Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Binitarianism and Trinitarianism
Hall claims that the writings of the early apologists indicate that
their theology was more binitarian than trinitarian. They tend to speak
of God and his Word (logos),
rather than of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Note though that other definitions of
binitarianism are possible: see for example Barnes' Early Christian
Binitarianism: the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Binitarianism has been linked to the desire of the Apologists to speak to a Greek audience in a way they could understand. So, their theology would have been influenced by Greek philosophy and by gnostic thought (more on gnosticism later). Cf. The Development of Trinitarianism in the Patristic Period.
Indeed, at least in the objections to Christianity I have considered so far, Christians seem identified with the adoration of two deities: cf. the notes on Celsus and Octavius. This is already a clear departure from the unitarianism of the OT (so that Celsus accuses them of polytheism). In the same objections, the Holy Spirit is not clearly identifiable.
At the same time, it seems to me that binitarian theology is not consistently affirmed across the early Apologists, and perhaps not even within single individuals: for example, Athenagoras clearly speaks of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ("effluence form God"). Justin shows, on the one hand, a binitarian thought reminding of the Greek logos; for example:
On the other hand, he also acknowledges the presence of three persons and the authority of the Trinity (or, perhaps better, a Triad):
And, speaking of the baptism:
We then have Theophilus of Antioch (180-185), a pagan converted to Christianity, who on the one hand rejects with great contempt Greek philosophers and thought (claiming among other things that the Greek writings were later than the divinely inspired books of the OT), and on the other very clearly defines the nature of God using Greek concepts (and especially clarifying the function of the logos): God is without beginning, uncreated, unchangeable; this God
On the other hand, another ancient writer (Hermas) affirms the opposite, i.e. the Son is subordinate to the Holy Spirit:
The position of Barnes (binitarianism = Father/Holy Spirit) is interesting, and it moves from Justin's Dialogue with Trypho. Its main assumption, derived from the fact that both Justin and Trypho refer to the Holy Spirit without arguing about it, is that Judaism and early Christianity share a pneumatology. The Jewish pneumatological streams he refers to are angel pneumatology and the arrival of the sent spirit (association of the Spirit with prophecy in the Second Temple period). The conclusion would be that, if in an early Christian text we find extensive treatment of the Holy Spirit, then that text would have a Jewish-Christian character. In this regard, it would be interesting to learn more about Syriac Christianity. But his theory seems at least right with Hermas and his superiority of the Holy Spirit over the Son, as Hermas shows a distinct Jewish influence.
Concepts that may have influenced the birth of the God/Logos couple are the dualism between spirit and matter and the Stoic distinction between immanent Word and expressed Word. Another important point may be the desire of some Christian theologians to supplement (or replace) the historical Jesus with docetists theories (remember Ignatius and Valentinus). It is anyway quite debatable whether the theological concept of Trinity can be said to have a biblical foundation.
Categories: Church_History
Binitarianism has been linked to the desire of the Apologists to speak to a Greek audience in a way they could understand. So, their theology would have been influenced by Greek philosophy and by gnostic thought (more on gnosticism later). Cf. The Development of Trinitarianism in the Patristic Period.
Indeed, at least in the objections to Christianity I have considered so far, Christians seem identified with the adoration of two deities: cf. the notes on Celsus and Octavius. This is already a clear departure from the unitarianism of the OT (so that Celsus accuses them of polytheism). In the same objections, the Holy Spirit is not clearly identifiable.
At the same time, it seems to me that binitarian theology is not consistently affirmed across the early Apologists, and perhaps not even within single individuals: for example, Athenagoras clearly speaks of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ("effluence form God"). Justin shows, on the one hand, a binitarian thought reminding of the Greek logos; for example:
'Let Us make,'--I shall quote again the words narrated by Moses himself, from which we can indisputably learn that[God] conversed with some one who was numerically distinct from Himself, and also a rational Being. These are the words:'And God said, Behold, Adam has become as one of us, to know good and evil.' In saying, therefore,'as one of us,'[Moses] has declared that[there is a certain] number of persons associated with one another, and that they are at least two. [...] But this Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with Him.(Dialogue with Trypho, LXII)
On the other hand, he also acknowledges the presence of three persons and the authority of the Trinity (or, perhaps better, a Triad):
Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught.(First Apology, V)
And, speaking of the baptism:
For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.(First Apology, LXI)
We then have Theophilus of Antioch (180-185), a pagan converted to Christianity, who on the one hand rejects with great contempt Greek philosophers and thought (claiming among other things that the Greek writings were later than the divinely inspired books of the OT), and on the other very clearly defines the nature of God using Greek concepts (and especially clarifying the function of the logos): God is without beginning, uncreated, unchangeable; this God
stands in need of nothing. God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things.I would then say that Greek influence (think for example of Plato's Timaeus) had a decisive impact in moving away from unitarism and in the definition and expression of the new theological concepts of God/Logos and Father/Son/Spirit. The early Apologists have not arrived yet at a consistent trinitarian definition, but there are already signs of it. Speaking of Justin, Hall suggests that Jesus in the passages above is not identified with the logos (which seems clear), and may be regarded as an angel. But this does not fully explain either the passages above or the fact that the Holy Spirit seems subordinated to the Son (besides the Father).
(To Autolycus, II.X)
On the other hand, another ancient writer (Hermas) affirms the opposite, i.e. the Son is subordinate to the Holy Spirit:
And why the Lord took His Son as councillor, and the glorious angels, regarding the heirship of the slave, listen. The holy, pre-existent Spirit, that created every creature, God made to dwell in flesh, which He chose. This flesh, accordingly, in which the Holy Spirit dwelt, was nobly subject to that Spirit, walking reli 36 giously and chastely, in no respect defiling the Spirit; and accordingly, after living excellently and purely, and after labouring and co-operating with the Spirit, and having in everything acted vigorously and courageously along with the Holy Spirit, He assumed it as a partner with it.(Shepherd, Fifth Similitude, VI)
The position of Barnes (binitarianism = Father/Holy Spirit) is interesting, and it moves from Justin's Dialogue with Trypho. Its main assumption, derived from the fact that both Justin and Trypho refer to the Holy Spirit without arguing about it, is that Judaism and early Christianity share a pneumatology. The Jewish pneumatological streams he refers to are angel pneumatology and the arrival of the sent spirit (association of the Spirit with prophecy in the Second Temple period). The conclusion would be that, if in an early Christian text we find extensive treatment of the Holy Spirit, then that text would have a Jewish-Christian character. In this regard, it would be interesting to learn more about Syriac Christianity. But his theory seems at least right with Hermas and his superiority of the Holy Spirit over the Son, as Hermas shows a distinct Jewish influence.
Concepts that may have influenced the birth of the God/Logos couple are the dualism between spirit and matter and the Stoic distinction between immanent Word and expressed Word. Another important point may be the desire of some Christian theologians to supplement (or replace) the historical Jesus with docetists theories (remember Ignatius and Valentinus). It is anyway quite debatable whether the theological concept of Trinity can be said to have a biblical foundation.
Categories: Church_History
