Abstract
[...]this peculiar usage of ... is deployed in a context where Basil sets up a rhetorical distinction between Christianity and other systems of belief. [...]when Basil retorts to Eunomius at Contra Eunomium 2.22, 27-29 that "we have not put our faith in the Demiurge ... and Something Made ...; rather, we have been sealed in the Father and the Son through the grace received in baptism,"52 he may be drawing on Athanasius. [...]George rejects "Unbegotten" and "Begotten" because they do not communicate the relationship that the Father and Son have with one another and they do not signify the nature that they share.80 Therefore, by way of summary, George advances three reasons for rejecting "Unbegotten" in favor of "Father": (1) it is unscriptural, (2) it lacks the comprehensiveness of "Father," and (3) it is not a relative term. [...]we should not designate him the "Unbegotten" instead of "Father," at least if we are not going to claim a wisdom superior to the teachings of the Savior who said: "Go, baptize in the name of the Father" (Matt 28.19), but not in the name of the Unbegotten.82 Basil's argument here is a version of George of Laodicea's second and third arguments on the comprehensiveness of "Father" over against "Unbegotten" and its status as a relative name.