Scanned Using Book Scancenter 5022
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Bogdan G. Bucur 1. SCHOLARSHIP ON THE OLD TESTAMENT ROOTS OF TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY Blind Spots and Blurred Vision Introduction In what follows, I offer two critical observations on scholarly treatments of the emergence of Trinitarian theology in early Christianity. I discuss, first, the hypothesis that the early Christian appropriation of the Old Testament, especially of biblical theophanies, led, in a first stage, to the formation of “binitarian monotheism,” followed later by the full-blown Trinitarianism that would constitute the classic position of the church. It seems to me that this ac count is emblematic for the type of problems associated with the entire proj ect of giving a scholarly account of early Trinitarian doctrine. The second part of the essay will examine some of the biblical texts that have played an import ant role in the articulation of early Trinitarian theology—namely. Genesis i8, Isaiah 6, and Habakkuk 3:2 (LXX). My thesis is that the exegetical, doctrinal, hymnographic, and iconographie productions that illustrate the reception history of these texts offer a variety of exegetical approaches, which, however, are not adequately distinguished by the current scholarly concepts. 30 BOGDAN G. BUCUR Is Binitarian Monotheism a First Step toward Trinitarian Theology? Scholars of early Christianity such as Gilles Quispel, Jarl Possum, Alan Se gal, Larry Hurtado, Daniel Boyarin, and Richard Bauckham often note that Christian worship and theological reflection in the early centuries are character ized by a “binitarian” pattern.’ Although the terms vary in scholarship—“relative dualism,” “binitarian dualism,” “complementary dualism,” “Jewish ‘two-power’ traditions,” “heterodox Jewish binitarianism,” or, more recendy, “dyadic devo tional pattern”—the point is to conceptualize the early Christian worship of Je sus as Lord and God within the context of continued exclusive devotion to the Lord God of Israel. The defining mark of the emerging Jesus movement would be that, while similar to the “two-power” theology characteristic of the prerab- binic or nonrabbinic forms of Judaism (e.g., Philo’s language of Logos as “second God”; the memra-theology of the Targums), it views the “second power,” the Logos, as having “become flesh and hved among us” ( Jn 1:14) and being set forth to be worshipped as “Lord and God” (Jn zo:z8) in a culnc setting. But “binitarian”/ “binitarianism” is an older coinage. In an 1898 encyclo pedia article on Christology, Friedrich Loofs first used “binitarischer Mono theismus” to designate an early stage of Christian reflection at which the heav enly reality of Christ was thought of not in terms of a preexistent Tóyoi;, but rather as a Ttveupa whose distinction from God begins only at the indwelling of the man Jesus. As such, binitarianism is associated with Geistchristologie—another favor ite Loofsian term, designating the inability to account theologically for a dis tinction between Pneuma and Logos. Loofs’s concept of “binitarianism” en tered Adc)lf von Harnack’s Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, starting with the fourth edition, in 1909. Since then, a large group of early Christian writers have been diagnosed with Geistchristologie and binitarianism, and the combi nation of the two is generally viewed as a sort of growing pains in the matura tion of early Trinitarian theology. The discussion of the pre-Nicene Trinitarian deficiency and the problems it raises for classical definitions of faith is a much older one, however, already I. For a more extensive account, sec Bogdan G. Bucur, “‘Early Christian Binitarianism’: From Reli gious Phenomenon to Polemical Insult to Scholarly Concept,” Modem Theology 17 (1011): lo i-io . ROOTS OF TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY 31 in filli swing in the seventeenth century. I have in mind a treatise published in 1700, bearing the title Platonism Unveiled, or an Essay Coi^cerning the Notions and Opinions of Plato and Some Ancient and Modem Divines, His Followers, in Relation to the Logos, or Word, in Particular, and the Doctrine of the Trini ty in General. The author, Matthieu Souverain (1656-1700), who was a mas ter of many languages and well versed in both patristic and rabbinic literature, argued that the scriptural references to the second and third persons of the Trinity were initially meant in reference to God’s Shekinah. That early Chris tians misunderstood this circumlocution for God himself is only due to the growing influence of Greek thought over their theology—hence. Souverains stated intention of unveiling the source of “the doctrine of Trinity iA general”: Platonism! One step back from Souverain’s sophisticated discourse and it be comes abundandy clear that the same ideas were put forth by Unitarian theo logians at war with the early church’s “absurd,” “monstrous,” “heathen,” “hor rible” fabrication—the doctrine of the Trinity. This sort of anti-Trinitarian controversy literature found that the pure tradition of the aposdes had been corrupted by “Platonism” and often points to Justin Martyr as a prime exam ple of the phenomenon. This is not without irony, since the mantra of scholar ship in the past century has been that Justin is not a good enough Trinitarian! It is clear that in the original (Loofsian) setting, Geistchristolo^e and “binitarianism” are not objective descriptors o f an early Christian phenom enon, but notions carrying significant theological freight. Less obvious— or at least less discussed— are the theological assumptions that undergird the more recent use o f “binitarian” and “binitarianism.” It is true that Loofs and his followers write about the early church’s attempts at altering an originally low view o f Jesus o f Nazareth by positing his preexistence in terms o f “spirit” and, later, by articulating a Logos doctrine o f Hellenic import, while the more recent scholars mentioned previously are concerned with the emergence of a very early high Christology. Nevertheless, we are dealing in both cases with scholarly descriptions of a first stage in the development that led, eventual ly, to full Trinitarian theology. It is significant in this respect that Segal au thored an essay entitled, ‘“Two Powers in Heaven’ and Early Christian Trini tarian Thinking,” and that Hurtado quotes approvingly Darryl Hannah’s view that the Ascension o f Isaiah reflects “a primitive effort at what later became Trinitarian doctrine” and himself speaks o f “the struggle to work out doctri- 32 BOGDAN G. BUCUR nal formulations that could express in some coherent way this peculiar view of God as ‘one’ and yet somehow comprising ‘the Father’ and Jesus, thereafier also including the Spirit as the third ‘Person of the Trinity’."'^ It seems, then, that the characterization of earliest Christian devotion as binitarian or dyadic—a form of “two powers in heaven”—includes the anticipation of a later “triadic” stage—let’s call it “three powers in heaven”—that is identified with the classi cal Christian Trinitarian doctrine. Both the two-step evolutionary process leading from a binitarian to a Trinitarian pattern of worship and the assumed theoretical framework for thinking God as Trinity are problematic. Let me start with the latter and ap peal to the witness of Gregory of Nazianzus, the champion of classic Trinitar ian theology. Addressing those who possess a theology of the divine Son but refuse to grant the same status to the Spirit, Gregory writes {Orat. 31.13-14); Though ... you are in revolt from the Spirit, you worship the Son. What right have you, to accuse us of tritheism—are you not ditheists (tí (jjare toîç TpiGelraiç ^gív ... ûgsiç §£ où SiGeÎTKi)? ... If you do revere the Son ... we shall put a question to you: What defense would you make, were you charged with ditheism? ... The very ar guments you can use to rebut the accusation will suffice for us against the charge of tri theism. It is obvious that “ditheism” is used here as a rhetorical put-down of his adversaries. Their accusation—adding a third term to the divinity amounts to “tritheism”—applies to their own addition of the Son to the “one God” of scripture, and they know full well that such a charge is refuted by stating that the distinction of the hypostases does not preclude the fundamental oneness of the divinity. They are, indeed, “ditheists”—that is, they believe in distinct powers,” which happen to be two—and Gregory’s accusation corresponds to the rabbinic pharge against those who worship “two powers in heaven” and thereby also to the scholarly notion of “binitarianism.” By contrast, Gregory’s own theology is not “tritheistic” according to the same logic, since it does not count several powers but, as he states repeatedly, “the one single Godhead and Power.” In short, the Christian worship of God as Trinity, at least as defended z. Alan F. Segal, “'Two Powers in Heaven’ and Early Christian Trinitarian Ihinldng,’’ in The Trin ity; An Interdisciplinarry Symposium on the Trinity, ed. Stephen Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O ’Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 73-95, and Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eetdmans, 1003), 6oo, 651 (emphasis added). ROOTS OF TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY 33 by Nazianzen, is not triadic. This is why it is problematic to state that the bini- tarian pattern o f worship characteristic o f earliest Christianity constitutes “a primitive effort at what later became Trinitarian doctrine.” Some hesitation about the notion that the first-century worship of Je sus “at the right hand of God” (Heb 1:3; 8:1; io:iz; Rom 8:34; Acts 7:55-56; I Pt y.ix\ Mk 16:19/M t 2-6:64/ Lk 22:69) be described as “binitarian” or “dyadic” is also warranted. For early Christians the Holy Spirit is not so much a “third power in heaven” as the very condition for the possibility of a confession of Jesus as Lord.