Yep, that is a good way of putting it, Narkissos. Perhaps there was as much a gulf between Tertullian's trinity and the Nicene trinity of the fourth century as there was between Tertullian's theology and that of Paul or John. Tertullian had a trinitarian doctrine, but it was far different from that of the later creeds.
When did early church "fathers" first unequivocally write of Trinity?
by True North 21 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
True North
Leolaia,
Thanks for the survey of early Trinitarian writings. I thought the idea of the Son being coequal but not coeternal with the Father particularly interesting. I wonder if this conception of the Trinity might be easier to defend against the spin that JWs put on certain scriptures in their anti-Trinitarian arguments.
I gather that you view the doctrine of the Trinity as something that evolved over time until it became fixed in its present form in Constantine's day. Do you feel that it developed from an original "primitive" Unitarian view that was held by Christians as a whole? Or do you think that their conception(s) of the nature of the relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was varied and/or confused from the start?
BTW, any other comments regarding the other parts of my query? ("How about when they first unequivocally wrote of the Unitarian/Arian viewpoint? And when did one view versus the other first become an issue?").
-- True North
-
barry
I beleive part of the problem that ccomes up time and time again is the concept of developement of doctrine. Vincent of lerins said in the fifth centery 'christian doctrine is developed' just as a child grows into a man. That is the very example he used for eg the early christians had slaves later the idear was developed a christian haveing a slave was against christian principles was written by Augustine.
The doctrine of 'Justification by faith ' wasnt developed until the time of the Reformation in the 15th century so how can we not beleive the trinity developed in the forth century.
I think Arian a priest from Egypt put forth his idears in the fourth century.
The Nicean creed was a creed taken from a local creed. In fact during the first few centuries there were hundreds of creeds all with the same basic structure of father , son , holy spirit and other articals
A creed from the second century found during the last century says something like,
I beleive in God the father creator of the universe .
and in his son our lord
and in the holy spirit
and in the forgiveness of sins
and in the holy catholic church
Just as vincent of lerins wrote christian doctrine is developed, this looks just like the nicean creed in embrionic form.
-
funkyderek
We do not know exactly what the Nicene Fathers originally wrote, seeing the first autographs have been lost to history. We have only copies of copies. The manuscripts that we possess have been altered, reworked, amended, interpolated, redacts, rescinded, and outrightly forged.
ThiChi, isn't that also true of the bible?
-
Satanus
Thichi
The Catholic Church is a past master at forging and "reworking" historical documents. The greatest forgery of all time (and believed genuine for centuries) was the so-called "Donation of Constantine." This was a product of the Catholic Church, as were the Isodorian Decretals and a host of other false documents.
Well, the catholic church brought us the nt bible, didn't it? People still think it's genuine.
SS
-
Leolaia
Do you feel that it developed from an original "primitive" Unitarian view that was held by Christians as a whole? Or do you think that their conception(s) of the nature of the relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was varied and/or confused from the start?
Gospel of Thomas 13:1-4, Mark 8:27-30, Luke 9:18-22, and Matthew 16:13-20 suggest that very early on there were competing christologies about who Jesus was: whether he was a returned prophet like Elijah, whether he was John the Baptist resurrected from the dead, whether he was a wise philosopher (perhaps even heavenly Wisdom incarnate), a righteous angel, the Son of God, and so forth. The humanity of Jesus was not universally shared (e.g. the early popularity of docetism), and neither was his deity. The NT writers did not possess a worked-out, rationally coherent christology of Jesus. They could praise Jesus Christ as God and apply OT scriptures referring to Yahweh to him, yet have no doctrine resolving the tension between Jesus' Godship and the Father's Godship. This is even more apparent in the epistles of Ignatius, who freely and almost excessively confessed Jesus to be God, even in ways that would be considered heretical in the later Church (e.g. in blurring the distinction between the Father and the Son). Hermas of Rome also appeared to have a somewhat confused christology. I think the two early components that pushed orthodox theology in the direction towards the Trinity is the Johannine confession of Jesus as God and the tripartite baptismal formula (echoes of which in triadic formulae are found throughout the NT and in the early Fathers). Arianism, or Unitarianism, is a specific theology that developed at a specific time -- just like the Trinity it contains elements that are far older (e.g. its angel christology, interpreting monogenes "only-begotten" as referring to unique creation, interpreting the distinction between the Son and Father as a matter of nature and not role, etc.) which arose in different places at different times -- but like the Trinity it is a specific formulation dating to the fourth century. Similarly, the WT christology of Jesus is quite possibly unique in its specific formulation and thus dates only to the 19th century. My 5 cents....
-
ThiChi
""ThiChi, isn't that also true of the bible?""
Good question.
I have provided proof of period forgeries thought genuine. Some dismiss this fact as if somehow the Post Apostolic writings could not have suffered the same fate, at least to some degree. In fact, many Books attributed to the Nicene Fathers are suspect.
Notwithstanding, the Fathers who outwardly considered Jesus only as Gods son in their writings, were condemned as Heretics by the Catholic Church. Can you name them?
Regarding the Bible as we know it, I believe discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm a consistency in the writing that have been preserved to our day.
-
Leolaia
Regarding the Bible as we know it, I believe discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm a consistency in the writing that have been preserved to our day.
From The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (Wise, Abegg, & Cook):
"The 'Dead Sea Bible' is the oldest group of Old Testament manuscripts ever found -- at least a thousand years older than the traditional Hebrew texts from the early medieval period that have been the basis of all our modern Bible translations. In many cases, the scrolls have supported the traditional text of the Bible, but in others, what they say in particular verses agrees with nontraditional versions like the Septuagint. At other times, the scrolls contain differences more profound than the readings of individual verses. They preserve 'editions' of entire biblical books that differ from the traditional text. For example, two forms of the book of Jeremiah have emerged from the caves, one agreeing with that usually printed and translated in modern Bibles, the other about 15 percent shorter and with the contents in a different order. Several versions of the book of Psalms have likewise come to light. These versions differ greatly from one another, in particular from Psalm 90 onward. Psalm 90-150 are arranged in different orders, and what is more, some of the manuscripts include additional, previously unknown psalms. The content and form of the book of Psalms was manifestly in flux in the period when the scrolls were written. In a similar vein, the discovery of the scrolls has uncovered the existence in this period of anthologies of biblical excerpts, of 'rewritten Bibles', and of lost sources used, perhaps, by the writers of the biblical books. The additions were intended to give a particular 'spin' to the biblical portions being interpreted. In short, the scrolls have proben that some of the Jews of Jesus' day knew and used more than one form of many biblical books, and it seems not to have disturbed them or driven them to resolve the differences. There was as yet no agreed upon 'canon' of the Bible" (pp. 11-12).
-
Narkissos
Just for the sake of clarity: the Qumran "Bible" manuscripts as described in Leolaia's quote are exclusively OT texts. For most NT texts we are entirely dependent on Catholic copies from the 4th century onward. Only a few older fragmentary copies of some NT texts have been found to this day.
-
OK Computer
Interesting thread...
The Wisdom of Solomon in its *Wisdom* specualtion seesms to hint at language the so-called Trinitarian language the NT used of the Son and the Spirit. I doubt the author viewed Wisdom as a person, but Paul definitely did, and applied some of these applications to the Son. (But not the Spirit, at least not the more personal qualities)
W.O.S, 7:24-26 ".... And she (Wisdom) penetrates and permeates evrything, because she is so pure; For she is the breath of the power of God, And a pure emanation of his Almighty glory;..... For she is a reflection of the everlasting light, And a spotless mirror of the activity of God" (Smith and Goodspeeds)
Sirach 1:4 :" Wisdom was created before them all" (before all others...JB)
Paul borrows this in the NT
Hebrews 1:3 " He is the reflection of God's glory, and the representation of his very being"
Colossians 1:15 "He is the image of the invisible God, the First-born of all creation"
Lynn
"Ambition makes you look pretty ugly"