jews in secret and true Israelites in whom there is no guile [Jn 1.47]. Passing beyond the shadows and images of the Old Testament and being true worshippers, they adore the Father in spirit and in truth [Jn 4.24]. In spirit, because they have passed beyond all bodily and lowly realities; in truth, because they have left behind the types, shadows, and copies, and come to the substance of Truth itself; they have scorned the lowly and bodily simplicity of words (as we said above) and attained knowledge of the spiritual law.
251. At this point, we have touched upon as many things as our meager talent allows regarding what “spirit” means. When the time is right, we will examine what each of them means, if Christ should grant it.
(7) The term “spirit” is used for the Son of God
252. Sometimes our Lord Jesus Christ (that is, the Son of God), is also called “spirit”: For the spirit of wisdom is kind [Wis 1.6]. And in another passage: The Lord is spirit [2 Cor 3.17], as we mentioned earlier when we added: God is spirit [Jn 4.24]. The Son is spirit not merely because of a communion in name, but also because of a sharing of nature and substance.
(8) The term “spirit” is a synonym for the Trinity
253. Now in the case of realities which are different in substance, it sometimes happens that they share the same name, and their names are called ὁμώνυμα [homonyms]. Likewise, in the case of realities which are identical in nature and substance, when they have the same name together with equality of nature, it is the practice of dialecticians to call these names συνώνυμα [synonyms]. This is why the term “spirit,” and any other term ordinarily applied to the Trinity, is a συνώνυμον, for example, holy, good, and other terms similar to these upon which we touched a little before.
Avoiding the danger of misinterpreting the term “spirit”
254. Furthermore, we needed to discuss these matters lest the term “spirit” be a stumbling block for us, since this word is dispersed throughout the Divine Scriptures. We should look at each instance of this word, bearing in mind the variety of passages in which it is used and the senses it has in them. And so, contemplating with all zeal and diligence the context and manner in which the term “spirit” is used, let us destroy the sophistical arguments and deceitful snares of those who claim that the Holy Spirit is a creature.
255. Because they are ignorant of the multiple senses that the term “spirit” could have in the passage: I am the one who gives strength to thunder and who creates spirit [Am 4.13] when they read it in the Prophet, they think that it is the Holy Spirit who is indicated by this term. But in this instance the term “spirit” means “wind.” Moreover, when they hear that God said in Zechariah that he is the one who created the human spirit within a person [Zech 12.1], they think that it is the Holy Spirit who is signified in this chapter, unaware that the term “spirit” can signify the soul or spirit of human being. We have already mentioned that this human spirit is third in a human being.
256. Therefore, as we said earlier, we should consider the manner in which the term is used in each instance, lest perhaps through ignorance we fall into the pit of error. Now when it is a question of other matters, an error that arises through a shared use of terms brings confusion and shame to the one who made the error. But when it is a question of someone falling from the divine heights to wicked things, the error leads him to eternal punishment and the infernal regions of hell, especially if once he is deceived he chooses not to recover his senses but rather prefers to defend his error shamelessly.
An objection: Satan also fills the human heart [257–268]
257. Given the length of this volume, it would be altogether fitting to conclude our treatise. But an objection has been raised which opposes the claims we made above. We left it aside for the moment to avoid an interruption of the flow of our treatise and the insertion of impious wrangling into the middle of our pious discourse. But it is necessary, I think, to respond to this proposition and let the reader judge what he thinks about these matters.
258. So then, we argued above that the soul and mind of a human being cannot be filled with a created thing according to substance, but by the Trinity alone, since the mind is filled with created things only according to activity and the will’s error or virtue. In response to this, an objection has been put to us as if it destroyed our view on this subject. Here it is: there is a created substance called Satan in the Scriptures that enters into certain people and is said to fill their heart. 259. For example, Peter the Apostle said to the man who kept back half of the proceeds from the sale of his field while declaring another amount: Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart? [Acts 5.3]. And the Savior himself said about Judas that Satan entered into him [Jn 13.27]. We will address both these examples, the second after the first.
260. And so, we must first concern ourselves with the Scripture: why has Satan filled your heart? [Acts 5.3]. How can Satan fill the mind and commanding-faculty of someone without entering into him and into his mind and (so to speak) without stepping through the doorway of his heart, since this power belongs to the Trinity alone? But like a cunning, wicked, deceptive, and fraudulent imposter, by suggesting thoughts about the vices and offering incentives for them Satan draws the human soul to those desires for wickedness with which he himself is filled.
261. Next, it is written that Elymas the magician, the son of the devil, who lived a life of wickedness and malice, was full of all deceit and wickedness. Satan his father practically instilled this will in him and it became by habit like second nature. And so, when the Apostle Paul exposed and rebuked him, he said: You are full of all deceit and all iniquity, you son of the devil! [Acts 13.10]. Because that crafty and cunning man received in himself all deceit and fraud, he is called the son of the devil. The devil filled his heart and commanding-faculty with fraud and wickedness and all malice, and enticed and deceived him, so much so that one may think that Satan himself filled his soul and dwelt in him. For Satan had molded him to be his very own minister and servant of all his duplicity and perversity.
262. But now it is time to address the second example that we proposed, that Satan entered into Judas. 263. When the devil noticed to which vices Judas’ heart was most strongly inclined by observing his motions and what his activities signified, he discerned that he was exposed to the snares of avarice. When he found an door open to greed, he sent to the mind of Judas a strategy for obtaining the money he desired. Through this opportunity for monetary gain, he became the betrayer of his own teacher and Savior, exchanging piety for silver and receiving the reward for his crime from the Pharisees and the Jews.
264. Therefore, when this thought occurred to Judas, it gave Satan the opportunity to enter into his heart and fill him with the worst kind of will. Yet he did not enter according to substance, but rather according to activity, since entering into another belongs to the uncreated nature which can be participated in by many. The devil is not capable of being participated in, seeing that he is not the Creator but a creature. For this reason too, being capable of change and alteration, he fell from holiness and virtue.
265. We said above that τὸ μεθεκτόν (that is, “that which is received by participation”) is incorruptible and immutable and consequently eternal, but that that which is able to be changed is made and has a beginning. In addition, that which is incorruptible is everlasting whether one looks at ages past or ages to come. Therefore, it is not the case, as certain people think, that a person is filled with the devil or becomes indwelt by him through participation in his nature or substance. Rather, we believe that he indwells the person whom he fills through fraud, deception, and malice.
266. The devil used this fraud of his even against the elders who turned their love for Suzanna into cruelty against her, and filled their souls with burning lust and a late-blooming passion of old age. For it is written: Now two elders came, full of their wicked plot [Dan 13.28]. He also filled the whole Jewish people with these snares, about whom the Prophet said: Woe to you, a sinful nation, a people full of sin, a race of the worst kind, wicked sons! [Is 1.4]. Now they are called a wicked race of the devil and his sons because they are wicked and full of sins.
267. If those who are called his sons in the Scriptures are not capable of receiving the devil through participation in his substance (for time and again we have shown that this is impossible for creatures), then no one else can receive him through participation in his substance, but only by adopting his most deceptive will. 268. After all, we have said that, in the case of creatures, activity and zeal can participate in works both good and bad. But the nature and the substance of the Trinity alone is able to enter into others.
The dismissal of a foolish teaching about the Holy Spirit [269–271]
269. Quite sufficiently, I think, we have replied to the objection that was put to us. But since it seems silly and foolish to respond to idiotic matters and to want to resolve whatever the mouth of the impious may belch forth—for impiety consists in not only proposing wicked things but even more so in wanting to debate these wicked things with your opponent—therefore, I pass over in silence those assertions which they are in the habit of bandying about, proclaiming brazen sacrileges against us. For they say that if the Holy Spirit is not created, then he is either a brother of God the Father or the uncle of the only-begotten Jesus Christ. Or he is either the son of Christ or the grandson of God the Father. Or he is himself the Son of God, and in that case the Lord Jesus Christ will not be only-begotten since he has a brother.
270. How wretched and pitiable are those who remain unaware that they should not discuss incorporeal and invisible realities as they would a corporeal and visible nature. As for “brother” or “uncle” or “grandson” or “son,” these are corporeal names and terms that characterize human weakness. But the Trinity transcends all these names, and whenever he condescends to one of these names, he is not declaring his own nature by using our names and incongruent terms.
271. Therefore, since the only point holy Scripture makes about the Trinity is that God is the Father of the Savior and the Son is generated from the Father, we ought to think only that which is written. Once it has been demonstrated that the Holy Spirit is uncreated, we ought to understand that the one whose substance is not created is rightly joined to the Father and the Son.
Conclusion [272–277]
272. Given the poverty of our eloquence, what I have said on the present topic should suffice to indicate my great trepidation when I dared to speak about the Holy Spirit. 273. For whoever blasphemes against him will receive no pardon, not only in this age but also in the age to come. Nor will mercy and forgiveness be held in store for the one who has trampled on the Son of God and insulted the Spirit of grace in whom he has been sanctified.
274. Indeed, this ought to be understood as holding true also in the case of God the Father. For the one who has blasphemed against him and acted impiously will be tortured without any relief, since no one will pray to the Lord on his behalf, according to the Scripture: But if someone has sinned against the Lord God, who will pray for him? [1 Sam 2.25]. 275. Moreover, whoever denies the Son before people will be denied by him before the Father and his angels. 276. Therefore, since no pardon is granted to those who blaspheme against the Trinity, we must take all precaution and care to avoid slipping up when we are discussing him, even in a brief and short explanation.
277. Even more, if anyone wishes to read this book, we ask that he purify himself of every evil work and all wicked thoughts, so that he may be able, once his heart is enlightened, to understand what we have said. Furthermore, being full of holiness and wisdom, he will be able to pardon us if anywhere the result of our endeavor does not fulfill our intention, and thus he can consider only the sense of what we said, not the words we used to express ourselves. For just as we confidently claim that according to our conscience we have a pious mind, so too, when it is a question of artistic prose and rhetorical eloquence and the flow and structure of the treatise, we simply confess that we fall far short of these. After all, the goal of our study when discussing the holy Scriptures was to understand piously what was written and pay no attention to our lack of skill and our limitations when it comes to speaking.
Notes
That is, Rome, according to Rev 14.8, 16.9, 17.5, 18.2, 10, and 21.
Another designation for Rome, according to Rev 17.1, 4.
Originally designating the inhabitants of the Sabine town Cures, the term “Quirites,” after the full integration of Sabines into the Roman community around 268 B.C.E., came to be used of Romans in their capacity as citizens.
From around 382 to 384, Jerome was secretary to Damasus, bishop of Rome from 366 to 384.
Cf. Jer 1.11–13.
The Roman clergy had criticized his relationship with certain aristocratic women in Rome.
Interestingly, Jerome compares the vehemence of the attack on him with that of the doctrinal controversies of his day, as if the ferocity of these debates had already become a commonplace.
Jerome fled Rome in August 385; see his Ep. 45.
Lat. casa Romuli. One of the “tourist sights” in ancient Rome was a straw hut with a thatched roof on the southwestern corner of the Palatine Hill. It was thought to be the hut of Romulus. The most detailed report can be found in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, 2.79.11. Jerome’s mention of the casa Romuli here is the last eye-witness report from antiquity.
Lat. ludicrum Lupercal. The Lupercal was a cave at the foot of the Palatine Hill where the she-wolf supposedly reared Romulus and Remus. Each year on February 15 odd rites were conducted whose meaning was disputed in antiquity as much as now.
Lat. diversorium Mariae. Cf. Lk 2.7. This was one of the “tourist sites” in fourth-century Palestine. See Jerome, Ep. 46.11.
Lat. speluncam Salvatoris. This cave, not mentioned in the New Testament, was identified as the place of the birth of Jesus. See Jerome, Ep. 46.11, where he praises the cave and contrasts it with the Tarpeian rock in Rome. In these lines Jerome is signaling his rejection of Rome by stating his preference for the sites associated with the birth of Jesus rather than with the birth of Rome.
Paulinian was in fact the blood-brother of Jerome.
Jerome provided spiritual direction to the aristocrats Paula (+404) and her daughter Eustochium (+419) while in Rome from 382 to 385. It was the criticism of his association with them that precipitated his departure in 385. Both accompanied Jerome when he fled Rome, and eventually settled with him in Bethlehem where they founded a monastery.
In the story of the foundation of Rome, Romulus kills his brother Remus.
See Horace, Ep. 1.3, 14–20, where he compares the writer Celsus, who tends to borrow mostly from others when he writes, to a little crow (cornicula) that steals its colors from other birds.
Here Jerome refers to the three books On the Holy Spirit hastily written by Ambrose of Milan in 381 at the request of Emperor Gratian. Ambrose based his work closely on that of Didymus.
Lat. ex graecis bonis latina vidi non bona. Cf. Terence, Eunuchus prol. vv. 7–8: qui bene vortendo et easdem scribendo male / ex Graecis bonis Latinas fecit non bonas.
Here Jerome borrows Horace’s characterization of Celsus to characterize Ambrose in relation to Didymus.
Cf. Song 1.14, 4.1, 9; 6.4.
Cf. Jn 4.35.
Cf. 1 Sam 9.9.
A reference to Ambrose acting like the little crow that steals its colors from other birds.
Cf. 2 Cor 11.6.
Lat. substantia. In what follows, “substance” is our normal translation of this word; instances in which it is not translated thus will be footnoted.
Cf. Dan 13.45.
Cf. Lk 1.44.
Lat. homonymum.
Cf. Origen, De principiis 1.4: “It is, however, certainly taught with the utmost clearness in the Church, that this Spirit inspired each one of the saints, both the Prophets and the Apostles, and that there was not one Spirit in the men of old and another in those who were inspired at the coming of Christ.” Translation by G. W. Butterworth, Origen: On First Principles (Gloucester: Peter Smith, 1973), 3–4.
Lat. non simpliciter. Here and a few lines down Didymus is employing technical grammatical terminology.
The text of Acts 28.25 in modern critical editions differs from that of Didymus: τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐλάλησεν διὰ Ἠσαίου τοῦ προφήτου. Nonetheless, the point about the use of the definite article remains valid.
For similar comments on the definite article, see Spir. 73, and Athanasius, Serap. 1.4.
See Spir. 125.
Lat. ipse subsistens in his bonis.
Cf. Didymus, Trin. 2.8 (PG 39.532a).
Lat. Et Spiritu gratiae contumeliam faciens in quo sanctificatus est. Didymus’s citation of Heb 10.29 deviates from the modern critical editions of the Greek text, which is the same as the source of the Vulgate: et sanguinem testamenti pollutum duxerit in quo sanctificatus est et Spiritui gratiae contumeliam fecerit, “he has profaned the blood of the covenant in which he was sanctified, and insulted the Spirit of grace.” Didymus has therefore not only altered the word order, but also construed the relative clause in quo sancificatus as modifying Spiritus gratiae, not sanguis testamenti. He does the same in Zacc. 247, commenting on the πνεῦμα χάριτος of Zech 12.10 and making the same point as in the present passage, that the Spirit of grace is identical with the Holy Spirit.
Lat. capabilis non capax.
Nothing is known about this book; it is also mentioned in Spir. 93.
Didymus has mistaken the source of this text.
Lat. proprietate substantiae.
This is possibly a reference to Acts 20.36. Cf. Didymus, Trin. 2.4 (PG 39.488a).
Cf. Col 1.16.
Lat. communicatio. This is Jerome’s translation of κοινωνία, translated throughout as “communion.”
Lat. substantia.
See Athanasius, Serap. 1.26–27, for similar comments on the angels.
Lat. iuxta substantiam.
Cf. Heb 1:14.
Lat. increatus et ineffectus.
Cf. Col 1.16.
Lat. substantia.
Note the difference and similarities regarding what virtues one is filled with respectively by the Savior and Holy Spirit: wisdom alone appears in both lists.
Lat. substantia.
See Spir. 12.
See Spir. 12.
The name “Stephen,” from the Greek στέφανος, means “crown.” Hence even his name indicates that he was worthy of the “crown of martyrdom.”
Or, “in which he spoke.” Lat. et non valebant resistere sapientiae et Spirtui qui loquebatur in illo.
Cf. 1 Cor 12.8–10.
Cf. Mt 10.17–20; Mk 13.9–11; Lk 21.12–15.
See Spir. 15.
See Spir. 49.
I.e., anywhere in the Scriptures.
See Spir. 17.
Spir. 55 is an addition by Jerome.
Lat. substantia.
Cf. Jn 1.3.
Cf. Didymus, Trin. 3.3 (PG 39.805c) and 3.32 (PG 39.957c).
Lat. per substantiam.
See Spir. 10 and 16.
See Spir. 10.
See Spir. 10.
The “he” here is Christ. What follows in Spir. 62–64 is an argument based on the exegesis of Heb 1.13–14 and 2.3–4 that the Holy Spirit’s substance, on the parallel of Christ’s substance, is different from that of all creatures.
Lat. substantia.
Lat. substantia.
Cf. Jn 1.3.
Lat. Ego creo spiritum. Gk. ἐγὼ ... κτίζων πνεῦμα. In Greek the word πνεῦμα can mean either “spirit” or “wind,” just as in Latin spiritus can mean “breath” or “spririt.” In the exegesis that follows, Didymus attempts to show that in Am 4.13 it means “wind” rather than being a reference to the “Spirit.” In the Vulgate Jerome removes the ambiguity of the Greek with the translation: creans ventum.
Cf. Didymus, Trin. 3.31 (PG 39.949–58).
Here Didymus practices a standard exegetical technique in which a passage is explained by paraphrasing it expansively in the style of someone else. The style here is bucolic.
Lat. manifeste, i.e. not allegorically, as mentioned in Spir. 68.
The reading of the Masoretic Text is: וחשׂ־המ (mahsēkhō), “what he is thinking.” Apparently, this word was misconstrued as וחישׁמ (māshiakhō), “his Messiah” or “his Christ.”
Spir. 70 is an addition by Jerome.
This teaching was typically associated with Marcion and the Manichees.
This parenthetical remark is probably Jerome’s. Didymus made similar comments in Spir. 8.
But the LXX has the article at 2 Kg 2.15. Perhaps Didymus was thinking of Elisha’s words to Elijah in 2 Kg 2.9: “Let a double-share of your Spirit (διπλᾶ ἐν πνεύματι σου) come upon me.”
Gk. πνεύματι περιατεῖτε.
Lat. nunc videamus quam cum utroque habeat indifferentiam. The word indifferentia is unusual in Latin, probably representing the Gk. τὸ ἀδιάφορον or ἀδιαφορία. It appears also in Spir. 87 and 100.
See the comments at Spir. 14 on Didymus’s reading of Heb 10.29.
Cf. Zech 12:10.
Lat. operatio, probably representing Gr. ἐνεργεία.
The argument here is that the Holy Spirit is not an activity but a substance that has an activity, and that activity demonstrates substance.
Lat. consortium.
Elsewhere Jerome prefers to leave the ὁμοούσιον untranslated (see Spir. 16, 27, and 145), but here he supplies the translation euisdem substantiae, avoiding consubstantialis.
The example of Ananias also appears in Spir. 131 and 259.
Lat. consortium.
These are the same two verses cited in Spir. 39–40.
Didymus here paraphrases Lk 12.11–12.
This parenthetical remark may be another insertion of Jerome.
Lat. consortium.
See Spir. 10–73.
Here Didymus probably refers to his oral teaching. See p. 43 above.
Lat. unius naturae indifferentiam demonstrari. See n. 61 above on indifferentia.
The unity of the various parts of the body is recognized by Aristotle as an example of things which are one in themselves (καθ’ αὑτό), i.e. essentially or by nature (Phys. Δ.6.1016a3).
Lat. per nuncupationem. The thought here is that God alone is properly called wise; all others who are called wise are thus designated because God has made them wise and share in the designation that belongs properly to God.
Lat. Qui semetipsos cognoscunt, hi sunt sapientes. This passage cannot be traced to a known scriptural source.
See n. 14 above.
Lat. circulum unitatis atque substantiae.
Lat. quicumque ad hanc imaginem vel formam imaginantur atque formantur. The translation cannot capture the parallelism of the Latin.
On this argument, see Andrew Radde-Gallwitz, “The Holy Spirit as Agent, not Activity: Origen’s Argument with Modalism and its Afterlife in Didymus, Eunomius, and Gregory of Nazianzus,” Vigiliae Christianae 65 (2011): 227–248.
Lat. indifferentia. See Spir. 74.
Cf. Didymus, Trin. 2.15 (PG 39.720a); also see Athanasius, Serap. 1.29.3 and 2.15.6.
Cf. Ezek 11.19.
Such a baptizer would legislate against the law laid down in Mt 28.19. Didymus here possibly also alludes to Jam 4.12.
See Athanasius, Serap. 1.30.
Lat. disciplina. By “discipline” here, Didymus means Church order and practice.
Neither Vulgate nor the Greek contains the words Ego et Pater, which may be borrowed from Jn 10.30.
Cf. 2 Cor 3.8.
Lat. prolationes, undoubtedly representing προβολαί. The term had corporeal overtones, implying a kind of generation in which the offspring was actually a divided-off portion of the parent.
Cf. Jn 16.28 and 17.8.
Lat. proprietatem Patris, probably representing ἰδίωμα, ἰδιότης, or χαρακτὴρ πατέρος.
Lat. intellectum parentis, probably representing ἐπίνοια or ἔννοια.
E.g. Jn 8.42.
Jerome keeps this in the Greek; this was a common name for the book among Greek speakers.
Lat. Nam et in his sermonibus alium Paracletum dare dicitur Pater alium absque eo qui a Filio mittitur. The confusing thought in this passage has led to several unnecessary conjectural emendations both in the mss. and by Migne and Doutreleau. We follow the reading of A Θ. We have inserted words (in square brackets) to clarify the sense.
Cf. Heb 8.6, 9.15, 12.24.
Lat. Et humiles populi sui consolatus est. Didymus has conflated 2 Cor 7.6 with either Is 49.13 or 52.9 to make the subject of the verse be the Lord.
Cf. Jn 14.23.
Thus the witness of Paul helps interpret the Book of Isaiah regarding who speaks in the Prophets.
Cf. 1 Cor 8.6.
See Spir. 83.
This is one of Didymus’s three explicit expressions of the divinity of the Holy Spirit; see also Spir. 83 and 224.
Lat. naturae consortium.
Lat. proprietas personarum. This is the sole appearance of the word persona in a Trinitarian context in the treatise. Doutreleau suggests that the underlying Greek is ἰδιότης τῶν προσώπων. Didymus’s hesitancy in using the expression (ut ita dicam, “so to speak”) may indicate that it was a new concept.
Lat. salua proprietate Filii ad Patrem et Patris ad Filium.
This is possibly an allusion to Eph 6.12.
Lat. proprietatem eius.
Lat. proprietatem Patris et nomen.
I.e. the Son.
I.e. the Holy Spirit.
Cf. Jn 14.26.
I.e. non sense-perceptible.
Lat. ut disciplinam non arte doceat, sed natura.
His “disciples” (discipuli) are those to whom the Son has imparted his “instruction” (disciplinam).
Cf. Mt 23.10.
Lat. semetipsum. That is, God.
Lat. non humana sed Dei arte.
Lat. accipietis enim virtutem Spiritus Sancti venientem super vos. There is significant difference between Didymus’s citation and the standard Greek text, which is the same as the source of the Vulgate: sed accipietis virtutem supervenientis Spiritus Sancti in vos. In the standard text it is “the Holy Spirit” who comes upon the disciples. Here, it is “the power of the Holy Spirit” which does.
This work is no longer extant, but is also mentioned by Jerome in De viribus illustribus 109.
See Spir. 81.
The citation of Acts 1.8 reflects the standard version. See Spir. 144 for an alternative.
Cf. Mt 13.52. The scriptural allusion is here most apt: just like every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old, the Holy Spirit brings new meaning to the old Scriptures.
Lit. “to prick them up.”
Lat. consensus.
Several important mss. and Migne insert the following at this point: “that is, God proceeds from God, the Spirit of Truth proceeds from Truth, Consoler emanates from Consoler.” Doutreleau does not attribute this insertion to Jerome, but judges it to be an interpolation by a later copyist.
Didymus’s citation differs slightly from that found in Spir. 146, which reads: but whatever he hears he will speak.
Lat. consortium.
The paragraph expresses the so-called doctrine of undiminished giving. The unexpressed assumption of the last sentence seems to be that in order to be an undiminished giver one must be what one gives rather than receiving it from another. See Didymus, Trin. 3.40 (PG 39.981b) for similar comments.
I.e. wisdom, truth, etc.
Several important mss. (BCΔ) omit: “of the Holy Spirit” and “as that of the Father and the Son.”
Cf. Mt 5.8.
Cf. Heb 1.3.
Lat. procedat. Jerome elsewhere translates ἐκπορεύεται by egreditur (Spir. 110 and 114).
Lat. iustificationem divinae et spiritualis legis. We read divinae with ΒΓΔ instead of Doutreleau’s divinam.
Lat. Quod tibi non vis. This is a partial translation of the LXX: ὅ μισεῖς μηδενὶ ποιήσῃς, “that which you hate do to no one.” The full text in the Vulgate translation reads: quod ab alio odis fieri tibi vide ne alteri tu aliquando facias, “that which you hate to happen to you by another take care lest you at some time do it to another.” Interestingly, both examples cited here by Didymus are prominent in the New Testament as well: Deut 6.5 is the core of the Great Commandment cited by Jesus at Mk 12.29–30 (|| Mt 22.34–40; Lk 10.25–28) and Tob 4.15 is a negative statement of the Golden Rule expressed by Jesus at Mt 7.12 (|| Lk 6.31). Both the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule are explicitly presented by Jesus as the essence of the Law and the Prophets. Hence, the scriptural citations made by Didymus here are particularly fitting.
This is a paraphrase of Rom 8.9a.
Prophets are mentioned in the verse (1 Pet 1.10) just before the citation that follows.
This citation differs considerably from the standard Greek text and the Vulgate.
I.e., Rom 8.9.
Lat. cui coniuncto si quis contrarium assumat. In Spir. 189–193 Didymus employs Stoic logic. As Rom 8.9b is clearly a conditional, the term coniunctum most likely translates συνημμένον, the standard Stoic designation for a conditional proposition. It has the form: “if p, then q,” e.g., “if it is day, then it is light.” Note that according to the second-century Latin miscellanist Aulus Gellius (Noctes atticae 6.8.10–11), the kind of proposition known in Latin as the coniunctum corresponded to the Greek συμπεπλεγμένον ἀξίωμα, or conjunctive proposition, while συνημμένον ἀξίωμα, the Greek for a conditional proposition, was translated into Latin as adiunctum or conexum (Noctes atticae 16.8.9). Either Jerome has mistranslated συνημμένον, or by the late fourth century coniunctum had become an acceptable translation.
The “contrary” (contrarium) of Rom 8.9b presented by Didymus is technically known as the contrapositive, which is the inverse of the converse. Contraposition was understood in antiquity as “conversion by negation” (ἡ σὺν ἀντιθέσει ἀντιστροφή; cf. Anon., In Aristotelis sophisticos elenchos paraphrasis 30.5&15 (M. Hayduck, Anonymi in Aristotelis sophisticos elenchos paraphrasis, Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 23.4 (Berlin: Reimer, 1884), 1–68)). Given the conditional “if p, then q,” the converse is “if q, then p” and the inverse is “if not p, then not q,” and the contrapositive accordingly takes the form “if not q, then not p.” Didymus’s reasoning is here unassailable: the contrapositive of a true conditional is always true, a basic fact about the logic of conditionals of which the ancients were surely aware, including the Stoics.
Again, this is the contrapositive. See the previous note.
Lat. syllogismo coniuncto. See n. 143 above.
The Stoics recognized three other kinds of propositions (ἀξιώματα) in addition to the conditional: the subconditional, the conjunctive, and the disjunctive. One suspects that the phrase “which the dialecticians more precisely call an ἀξίωμα” is a misinformed display of erudition on the part of Jerome.
Cf. Col 1.18 and Rev 1.5.
Cf. Ezek 18.26.
Note the slightly different wording than the citation in Spir. 178.
Lat. Spiritum adoptionis; Gk. Πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας. The word υἱοθεσία literally means “adopting as a son” (υἱός), a nuance that the normal English translation, “adoption,” does not capture. For Didymus and many other Greek fathers, the title “Spirit of adopted sonship” shows Spirit’s intimate connection with the Father’s adoption of sons in Christ.
Cf. Is 63.7.
Lat. virtus. The word can refer both to external manifestations of the power of God such as miracles and other prodigious acts and to internal manifestations of the power of God such as virtues of the soul which are made possible only through the grace of God. The point is that both external wonders and interior virtue are both manifestations of the same power of God. Here virtus translates the Greek δύναμις, which has the same range of meaning as virtus.
Cf. Mt 5.8.
The same etymology is found in Philo (Congr. 51, Fug. 208, Abr. 57, Praem. 44, and Legat. 4), Origen (Princ. 4.3.8 and Comm. Jo. 2.189), and Eusebius (Praep. ev. 11.6.32, Dem. ev. 7.2.36, and Comm. Isa. 2.45).
This teaching was associated with Marcion and the Manichees.
Cf. Heb 5.9
Cf. Mt 18.11 Vulgate.
In Trin. 3.27 (PG 39.944a) Didymus cites the same verse and interprets it as he does here.
Cf. 2 Cor 5.20.
Cf. Heb 1.14.
Cf. Rom 8.32.
Cf. Heb 2.14.
This is a reference to the Exodus story.
Cf. Mk 3.29.
Cf. Ps 106.4–7. Didymus says much the same in Zacc. 4.185–193; 5.28–30.
Cf. Mt 23.37; Lk 13.34.
Cf. Rom 9.6.
Note that Didymus’s citation here differs considerably from that cited above in Spir. 198: who put the Holy Spirit on them.
This parenthesis is an unnecessary comment by Jerome.
Cf. Is 63.8+11. Didymus refers here to the “you” of 1 Thess 4.7, just cited.
Cf. 1 Thess 4.7.
This is one of the rare occasions when Didymus clearly affirms that the Holy Spirit is God. See also Spir. 83 and 130.
Note that this reference to Is 63.12 differs from that cited in Spir. 198 and reflects the standard text: ὁ ἀγαγὼν τῇ δεξιᾷ Μωυσῆν, “he leads Moses by his right hand.”
I.e., the only-begotten Son of God.
Cf. Acts 2.33.
I.e., the Lordly Man.
Cf. Ps 117.16–17. Though Didymus here starkly distinguishes the only-begotten Son of God and the Lordly Man such that they appear to be two agents, in Spir. 230 he affirms that the two natures of Christ belong to a single subject.
At this point, several important mss. add: “who is the whole Christ, the one Jesus, the Son of God,” clearly an interpolation by a copyist concerned to bring Didymus’s archaic language in line with later Christological sensibilities.
Lat. sed quod de uno atque eodem quasi de altero secundum naturam Dei et hominis disputetur.
In fact, “Holy Spirit” is the reading of the Codices Vaticanus and Alexandrinus.
In the early Christian period, four different books circulated under the name of Esdras (Ezra), but they were numbered differently in the Greek and Latin traditions. Here Didymus refers to Esdras III, known in the Latin tradition as Esdras II, and it corresponds to Nehemiah in our modern bibles.
See Spir. 17 and 26.
See Spir. 21–24.
See Athanasius, Serap. 1.7–8, where he similarly enumerates the meanings of “spirit.”
Cf. Wis 7.20.
I.e., impermanent realities that come to be and pass away.
Cf. Heb 8.5. See also Spir. 150.
See Spir. 231–237a.
See Spir. 66–72.
Cf. Spir. 242.
See Spir. 30 and 34.
See Spir. 83 and 131.
Didymus is slightly inaccurate here. Neither in Jn 13.27 nor in Lk 22.3 does Jesus say that Satan entered into Judas; rather, this is a statement of the narrator.
Lat. principale cordis, no doubt a translation of ἡγεμονικόν. This was the Stoic term for that part of the soul which was the center of consciousness and the seat of all mental states. While it is analogous to the brain as we understand it today, the Stoics located the ἡγεμονικόν in the heart.
Cf. Mt 27.3–5.
We read here τὸ μεθεκτόν, which seems to be the reading transliterated in B (to meteXton), C (to mettecton), and Δ (thometecton). The term τὸ μεθεκτόν is standard in philosophical contexts and is preferable to Doutreleau’s τὸ μετοχικόν. Cf. Athanasius, Serap. 1.27.2.
See Athanasius, Serap. 1.15–17, who deals with these same heretical teachings.
Cf. Mt 12.31–32.
Cf. Heb 10.29.
Cf. Mt 10.33.
Ms. B, from the 12th or 13th century, has the following explicit: “Here ends, by God’s help, the book of Didymus the Seer on the Holy Spirit, translated from Greek into Latin by Blessed Jerome, presbyter.” The incipit of the same ms. reads: “Here begins the book of Didymus the Seer on the Holy Spirit.”