Definition of 'Hypostasis'

[Qoeleth]

I am curious about ideas defining hypostasis. A ‘literal’ definition renders it equivalent either to:

1. hypo=sub, stasis=stance, therefore “substance”, or
2. hypo= under, stasis= standing, therefore “understanding”

The obvious problems with the first is that ‘ousia’ (of which there is One in God) is also traditionally translated as ‘substance’. There is also the practice of rendering ousia as ‘essence’, and ‘hypostasis’ as ‘substance’- which Augustine says is not helpful, because there is no difference in what they mean. Even the Cappadocians need to try to explain the difference between the ‘hypostasis’ and ‘ousia’, suggesting the challenge of a meaningful semantic difference is not merely a reflection of a lost translational naunce. Augustine uses the translation of ‘persona’- mentioning it is not really satisfactory, but for want of another word.

A new idea which has occurred to me is that if ‘hypostasis’ could be rendered* literally *as ‘understanding’, would it be fair to say that the three members of the Holy Trinity are three ‘understandings’ of God?

 

[In_Spiration]

This interests me as well. The divine substance seems to be God’s act of understanding Himself personally, which would certainly include both His divine and His human (rational + animal) natures.

 

[Equites_Christi]

The problem is that when you translate morpheme-by-morpheme (or part-by-part) into English, the resulting word has a totally different meaning from its individual parts.

“Substance” doesn’t have anything to do with being ‘sub’ a ‘stance’, nor does “understanding” have to do with being ‘under’ a ‘standing’.

I’d say it’s coincidental.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The problem is that when you translate morpheme-by-morpheme (or part-by-part) into English, the resulting word has a totally different meaning from its individual parts.

“Substance” doesn’t have anything to do with being ‘sub’ a ‘stance’, nor does “understanding” have to do with being ‘under’ a ‘standing’.

I’d say it’s coincidental.

I disagree strongly, although I can understand your disconnect. The morphemes do translate correctly; but imperfectly unless one studies the issue and broadens the mind.

In Chemistry, the idea of “substance” is equated with the (formal and) formulaic make up of atoms, molecules, etc. of a material. But literally speaking, substance, is whatever allows us to “understand” what something is. Reflexively, understanding is also what allows us to determine what the chemistry of something is. (If you can’t understand something, how can you explain it’s make up correctly?)

However, even this chemistry and physics usage of the word is STILL an extension of the older meaning; Alchemists and later chemists adopted the word precisely because it was appropriate to describe things about (atoms,gasses,molecules) which they grasped very imperfectly. But his history also shows that the modern connotation of the word did grow out of the older one. That’s why I say it ISN’T coincidence but organic development.

Substance, in the sciences of our day, stems from the Latin understanding of the word which in ancient developmental times was slightly different than the Greek meaning (understanding!!!); Substance is de-personalized in Latin whereas in Greek the same morpheme word (Hypostasis) includes not only what makes up a person, but their family and mind as well.

A fairly common way to speak about a man’s “substance”(hypostasis) in Greek is to refer not ONLY to his own body and specific flesh, but also include that of his children and his possessions. So his entire family and everything the spirit of a man guides and/or “controls” is referenced by the idea of Hypostasis. I would infer (as a speculation) that Hypostasis always includes a living thing, somewhere; substance does not necessarily do so.

When we talk of the Eucharist being trans-substantiated (from the Latin), Cardinal Ratzinger has noted in his pre-pope time books, that transubstantiation is not talking about atoms. eg: the atoms are not what Jesus is in the Eucharist – they are merely something which is formed by the reality of Christ’s Spirit and soul. Ratzinger, I think, was wisely trying to prevent the narrow and restrictive meaning that modern science attempts to place on the word.

The principle of spirit and matter, as best I understand it, goes by the name “Hyle-morphic” (sp?) in philosophy.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I am curious about ideas defining hypostasis. A ‘literal’ definition renders it equivalent either to:

1. hypo=sub, stasis=stance, therefore “substance”, or
2. hypo= under, stasis= standing, therefore “understanding”
   …
   A new idea which has occurred to me is that if ‘hypostasis’ could be rendered* literally *as ‘understanding’, would it be fair to say that the three members of the Holy Trinity are three ‘understandings’ of God?

Yes, they are three persons whom we understand to be God. eg: Three understandings of God. However, that doesn’t equate to a separation or a confusion and don’t loose sight of the fact that there are more specific details important to correctly explain God apologetically.

For example, these three understandings are not “modalities”; etc.
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSvhpW5Ekmw3a7HQV3__VPEMFavn7KkgzOES9C6Z6frent1vjxfAg

However, we do (as Catholics) MAKE our STAND on the Tradition, that one God is in three persons. Or again, our public stance is where Catholics STAND on the issue (even if it’s a matter, or not matter…!). We stand, under a Trinitarian God, indivisible, with liberty and justice to God as our desire.

 

[Katholish]

I am curious about ideas defining hypostasis. A ‘literal’ definition renders it equivalent either to:

1. hypo=sub, stasis=stance, therefore “substance”, or
2. hypo= under, stasis= standing, therefore “understanding”

The obvious problems with the first is that ‘ousia’ (of which there is One in God) is also traditionally translated as ‘substance’. There is also the practice of rendering ousia as ‘essence’, and ‘hypostasis’ as ‘substance’- which Augustine says is not helpful, because there is no difference in what they mean. Even the Cappadocians need to try to explain the difference between the ‘hypostasis’ and ‘ousia’, suggesting the challenge of a meaningful semantic difference is not merely a reflection of a lost translational naunce. Augustine uses the translation of ‘persona’- mentioning it is not really satisfactory, but for want of another word.

A new idea which has occurred to me is that if ‘hypostasis’ could be rendered* literally *as ‘understanding’, would it be fair to say that the three members of the Holy Trinity are three ‘understandings’ of God?

Yes, at the time of the great Christological debate, the term hypostasis and our concept of substance might not have been all that different. However, language evolves, and it did so in a major way at the councils. Instead of creating a completely new term which would have been meaningless to most to explain the Trinity, the Fathers took an existing philosophical term which had a similar meaning for what they wanted to communicate and essentially refined the existing term hypostasis. Like you, I have always found it amusing that the part by part translation was basically “substance”, a concept which was in a way opposed to hypostasis as defined by the councils.

That being said, the term hypostasis was truly altered, and after the council, had a technical definition in theology which was not open to later re-definition.

Even a literal part by part definition would never have rendered our English concept of subjective understanding. Rather, that which “stands under” refers to that which is knowable about some thing, i.e. is nature. Thus, the Latin substantia is related to the English concept understanding as its epistemological object.

Can the term “understandings” then be applied to the Trinity as to explain the distinctions of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Absolutely not. Not only is substantia an improper translation of hypostasis, but “understanding” in the sense you wish to use it is not an accurate translation of substantia. When talking about our “understanding” of God, we mean our own subjective conception. Here we must acknowledge that while we know alot about God, we do not know Him in His essence. As such, our “understanding” would never be a fully accurate picture of God’s Nature (or substance).

 

[Qoeleth]

By proposing ‘understanding’ I do not wish to suggest modalism. Augustine’s idea of translating, hypostasis as persona (particularly given the concept of persona), seems to me to come close to modalism. Not that I am suggesting Augustine was a modalist- he acknowledges the insufficiency of the term. On the other hand, the Cappadocian explanation of the distinction of ousia and hypostasis (effectively ousia being a type or species, and hypostasis being an instantiation) is effectively tri-theism, and is explicitly rejected by Augustine.

That being said, the term hypostasis was truly altered, and after the council, had a technical definition in theology which was not open to later re-definition.

Forgive my ignorance- to which council are you referring as providing a definition of hypostasis?

If ‘hypostasis’ becomes a ‘technical term’ used specifically in Trinitarian discourse, but is not applicable elsewhere, there is a circularity in any attempt to define (or even understand/struggle to understans) it- as illustrated below.
A: “There are three hypostases and one ousia in God.”
B: “What is a hypostasis?”
A: “A hypostasis is that of which there are three in God.”

If hypostasis is undefinable (or definable only in a circular manner) does it reflect Derrida’s post-modern model of language- “the practice of a language or code supposing a play of forms without a determined and invariable substance, …] an archi-writing without a present origin, without an archi-”?

Perhaps this collapse of ready definability (and maybe even collapse of meaning) illustrates Pseudo-Dionysius Trinitarian prayer:
Trinity!! Higher than any being,
any divinity, any goodness,
Lead us beyond unknowing and light,
In the brilliant darkness of a hidden silence.

 

[Qoeleth]

A fairly common way to speak about a man’s “substance”(hypostasis) in Greek is to refer not ONLY to his own body and specific flesh, but also include that of his children and his possessions. So his entire family and everything the spirit of a man guides and/or “controls” is referenced by the idea of Hypostasis. I would infer (as a speculation) that Hypostasis always includes a living thing, somewhere; substance does not necessarily do so.

I think, though, it is possible to fall into the mistake of thinking that the difference between ousia and hypostasis was clearer in Greek than it is today, and to write the question off as one of translational nuance.

Athansius, though (writing in Greek) says that ousia and hypostasis are synonyms, “hypostasis is ousia, and means nothing else but this.” And the original creed of Nicea did place anathema on those who claim the Son and Father to be different ousia or hypostasis (treating both terms as synonyms, or in apposition)

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I think, though, it is possible to fall into the mistake of thinking that the difference between ousia and hypostasis was clearer in Greek than it is today, and to write the question off as one of translational nuance.

OK, elucidate.
Hypostasis includes that which a man controls or is related to; all that is his.
Within the Trinity, this understanding points us directly to the relationship between father and Son, Son and Spirit, Spirit and Father and Son. (There are in fact, more than three possible realationships – but at least three.) Correct me if I am mistaken, but isn’t this all that can be known about the Persons?

Athansius, though (writing in Greek) says that ousia and hypostasis are synonyms, “hypostasis is ousia, and means nothing else but this.” And the original creed of Nicea did place anathema on those who claim the Son and Father to be different ousia or hypostasis (treating both terms as synonyms, or in apposition)

Hmmm… I have Nicea, but on my dead computer. Do you perhaps have a link to the particular sentence in question?

I have seen some people argue that Augustine equates persona with ousia; but not the distinction you are pointing to. In the sense I understand the Koine Greek; there is a notion that Father and the Son are in the same relationship (Family) and hypostasis could therefore, be used of both by reference to the Father and that which belongs TO the father (as the “Origin” hypostasis, the father’s Hypostasis can refer to the son, but I don’t think it works vice versa.). Eg: I would suggest you study if the Greek would support that the Son is the same hypostasis as the Father in that very restricted sense: I think it means, so long as the son is not ?“emancipated”? from the father the word is applicable – But they can’t be the same Hypostasis in the sense that both ARE the Father. The Father must be the greater, in order for this usage to make sense at all.

St. Paul–I think-- talks about this in one of his writings where he mentions that the Father is greater than the Son, because the Son is doing everything that the Father is doing. That might suggest that the son is not emancipated from the Father, for he does what the father has originated.

Could you, perhaps, give a little more context to what Athen… was saying; eg: whom was he talking to, what were the sentences immediately before and after his statement?

 

[Qoeleth]

OK, elucidate.
Hypostasis includes that which a man controls or is related to; all that is his.
Within the Trinity, this understanding points us directly to the relationship between father and Son, Son and Spirit, Spirit and Father and Son. (There are in fact, more than three possible realationships – but at least three.) Correct me if I am mistaken, but isn’t this all that can be known about the Persons?

Hmmm… I have Nicea, but on my dead computer. Do you perhaps have a link to the particular sentence in question?

I have seen some people argue that Augustine equates persona with ousia; but not the distinction you are pointing to. In the sense I understand the Koine Greek; there is a notion that Father and the Son are in the same relationship (Family) and hypostasis could therefore, be used of both by reference to the Father and that which belongs TO the father (as the “Origin” hypostasis, the father’s Hypostasis can refer to the son, but I don’t think it works vice versa.). Eg: I would suggest you study if the Greek would support that the Son is the same hypostasis as the Father in that very restricted sense: I think it means, so long as the son is not ?“emancipated”? from the father the word is applicable – But they can’t be the same Hypostasis in the sense that both ARE the Father. The Father must be the greater, in order for this usage to make sense at all.

St. Paul–I think-- talks about this in one of his writings where he mentions that the Father is greater than the Son, because the Son is doing everything that the Father is doing. That might suggest that the son is not emancipated from the Father, for he does what the father has originated.

Could you, perhaps, give a little more context to what Athen… was saying; eg: whom was he talking to, what were the sentences immediately before and after his statement?

It seems to me that the distinction between ousia and hypostasis emerged after the Council of Nicea, with the Cappadocians. The evidence for this is:

1. Athanasius (as quoted) explicitly says so, in the letter Ad Afros- primarily directed as refutation of the Arians.
2. The anathema at the end of the (first) Nicene Creed clearly treats them as synonyms (see fourthcentury.com/index.php/nicaea-325-creed-greek)
3. Basil and Gregory both find it necessary to argue for a distinction in meaning between the terms, and to explain what the difference is, which would not be necessary (I suggest) if the difference already existed or was generally understood. Both, however, argue that ousia is a species/type and hypostasis is an instantiation of that species of type (which is clearly not how orthodox Trinitarian thought no understands [hypo-stasizes?] it, and was explictly refuted by Augustine as tritheism).

Basil even goes so far as saying that we should not use type or genus names in plural. Thus, he says, if there are three men we really should not say “three men”, because “man”, the type or specie, remains singular. He says, we should not apply this error of grammatical practice (as he sees it) to God, and hence should not say “Three Gods”, even though there are three instantiations (hypostases) of the type ‘God’.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

It seems to me that the distinction between ousia and hypostasis emerged after the Council of Nicea, with the Cappadocians. The evidence for this is:

1. Athanasius (as quoted) explicitly says so, in the letter Ad Afros- primarily directed as refutation of the Arians.
2. The anathema at the end of the (first) Nicene Creed clearly treats them as synonyms (see fourthcentury.com/index.php/nicaea-325-creed-greek)

(?? hmmm… find an Athanasius link & Cappadocians ??)
The distinction I see is that Hypostasis is a partial super-set of ousia; The words agree in one connotation, but disagree in another. Therefore, I am uncertain if they could be strict synonyms.

In the creed you linked to, the relevant creed words (dashes mine) are:
οὐσί-ας, ὁμο-ούσι-ον, (ousi-as, [h]omo-ousi-on )

And, the anathema itself says:
… ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑπο-στάσε-ως ἢ οὐσί-ας φάσκοντας εἶναι … ([h]ypo-stase-Os, ousi-as)

1. Basil and Gregory both find it necessary to argue for a distinction … which would not be necessary (I suggest) if the difference already existed …

I can understand your thought here, but I don’t think it strong enough.
Perhaps it would be helpful for you to add a statement about what the Arians believed ?

Both, however, argue that ousia is a species/type and hypostasis is an instantiation of that species of type …

Basil even goes so far as saying that we should not use type or genus names in plural. Thus, he says, if there are three men we really should not say “three men” …[as]… the type or specie, remains singular. …

There are some things you say here which I need to review slowly on my own (eg:circa species/type) – hence, be patient if I don’t treat these issues for a week. I also see a few minor deficiencies/pitfalls in the linked translations.

I think Basil still focuses on a problem in Greek grammar which even predates the NT Bible; eg: on the clarity of using collective and non-collective nouns.

A collective noun means that a singular word actually represents also a plurality of actual (or instantiated) things. For example, I can say in English: “The enemy pursued me”. In this example, “the enemy” may be either a single man, or many men (even a whole platoon!). That, I think, is what Basil is trying to correct with respect to “God”.

Collective nouns; such as “day”('amera), “rock”(petra), etc. are well known in Greek HOWEVER “God”(the-os) is not a collective noun. True Greeks were pantheistic (eg: pan-the(oi)-istc; all-gods-istic). They would say – The-os, The-oi, The-E, The-ai. A.K.A. God, God(s), Godess … and many people accepted female Gods, SO a collective God statement might easily be mistaken for a “female” one!!! (Bible doesn’t use em!)

None of “God” words in earlier Greek are collective words, they are simple singulars just as (Petr-os) Peter is, eg: right before a possibly collective (Petra) in Mt. 16:18;
Clearly, in MT, Jesus is working with both a singular and a possibly collective word.
In Greek Jesus’ words correspond literally to: “This **the **rock” or, in more comfortable English “this very(singular) rock” When Jesus spoke, Peter was already known as a single child of Abraham, eg: a single rock (Petr-os is singular) and Jesus meant him specifically out of all the brothers in the collective. when he said “this very rock” (BORG alert!)

(Please see Isaiah 51:1 (not 2) for the history of “rock” The naming tradition comes from Abraham being “the” rock, and his children a collective. Note carefully, though, there are no truly female rocks. Sarah is called a quarry not a rock. )

Basil’s problem is far worse; he really appears to addressing the Greek deficiency about “God”. I don’t know of a standard and more ancient Greek way to distinguish Trinity from female Gods… So I suspect he had to invent a circumlocution (a work “around” way of speaking) about God/Trinity.

Compare and contrast what I am saying with the following:
(To me) Jesus is of the Hypostasis → St. Joseph (at least before age 13), BUT there is no evidence that he is the ousia and “sarks” of St. Joseph. (His literal substance and flesh). This is still supported in traditional Koine Greek.

My personal opinion is that ousia acts as a synonym for the Latin idea of “substance”; In the Liturgy we say in English “con-substantial” with the Father where Nicea has “ousia”. (again “with-substance” does not imply personality in Latin and English sciences).

Now, notice: The Nicean anathema uses the words Hypostasis, and ousia both; Since ousia of the Father applies to how the Son came from him; Gold, slaves, and adoption, would be false analogies to the Son’s relationship.

I will look for counter-examples, are you aware of any?

I could agree, if you really mean that Nicea invented/discovered a good circumlocution. (??)