What do you think?
Rate this book
A Brief History of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Early Church
Franz Dünzl gives an account of the formation of the doctrine of the Trinity in a narrative based on contemporary as he remarks in the preface, he wants to describe the human struggle over the truth of the Christian image of God and as far as possible let the early Christians speak for themselves. His main concern is to describe the dynamic of the disputes over the theology of the Trinity in a vivid way which is easy to follow, pointing out the foundations of the doctrine and the decisive shifts in its development. He tries to see the often bitter discussion not as a barren dispute but as an evolutionary process in which the rivalry is a necessary and positive factor in moving the debate forward.
After an introduction to the problem, the book describes the beginning of christology and the first models of the relationship between 'Father' and 'Son': it then describes the controversies leading up to the Council of Nicaea, which are discussed at length, going on to show how Nicaea didn't settle the question and continuing the account up to the Council of Constantinople in 381. It brings out the political influences which governed this second stage of the discussion in an illuminating way. A survey and bibliography round the book off.
After an introduction to the problem, the book describes the beginning of christology and the first models of the relationship between 'Father' and 'Son': it then describes the controversies leading up to the Council of Nicaea, which are discussed at length, going on to show how Nicaea didn't settle the question and continuing the account up to the Council of Constantinople in 381. It brings out the political influences which governed this second stage of the discussion in an illuminating way. A survey and bibliography round the book off.
162 pages, Paperback
First published October 30, 2007
3 people are currently reading
63 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
April 14, 2019
This short history of Trinitarian thinking is largely fairly approachable, though the innate density of some of the ideas does keep it from being as accessible as one might wish for.
Dunzl begins his discussion with a brief statement about the problem--that Christianity claims monotheism but also claims more than one entity as God. This has made both Jews and Muslims claim that the monotheistic stamp is incorrectly placed upon it. How did Christianity continue to make monotheistic claims?
Early Christians claimed Jesus as God. How they did this depended on various sects. Dunzl looks in part at the Ebionites (p. 8), a group who rejected the synoptic Gospels, keeping only a Hebrew Matthew and positing adoptionism. Early versions of the Gospels, as Dunzl denotes with mainstream views on the cannon, did not include information on the birth of Jesus. Mark is our first Gospel and starts with Jesus's baptism and ministry. His place as God's chosen starts at that baptism, when the Spirit descends on him in the form of a dove--he's adopted as God's son. However, later views would come to see him as God's son from birth, coming from a virgin.
How does one reconcile the idea of Jesus the Son as one with the Father, even if subordinate to him? Jewish concepts of a second type of power, be it an angel or logos or wisdom, were extent in the Old Testament scriptures. Philo took such ideas and tried to reconcile them with Platonic philosophy, seeing in the Logos Plato's concept of the transcendent one and the expression or copy of that one in the lower physical world (p. 12). This idea would also find form in Christianity. The early writing, The Shepherd of Hermas, shows another theory: that Jesus was God's Spirit embodied or made flesh (p. 13).
The next chapter focuses on a debate between the Monarchians and the "Logos" theologians. The former were essentially modalists. They argued that God was one because he exists in different modes--a mode as Father (during which he does not suffer) and a mode as Son (during which he does). The main scriptures for this argument are John 10:38 and 14:8-10, wherein Jesus proclaims himself to be in the Father and the Father in him, and that if one has seen the Son, one has seen the Father. Logos theologians, however, would point to other scriptures to show how such modalism was nonsense. Take, for example, John 1:1--if the Word is with God and is God, and they are the same, then one could not say that God was with God and was God. Or John 8:17, where Jesus says two bear witness of him--himself and his father. If there are just modes, there is only one witness: himself and himself. Even the grammer of "I and my Father are one" suggests plural--not one person but one in unity. These were arguments of Tertullian against modalism (pp. 31-32).
Logos theologians focused on John 1:1 but also often drew ideas from Greek philosophy. Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho (56.11) claims there are "two Gods" but that the second is subordinate to the first in will--that is, there is only one will. But such an idea would still not have satisfied the tenets of strict monotheists. Leave it to Tertullian to begin to explain the concept in a more "acceptable" form--only he brings in a third entity, the Holy Spirit. The three are of one substance but of three forms or gradations. He compares the Father to water, the stream to Logos, and the Spirit to a canal. All emanate from the Father--are eternally begotten by him. The Logos brings forth salvation to the people, like a river, and the Spirit is distributed to the people like a canal distributes water (p. 32). Origen of Alexandria would take this idea even farther, coming up with much of the language that would later become standard (though at his time, such words didn't have yet the distinctive meaning they would come to have among theologians), describing the three as three hypostases of the one God.
Enter Arius. A presbyter in Egypt, where such men were essentially like bishops of small churches in other areas, Arius came up with an idea to maintain monotheism. Jesus, in his view, was begotten by God--essentially created by him. Being created, he was not the "real" god. In this manner, one could say Christians had only one God. This idea didn't sit well with the bishop of Alexandria, who worked to get Arius kicked out of the church. Arius appealed with his ideas to others in the eastern church and gained some other supporters, including several bishops.
The debate was serious enough that it came to the attention of the emperor, Constantine. Wanting unity in the faith that he was using to maintain unity in the empire, Constantine convened a meeting of bishops. The issue wasn't as big a deal in the West, so many from the West did not attend, but most eastern bishops did--260 in all came. The compromise worked out by Eusebius (the one who became the Christian historian) worded the belief in such a way that both Logos theologians and Arians could accept it. Alas, this was not satisfactory to the Logos theologians, so the eventual creed passed included several phrases that clarified the position such that no Arian could support it; further, an appendix was added that directly refuted Arianism.
Despite this, the main supporters of Arianism weren't kicked out of the church. Rather, they were banished to less prominent locations. Constantine's main goal was unity; he wanted all to get along.
Alas, the solution did not prove a lasting one. The rest of the story becomes one of constant political intrigues and ongoing further attempts either to overthrow the Council of Nicea's findings or to finesse them. Over the course of years following Nicea, some worked to try to get various bishops defrocked or pushed to the edges of the empire by making various accusations of immorality rather than even discussing the issues at hand.
One man with a "new" theory that essentially repeated many of the ideas of the modalists was Marcellus. He managed to endear himself and his ideas of the bishops in the west, bringing about a sort of schism in concepts between the eastern and western bishops. More synods and councils followed, under later emperors, finally settling out under the emperor Theodosius at the Council of Constantinople.
Dunzl begins his discussion with a brief statement about the problem--that Christianity claims monotheism but also claims more than one entity as God. This has made both Jews and Muslims claim that the monotheistic stamp is incorrectly placed upon it. How did Christianity continue to make monotheistic claims?
Early Christians claimed Jesus as God. How they did this depended on various sects. Dunzl looks in part at the Ebionites (p. 8), a group who rejected the synoptic Gospels, keeping only a Hebrew Matthew and positing adoptionism. Early versions of the Gospels, as Dunzl denotes with mainstream views on the cannon, did not include information on the birth of Jesus. Mark is our first Gospel and starts with Jesus's baptism and ministry. His place as God's chosen starts at that baptism, when the Spirit descends on him in the form of a dove--he's adopted as God's son. However, later views would come to see him as God's son from birth, coming from a virgin.
How does one reconcile the idea of Jesus the Son as one with the Father, even if subordinate to him? Jewish concepts of a second type of power, be it an angel or logos or wisdom, were extent in the Old Testament scriptures. Philo took such ideas and tried to reconcile them with Platonic philosophy, seeing in the Logos Plato's concept of the transcendent one and the expression or copy of that one in the lower physical world (p. 12). This idea would also find form in Christianity. The early writing, The Shepherd of Hermas, shows another theory: that Jesus was God's Spirit embodied or made flesh (p. 13).
The next chapter focuses on a debate between the Monarchians and the "Logos" theologians. The former were essentially modalists. They argued that God was one because he exists in different modes--a mode as Father (during which he does not suffer) and a mode as Son (during which he does). The main scriptures for this argument are John 10:38 and 14:8-10, wherein Jesus proclaims himself to be in the Father and the Father in him, and that if one has seen the Son, one has seen the Father. Logos theologians, however, would point to other scriptures to show how such modalism was nonsense. Take, for example, John 1:1--if the Word is with God and is God, and they are the same, then one could not say that God was with God and was God. Or John 8:17, where Jesus says two bear witness of him--himself and his father. If there are just modes, there is only one witness: himself and himself. Even the grammer of "I and my Father are one" suggests plural--not one person but one in unity. These were arguments of Tertullian against modalism (pp. 31-32).
Logos theologians focused on John 1:1 but also often drew ideas from Greek philosophy. Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho (56.11) claims there are "two Gods" but that the second is subordinate to the first in will--that is, there is only one will. But such an idea would still not have satisfied the tenets of strict monotheists. Leave it to Tertullian to begin to explain the concept in a more "acceptable" form--only he brings in a third entity, the Holy Spirit. The three are of one substance but of three forms or gradations. He compares the Father to water, the stream to Logos, and the Spirit to a canal. All emanate from the Father--are eternally begotten by him. The Logos brings forth salvation to the people, like a river, and the Spirit is distributed to the people like a canal distributes water (p. 32). Origen of Alexandria would take this idea even farther, coming up with much of the language that would later become standard (though at his time, such words didn't have yet the distinctive meaning they would come to have among theologians), describing the three as three hypostases of the one God.
Enter Arius. A presbyter in Egypt, where such men were essentially like bishops of small churches in other areas, Arius came up with an idea to maintain monotheism. Jesus, in his view, was begotten by God--essentially created by him. Being created, he was not the "real" god. In this manner, one could say Christians had only one God. This idea didn't sit well with the bishop of Alexandria, who worked to get Arius kicked out of the church. Arius appealed with his ideas to others in the eastern church and gained some other supporters, including several bishops.
The debate was serious enough that it came to the attention of the emperor, Constantine. Wanting unity in the faith that he was using to maintain unity in the empire, Constantine convened a meeting of bishops. The issue wasn't as big a deal in the West, so many from the West did not attend, but most eastern bishops did--260 in all came. The compromise worked out by Eusebius (the one who became the Christian historian) worded the belief in such a way that both Logos theologians and Arians could accept it. Alas, this was not satisfactory to the Logos theologians, so the eventual creed passed included several phrases that clarified the position such that no Arian could support it; further, an appendix was added that directly refuted Arianism.
Despite this, the main supporters of Arianism weren't kicked out of the church. Rather, they were banished to less prominent locations. Constantine's main goal was unity; he wanted all to get along.
Alas, the solution did not prove a lasting one. The rest of the story becomes one of constant political intrigues and ongoing further attempts either to overthrow the Council of Nicea's findings or to finesse them. Over the course of years following Nicea, some worked to try to get various bishops defrocked or pushed to the edges of the empire by making various accusations of immorality rather than even discussing the issues at hand.
One man with a "new" theory that essentially repeated many of the ideas of the modalists was Marcellus. He managed to endear himself and his ideas of the bishops in the west, bringing about a sort of schism in concepts between the eastern and western bishops. More synods and councils followed, under later emperors, finally settling out under the emperor Theodosius at the Council of Constantinople.
January 7, 2023
A clear and engaging survey of the development of Trinitarian doctrine in the early church, depicting important lessons like the role of heresy in forcing doctrinal clarity, terminological ambiguity having the possibility of being appropriated by heretics, political influence on doctrine as a result of the dynamics of church and politics, and God's providence throughout the multilayered dynamics of church history. The author skillfully interweaves discussion of history, theology, philosophy, and politics.
This would have been a four-star rating if not for the writer's questionable theological application at some points. Admittedly, the majority of theological analysis conducted is fairly apt and insightful. However, the author in multiple places seems to implicitly deny Biblical inspiration (with the concomitant ramifications of the rejection of inerrancy and infallibility), for instance advancing the notion that there are different Christological strands throughout the Gospels, with Mark having a lower Christology than the others on account of being first written. This is theologically tenuous because Mark records Jesus at His trial claiming Dan. 7:13-14 and Psalm 110:1, and obviously also because this is a flat out rejection of inspiration. Sure, God cannot be fully comprehended due to certain categorical and conceptual limitations, but God can choose to reveal what He may to His creatures through language, so that He can be at least positively (in the technical sense) understood and known via intellectual faculties (incidentally the same intellectual faculties which He formed).
This would have been a four-star rating if not for the writer's questionable theological application at some points. Admittedly, the majority of theological analysis conducted is fairly apt and insightful. However, the author in multiple places seems to implicitly deny Biblical inspiration (with the concomitant ramifications of the rejection of inerrancy and infallibility), for instance advancing the notion that there are different Christological strands throughout the Gospels, with Mark having a lower Christology than the others on account of being first written. This is theologically tenuous because Mark records Jesus at His trial claiming Dan. 7:13-14 and Psalm 110:1, and obviously also because this is a flat out rejection of inspiration. Sure, God cannot be fully comprehended due to certain categorical and conceptual limitations, but God can choose to reveal what He may to His creatures through language, so that He can be at least positively (in the technical sense) understood and known via intellectual faculties (incidentally the same intellectual faculties which He formed).
February 6, 2024
Does what the title says. Basically, using Greek language, philosophy, and politics to describe brilliant Hebrew thought causes big problems, broad division, and bad ideas.
December 4, 2012
A Great Little Volume!!! Good stuff. An excellent introduction! Dunzl is a excellent communicator and has a superb grasp of the subject. One of the best books on historical theology in general and this subject in particular that I have ever read. He is an excellent communicator, but don't misunderstand his accessible and clear communication style as having a simplistic understanding... he looks at everything from theological exegesis, socio-economical and political factors, etc. ad infinitum as he traces the development of how the Church (East and West) has come to different conclusions (and experiences) of God. Very stimulating conversation also on monotheism in general... Louth compares his thought somewhat to those of St. John of Damascus in this regard... I am not fully persuaded of that, but nonetheless, what a commendation that is from one of today's most important theologians. The book is very expensive, given its size... so look somewhere else to get it (like a library), yet I suspect, if you are anything like me, after reading it - you WILL want your own copy :)
April 9, 2012
Short Review: I wish this were a cheaper book, because I would buy several copies and give them away. My main takeaway is that Doctrine is the attempt to speak of God faithfully to our culture, but it is limited to the tools that are available to our language, philosophy and culture. The Trinity was an attempt to communicate something that the early church knew was real, but even now we do not fully have the language and philosophical system to really communicate the reality of God. This gives a good background on both the philosophical issues, the cultural struggle, the political reality and the theological issues of the early church. I highly recommend picking up a copy if you can find a cheap copy somewhere.
It is a translated book (originally written in German) and even though it is written to be accessible, the issues still will require some struggle to understand and read.
My full review is on my blog at http://bookwi.se/the-doctrine-of-the-...
It is a translated book (originally written in German) and even though it is written to be accessible, the issues still will require some struggle to understand and read.
My full review is on my blog at http://bookwi.se/the-doctrine-of-the-...
Read
April 8, 2012An excellent, short accessible introduction to the theological and political debates and conflicts in the early Church - both East and West - focussed on the relationship between the Father and the Son and the wider question of the Trinity. Traces from brief look at New Testament through Logos Theologians vs Monarchians and the Arian Controversy, Nicea (325), the post-Nicene controversies and up to Constantinople (381).
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews