Chronological New Testament & Dating of the Apostolic Fathers

    Knowing when a given early Christian writing was composed can notably impact one’s study of the text. Which events and teachings precipitated others? What does comparison of relatively contemporary writings tell us about the Church at that period, and how might this contrast with subsequent generations? Etc. This shall be the first of several blogs in which I share what I’ve found on this subject in my reading of patristic scholarship. I shall begin with the sub-Apostolic generation (most frequently referred to as the “Apostolic Fathers”), but before reviewing the earliest extra-biblical writings I’ll first review the chronology of the New Testament itself. This I compiled some time ago when I became interested in seeing if my next reading of the New Testament might be given added perspective by reading it in the chronological order of the events relayed, and indeed has become my favorite way to read the Apostolic witnesses. This was largely derived from the dates given in The Orthodox Study Bible, which are as follows:

    Matthew: "could have been written as early as AD 50, but is more likely that it was written after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70." (pg. 125)

    Mark: "the exact date of the writing is uncertain. . . . may be dated before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70." (pg. 1328)

    Luke: "probably wrote his gospel either from Greece or from Asia Minor in AD 70-80." (pg. 1359)

    John: "written about AD 96." (pg. 1418)

    Acts: "was written about AD 75-85, some time after the composition of Luke." (pg. 1468)

    Romans: "was probably written in AD 55-57" (pg. 1519)

    1 Corinthians: "was probably written from Ephesus around AD 55" (pg. 1550)

    2 Corinthians: "written the same year as 1 Corinthians (c. AD 55)" (pg. 1573)

    Ephesians: "Paul probably wrote Ephesians from Rome during his imprisonment in AD 61-63" (pg. 1597)

    Philippians: “Paul probably wrote Philippians while he was under house arrest in Rome in about AD 61-63” (pg. 1611)

    Colossians: "was written at the same time as Ephesians and Philemon." (pg. 1617)

    1 Thessalonians: "was written in Corinth in AD 50-51" (pg. 1623)

    2 Thessalonians: "was written in AD 51" (pg. 1629)

    1 Timothy: "Probably AD 64-65." (pg. 1632)

    2 Timothy: "AD 65-67." (pg. 1640)

    Titus: "AD 63-65." (pg. 1645)

    Philemon: "AD 61-63." (pg. 1650)

    Hebrews: "The content of the epistle and the witness of the early Church argue for some time near AD 70." (pg. 1652)

    James: "AD 55-60." (pg. 1673)

    1 Peter: "sometime in AD 50-67." (pg. 1682)

    2 Peter: "the date is likely AD 63-67" (pg. 1690)

    1 John: "a time late in John's life, about the same time as he wrote his gospel (AD 90-95)." (pg. 1696)

    2 John: "AD 90-95" (pg. 1704)

    3 John: "AD 90-95" (pg. 1706)

    Jude: "sometime in the period of AD 60-80" (pg. 1708)

    Revelation: "AD 81-96" (pg. 1711)

    And from thence the following reading schedule (note that the order of the Gospels, given that the events attested to parallel one another, is instead given in the order of my personal preference in which to read them):

Circa 1-33: Mark, Matthew, John, Luke.

Circa 33-50: Acts 1:1–15:35, James.

Circa 50-51: Acts 15:36–18:11, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians.

Circa 51-55: Acts 18:12–19:20, 1 Corinthians.

Circa 55-57: Acts 19:21–20:3, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans.

Circa 57-61: Acts 20:4–Acts 28:31.

Circa 61-63: Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon, Hebrews.

Circa 63-67: Titus, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, 1 Peter, 2 Peter.

Circa 67-96: Jude, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Revelation.

    The sub-Apostolic writings

    The Didache

    “The question of date is difficult to answer. Besides reckoning with possible later modifications in transmission, one must consider the evidences of compilation in the Didache. What is the date of the components? When were these compiled into a document? What is the date of later revisions or insertions? Dates from before A.D. 70 to a century later or some time between the late first or early second century have been proposed for the compilation.”1

    “Since the Didache is a compilation from various sources, the question of its date in fact becomes the question of the age of the traditions of which it is composed and the question of the terminus ante quem of the final redaction of the work. For the latter, we align ourselves with A. Adam and J.-P. Audet, who maintain that the whole of the work goes back to the 1st c. With this, we rule out the late dating of the work to the 2nd c. or later, on account of a supposed use by the Didache of the NT writings and, eventually, of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas; it also seems to us difficult to maintain the thesis that would spread the history of the redaction of the Didache over the first two centuries.”2

    Those are the most current scholarly sources which I have at my disposal, 1999 and 2013, respectively. If we go back to 1947, we have the following:

    “The earlier studies tended to place it between A.D. 70 and 90”3

    Glimm goes on to advocate a later dating, and thus we see that Rordorf advocates a return to the conclusions of the earlier studies. But it should be noted that the earlier views never really went out of vogue. Only a year after the publication of Glimm's work, in 1948, we read the following:

    “since the Didache offers a somewhat modified form of the Apostolic decree (see 6.2 and 3), some time must have elapsed between the year 50 and the date of composition. If we allow the space of a whole decade to have intervened between the two events, we reach the year 60, and it is impossible to disprove the statement of some scholars that the Didache was written, if not in whole, at least in part, between 60 and 70. Others prefer the period between 70 and 80, while still others cling to the following decade, 80-90. It should, therefore, be admitted that we have a thoroughly conservative, and altogether reliable, estimate in the statement of many leading scholars that the Didache was written ‘before the end of the first century.’”4

    When I cite The Didache, I give the full range of Kleist's references, i.e., circa 60-90, in accordance with Rordorf's example of the most current, peer-reviewed, patristic scholarship.

    The Shepherd of Hermas

    In short: “The Shepherd of Hermas is a complex Christian apocalypse written in Greek in stages from ca. A.D. 90 to 150.”5

    To expound on this: “As it appears today, this book contains three great parts: the Visions, the Mandates and the Similitudes (or Parables): it is the work of a compiler who brought together and retouched two pre-2nd-c. books, of which one (corresponding to Visions I-IV) was the work of a certain Hermas and the other (Vision V, Mandates and Similitudes) anonymous. Both works seem to have had Hebrew sources.”6

    This hearkens back to an old scholarly theory which I have long found intriguing despite being unverifiable and outmoded:

    “It would not be a very bold conjecture, that Hermas and his brother were elderly grandchildren of the original Hermas, the friend of St. Paul. The Shepherd, then, might be based upon personal recollections, and upon the traditions of a family which the spirit of prophecy had reproved, and who were monuments of its power.”7

    This notion favoring an emphasis on earlier material aside, I tentatively appeal to the broader scholarly spectrum of circa 90-150.

    Clement of Rome’s epistle To the Corinthians

    “If the incidents mentioned in 1 Clement 1.1 refer to a persecution, then the most likely date for composition would be at Rome during the time of Domitian and the leadership of Clement (ca. 96).”8

    And again:

    “Composed probably ca. AD 96-98, just after Domitian’s persecution”9

    I therefore use the date among the majority of scholars of circa 96 for Clement of Rome’s letter To the Corinthians. It's worth noting that some scholars have attempted to make a case for an earlier dating, and perhaps I'll revisit the subject in the future should this view gain more traction.

    The Epistle of Barnabas

    In short: “The Epistle of Barnabas is usually dated 132-135, although an earlier date in the late 70s has had its champions, and 96-98 is a possibility. The internal evidence is inconclusive.”10

    To expound on this: “Chronology rules out the traditional attribution to the Barnabas of Acts: the epistle postdates the destruction of the temple in 70 (see Barn. 16,3-4). If the foreseen reconstruction of the temple is that of the temple of Capitoline Jove, built by Hadrian on the ruins of the temple of Jerusalem in 131, the epistle must postdate this; the interpretation of the passage is controversial, however, and could refer to either an eventual rebuilding of the temple of Jerusalem or to the building of the temple in the hearts of the faithful. The epistle is ordinarily dated in the first three decades of the 2nd c.; Carleton Paget, however, indicates a probable date of composition between 96-98, under Nerva, hinted at in the obscure reference of Barn. 4,4-5 to the succession of kingdoms symbolized by the horn of the beast of Dan 7:7-8, 19-24.”11

    When I cite The Epistle of Barnabas I give the midrange, at circa 97.

    Ignatius’ various letters

    The conventional dating: “Toward the end of the reign of Trajan (98-117), Ignatius was arrested and, like Paul (Acts 25:11), taken to Rome for judgement. . . . En route to Rome, Ignatius wrote seven letters.”12

    Doubts regarding such dating: “The Chronicle of Eusebius mentions both the martyrdom of Ignatius of Antioch and the letter of Pliny to Trajan around the tenth year of his reign (AD 107), but one can see in HE (3,33,36) that Eusebius did not have precise chronological information either for Ignatius of Antioch or Pliny. Eusebius merely wished to situate the two events approximately: he placed the letter of Pliny under Trajan and hypothesized that Ignatius of Antioch had been arrested during the persecution which the letter of Pliny speaks of. Therefore, we cannot take this date as certain.”13

    An alternative: “Conventionally Ignatius has been dated, following Eusebius, to the reign of the Roman Emperor Trajan. This dating has often been disputed, and there are numerous attempts to assign his work to a later period in the second century, and to claim that the work of Ignatius is a forgery from that period, as well as numerous defenses of the conventional date. However, there is something of a false dichotomy between an authentic Trajanic Ignatius and the later creation of a pseudepigrapher. On this basis, and on the basis of a web of other evidence, I have argued elsewhere that Ignatius is writing in the summer of 134, and that he is travelling in the entourage of the emperor Hadrian, who at the time was returning from Syria to Rome overland, having been engaged in fighting in the Bar Kosiba revolt in Palestine. As such, I suggest, the letters are indeed authentic, but that they date from a later period in the second century than is generally reckoned, though not as late as some modern critics would suggest.”14

    Pending additional peer review of Stewart’s theory, I tentatively date Ignatius’ letters to the conventional circa 107.

    Polycarp’s letter To the Philipians

    The modern patristic scholarship which I have at my disposal does not venture to date Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians. For this I have to refer back to the scholarship of the 1940s:

    “A recent study has made it appear probable that what the manuscripts have handed down as the single letter of St. Polycarp to the Philippians is really composed of two letters to the same persons. The letter earlier in time would comprise chapters 13 and 14 of the traditional text. This would have been a short note to the Philippians, written while St. Ignatius was still on his way to Rome for trial or, at least, before St. Polycarp had received any news of his death (ca. 110). . . .

    “Chapters 1 to 12 form the second letter supposed by the recent analysis of our text. This letter would be surely of later date since, in chapter 9, St. Ignatius is now considered as dead. . . . a date around 135 could be fairly conjectured.”15

    “This two-letter theory separates Ch. 13 (with, or without, the postscript in 14)—’the Covering Note’ which accompanied the batch of Ignatian letters sent by Polycarp to the Philippians—from the rest of the letter, ‘the Crisis Letter,’ that is, Chapters 1-12, which were written at some later time in answer to a wish of the Philippians for an exhortation on Christian life in general and, no doubt, a word of counsel in a crisis that had come upon their community. . . .

    “Since Ignatius visited Smyrna late in August, it follows that Polycarp’s note probably was penned some time in September of the same year.

    “Twenty years or so later (about A.D. 135), the Philippians informed Polycarp of the joy they had experienced in welcoming Ignatius and his fellow prisoners during their stay in the city. Polycarp seizes upon this expression of joy as a fitting starting point for his admonitions.”16

    As for the Martyrdom of Polycarp, these older sources gave various theories as to its dating, which persisted into late 20th century patristic scholarship:

    “The date of Polycarp’s martyrdom is much controverted: between 155 and 159, in 166/7, or in 177.”17

    My most current scholarly source, however, gives the following:

    “Polycarp died a martyr’s death on 23 February 167. . . .
    “Composed shortly after the death of the bishop of Smyrna in the form of a letter sent to the church of Philomelium, the Martyrdom of Polycarp was the first work entirely dedicated to describing the suffering of a martyr and, moreover, the first to use the title ‘martyr’ to refer to a Christian who had died for the faith.”18

    Thus I date the epistle to circa 135, save for the last couple chapters at circa 107, and the account of his martyrdom to circa 167.

    Second Clement

    “difficult to date later than the mid-2nd c.”19

Footnotes

1 Everett Ferguson, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd ed., pg. 328

2 W. Rordorf, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity, 1:709

3 Francis X. Glimm, Fathers of the Church 1:168

4 James A. Kleist, Ancient Christian Writers 6:5-6

5 David E. Aune, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd ed., pg. 521

6 Pierre Nautin, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity 2:220

7 Arthur Cleveland Coxe, Ante-Nicene Fathers 2:4

8 Graydon F. Snyder, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd ed., pg. 264

9 Pier Franco Beatrice, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity 1:549

10 Everett Ferguson, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd ed., pg. 168

11 Francesco Scorza Barcellona, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity 1:333

12 Graydon F. Snyder, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd ed., pg. 559

13 Pierre Nautin, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity 2:317

14 Alistair Stewart, Popular Patristics 49:15-16

15 Francis X. Glimm, Fathers of the Church 1:131-132

16 James A. Kleist, Ancient Christian Writers 6:71-72

17 Everett Ferguson, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd ed., pg. 729

18 Pierre Nautin, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity 3:248

19 Pier F. Beatrice, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity 1:550

On the Subordinationist Model of the Trinity as the Original and Universal Teaching of the Church

 Part I: Definition, Justin Martyr, & Origen

    “Our topic today is what the early Christians believed about the Trinity. Actually I should be able to cover this whole topic in less than a minute simply by saying the early Christians believed the Nicene Creed. That’s what they believed about the Trinity and that should take care of the matter. However, it doesn’t because most professing Christians today actually don’t believe the Nicene Creed. Now, they will tell you that they do believe it, but the truth is they don’t.”1

    Quite a way to start a lecture. Having originally grown up a Lutheran and subsequently finding fellowship in various other Protestant traditions, this bold statement by patristic scholar David Bercot grabbed my attention. An explanation will obviously be required, and at some length despite my having abridged his summations for the sake of relative brevity:

    “The key to having an orthodox scriptural understanding of the Trinity is to grasp that there is a difference between three attributes or terms. They are nature, personal attributes, and order. Let me explain. These terms—again, nature, personal attributes and order—refer to three very different things, yet most western Christians do not grasp this distinction. . . .

    “nature, or substance, refers to the essence or class to which a person or creature belongs. . . . The Nicene Creed affirms that the Father and the Son are of the same nature or substance. The Son isn’t something foreign to the Father; rather, He possesses the same nature as the Father. We could say it this way: both the Father and the Son are equally divine. They are both theos, just like you and I are humans, they are theos, or divinity, or God . . . .

    “Personal attributes are something altogether different. Personal attributes refer to the individual characteristics and differences between members of the same class or nature. . . . Because the Father and the Son are equal in nature does not mean that They have the same personal attributes. The church has taught from the beginning that there are personal attributes that distinguish the Father from the Son. For example: The Father begets the Son and therefore the Son has His origin or arche in the Father. Does this make the Son less divine than the father? Does this reduce the Son to being a demigod? Not at all, because being unbegotten is not an aspect of divinity, it is a personal attribute. . . .

    “The Son and the Holy Spirit possess the full attributes of divinity but the Father possesses unique personal attributes that make Him greater than the Son and the Holy Spirit. As I’ve said, one of these characteristics is that the Father is the begetter, He is the origin of the Trinity. However, there is another sense in which the early church taught that the Father is greater than the Son and that is in the sense of order. Now, by order I mean chain of authority. Equality of nature doesn’t mean equal quality of order. . . .

“When Christians don’t understand the difference between nature, personal attributes, and order, they end up with a very confused understanding of the Trinity. They usually end up getting into heresy even though they are trying to have an orthodox view of the Trinity. They totally misconstrue what the Scriptures teach about the Trinity and if they read the early Christian writings they are baffled by what they read there.”2

    Let us consider several primary sources from my own studies, as well as commentary on them by patristic scholars as collected between myself and my friend David Waltz in our independent studies. We shall begin with perhaps the earliest explanations regarding the relationship of the Father and the Son from a mid-2nd century witness, Justin Martyr:

    “we know no ruler more kingly or just than He except God [the Father] who begot Him.”3

    Thus we see Justin to have viewed the Son, in the present tense (not to be confused with the Incarnation), as subordinate to the Father in the personal attributes of being kingly and just. Note the comment from the Roman Catholic translator, Thomas Falls:

    “This seems to imply the error of subordinationism which teaches that the Father is greater than the Son.”4

    From the next chapter of Justin’s work:

    “For we have learnt that he is the son of the true God, and we hold him in second place, with the prophetic Spirit in the third rank.”5

    The commentary from the translators, Minns and Parvis:

    “At D[ialogue with Trypho] 5.4 Justin says that ‘only God is unbegotten and incorruptible, and he is God for that very reason; everything else after him is begotten and corruptible’. This is one of the grounds of Justin’s subordinationism: an unbegotten, incorruptible, immortal God could not be crucified. But, equally, such a God could not reveal himself to his creatures. Hence the need for an ‘other God’ (ἕτερος θεὸς) besides the maker of the universe (cf. D[ialogue with Trypho] 55.1; 56.4; 56.2; 128.4; 129.4), who ‘has never done or said anything except what he who is the creator of the universe, above whom there is no other God, willed him both to do and to say’ (D[ialogue with Trypho] 56.11). Justin’s subordinationism succinctly encompasses both a courageous acknowledgement of the folly of the cross (cf. 1 Cor. 1:23), and deliberately startling assertion of the real, though secondary, divinity of Jesus.”6

    And finally the passage which Minns and Parvis referenced:

    “I shall attempt to prove my assertion, namely, that there exists and is mentioned in Scripture another God and Lord under the Creator of all things, who is also called an Angel, because He proclaims to man whatever the Creator of the world—above whom there is no other God—wishes to reveal to them.”7

    And commentary on this passage from Eastern Orthodox patristic scholar, John Behr:

    “As it is not God himself who thus appeared and spoke with man, the Word of God who did all of these things is, for Justin [Martyr], ‘another God and Lord besides (ἔτερος παρὰ) the Maker of all,’ who is also called his ‘Angel,’ as he brings messages from the Maker of all, ‘above whom there is no other God’ (Dial. 56.4). . . . The divinity of Jesus Christ, an ‘other God,’ is no longer that of the Father himself, but subordinate to it, a lesser divinity”8

    Nor was this by any means unique to Justin Martyr. Observe as his teaching is linked by another scholarly source to the next writer we'll consider:

    “Subordinationism

    “Teaching about the Godhead which regards either the Son as subordinate to the Father or the Holy Ghost as subordinate to both. It is a characteristic tendency in much of Christian teaching of the first three centuries, and is a marked feature of such otherwise orthodox Fathers as St. Justin and Origen.”9

    In part II we’ll further explore demonstrations of how this was, “characteristic . . . of the first three centuries.” For now, a primary source from Origen:

    “But we are obedient to the Savior who says, ‘The Father who sent me is greater than I,’ [cf. John 14:28] and who, for this reason, did not permit himself to accept the title ‘good’ [cf. Mark 10:18] when it was offered to him, although it was perfectly legitimate and true. Instead, he graciously offered it up to the Father, and rebuked the one who wished to praise the Son excessively. This is why we say the Savior and the Holy Spirit transcend all created beings, not by caparison, but by their exceeding pre-eminence. The Father exceeds the Savior as much (or even more) as the Savior himself and the Holy Spirit exceed the rest. And by ‘the rest’ I do not mean ordinary beings, for how great is the praise ascribed to him who transcends thrones, dominions, principalities, powers, and every name that is named not only in this world but also in that which is to come? [Cf. Ephesians 1:21] And in addition to these [what must we] say also of holy angels, spirits, and just souls?

    “But although the Savior transcends in his essence, rank, power, divinity (for the Word is living), and wisdom, beings that are so great and of such antiquity, nevertheless, he is not comparable with the Father in any way.”10

    And the scholarly commentary from Ronald Heine:

    “the Savior said, ‘The Father who sent me is greater than I,’ and ‘although the Savior transcends in his essence, rank, power, divinity . . . , and wisdom, beings that are so great and of such antiquity, nevertheless, he is not comparable with the Father in any way.’ [13:151-152] . . .

“There is, moreover, a clear subordination of the Son to the Father in the Commentary [on John]. ‘The Father exceeds the Savior as much . . . as the Savior himself . . . exceeds the rest.’ [13:151-153] When ‘the Son of Man is glorified in God,’ it is a case of ‘the lesser’ being glorified ‘in the greater.’ [32:363-365] In spite of these subordinationist views, however, Origen rejects the view of those who, ‘in the delusion of glorifying the Father,’ declare ‘that something known by the Father is not known by the Son who refuses to be made equal to the perceptions of the unbegotten God.’ [1:187] It is perhaps in this same vein that one should understand Origen’s assertion that it is on the basis of the unity of the Son’s will with the Father’s that he says, ‘I and the Father are one.’ [13:228]”11

    In another of his writings Origen variously considered potential points of subordination when he noted, “He [the Father] speak[s] who prearranges all things . . . . Perhaps this foreknowledge of all things was possessed also by the Son of God,” and likewise, “Jesus prays and does not pray in vain since He obtains His requests through prayer, and perhaps would not obtain them without prayer.” More explicitly, however, he goes on to state that, “we may never pray to anything generated—not even to Christ—but only to God and the Father of all.”12 The translator, John O’Meara, gave the following commentary while noting the consensus understanding as found among various other referenced patristic scholars:

    “This is the first hint in the present treatise of subordination of the Son to the Father in Origen’s theology . . . . [Jean] Daniélou, op. cit. [Origène] 249-58, has an excellent discussion on the subject. He says: ‘Sa notion du Logos est très haute et très profonde. Bien des traits pourront en être repris. Mais elle reste affectée d’un subordinationisme évident.’ [His conception of the Logos is very high and very deep. Many characteristics can be extrapolated from it, but it remains affected by an obvious subordinationism.] Cf. also [Charles] Bigg, op. cit. [The Christian Platonists of Alexandria] 207 ff., 227 ff.; [Aloisius] Lieske, op. cit. [Die Theologie der Logosmystik bei Origenes] 164 f., passim; G[eorge] L[eonard] Prestige, God in Patristic Thought (London 1936) 129 ff.; J[ean] Scherer, Entretien d’Origène avec Héraclide et les Evêques ses collègues (Cairo 1949) 63.”13

    Last year I took a course through a program by St. Vladimir’s Theological Seminary wherein my professor, Bogdan Bucur, made the following statement regarding the Vision of Isaiah, Origen and his Jewish teachers:

    “‘I saw,’ he says, ‘the Great Glory while the eyes of my spirit were open. I saw how my Lord (Christ) and the angel of the Holy Spirit worshiped and both together praised the Lord. And then all the righteous approached and worshiped,’ [The Ascension of Isaiah 9] and everyone praises according to that model—to that pattern. Now, we would say this is not satisfying because it is subordinating the Son and the Spirit, or seemingly subordinating the Son and the Spirit to the Father. Well, true, but remember this is a very early text, and it is an attempt to articulate somehow this doctrine. We have an echo of it multiple times in Origen. At some point [cf. On First Principles 1:3:4] he tells us, ‘My Hebrew master,’ that is a Christian of Jewish ethnicity who probably taught in Hebrew and also was the conduit by which Origen became acquainted with these Jewish-Christian traditions, ‘My Hebrew master also used to say that those two seraphim in Isaiah, which are described as having six wings, and calling to one another, ‘Holy, holy, holy,’ were to be understood as the only begotten Son and the Holy Spirit.’ So, yes, this is Subordinationist, but let’s appreciate the fact that apocalyptic literature gives us the building blocks for the earliest Christology.”14

    And yet again, another primary source of Origen:

    “[Origen said:] God the Father, since he embraces all things, touches each thing that exists, since he bestows on all existence from his own existence; for he is ‘He who is’. [Exodus 3:14] The Son is inferior in relation to the Father, since he touches only things endowed with reason; for he is subordinate to the Father. The Holy Spirit is still lower in degree, pertaining to the saints. So then the power of the Father is superior to the Son and the Holy Spirit, while the Son’s power is greater than the Holy Spirit; and again the power of the Holy Spirit excels all other holy things.”15

    And yet again, commentary from the translator, Henry Bettenson:

    “According to the quotation in Justinian, Origen gave here a bold statement of the subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit. ‘Subordinationism,’ it is true, was pre-Nicene orthodoxy”16

    Once again we see the patristic scholarship attesting to this as the universal teaching of the pre-Nicene Church. This brings us to the next part of our article, regarding the rest of the early Church as attested by patristic scholars.

Part II: The Original & Universal Understanding of the Trinity

    In part I we saw how patristic scholars defined Subordinationism. We considered examples of primary source material in how Justin Martyr and Origen expressed their beliefs on the matter in their own words, along with commentary on their statements by patristic scholars. We also began to see instances in which these patristic scholars noted Subordinationism to have been the universal teaching of the pre-Nicene Church in the instances of The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church which stated that Subordinationism was, “characteristic . . . of the first three centuries,” and Bettenson who admitted that, “‘Subordinationism,’ it is true, was pre-Nicene orthodoxy.” It shall further be demonstrated in this post that such is the consensus view among patristic scholars, but first we shall recapitulate Justin Martyr’s stance with another example from Bucur who, in part I, had attested to Origen’s teaching of Subordinationism, and who also noted elsewhere the same regarding Justin’s Subordinationism and furthermore how this is commonly acknowledged by his peers in the field:

    “The fact that Justin Martyr articulated his trinitarian faith by means of a problematic trinitarian theology is a commonplace in scholarship. . . .

    “The problem most often associated with Justin’s trinitarian theology is its subordinationism. . . .

    “In Apol. 1.13.3, Justin states that Christ holds the second place after ‘the true God,’ while ‘the prophetic Spirit’ holds the third place. A similar subordinationist scheme occurs in Apol. 1.60.6–7”17

    And a recapitulation of Origen, as well, by yet another patristic scholar, Joseph Trigg:

    “Interestingly, in light of later criticisms of Origen for having a ‘subordinationist’ understanding of Christ’s relationship to the Father, putatively inconsistent with equality of the persons of the Trinity proclaimed by post-Nicene orthodoxy, what Origen would consider impious (asebes) is not the belief that Christ is subordinate, but the prospect that he might not be subordinate to the Father.”18

    And now an example from Manlio Simonetti that not only points to Justin and Origen as proponents of Subordinationism, but also extending this to Irenaeus, Tertullian, Novatian, and the 2nd and 3rd century Church in at large:

    “Subordinationism

    “Thus we call the tendency, strong in the theology of the 2nd and 3rd cc., to consider Christ, as Son of God, inferior to the Father. Behind this tendency were gospel statements in which Christ himself stressed this inferiority (Jn 14, 28; Mk 10, 18; 13, 32, etc.) and it was developed esp. by the Logos-Christology. This theology, partly under the influence of middle Platonism, considered Christ, logos and divine wisdom, as the means of liaison and mediation between the Father’s position to him. When the conception of the Trinity was enlarged to include the Holy Spirit, as in Origen, this in turn was considered inferior to the Son. Subordinationist tendencies are evident esp. in theologians like Justin, Tertullian, Origen and Novatian; but even in Irenaeus, to whom trinitarian speculations are alien, commenting on Jn 14, 28, has no difficulty in considering Christ inferior to the Father.”19

    And again, Kevin Giles, noting Irenaeus and Tertullian, while adding Hippolytus, and while directly noting this to be generally acknowledged by the consensus of patristic scholars:

    “Ante-Nicene Subordinationism

    “It is generally conceded that the ante-Nicene Fathers were subordinationists. This is clearly evident in the writings of the second-century ‘Apologists.’ . . . Irenaeus follows a similar path . . . . The theological enterprise begun by the Apologists and Irenaeus was continued in the West by Hippolytus and Tertullian . . . . The ante-Nicene Fathers did their best to explain how the one God could be a Trinity of three persons. It was the way they approached this dilemma that caused them insoluble problems and led them into subordinationism. They began with the premise that there was one God who was the Father, and then tried to explain how the Son and the Spirit could also be God. By the fourth century it was obvious that this approach could not produce an adequate theology of the Trinity.”20

    And here again, in an article by Basil Studer contributed to a massively peer-reviewed patristic source, substantiating Subordinationism as the view of Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Novatian:

    “it was necessary to defend the real distinction between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Such writers as the author of the Contra Noetum, Tertullian and Novatian did so by basing their claims primarily on the traditional Testimonia of the Bible (see Uribarri, Trinidad). Though able to formulate well, even with technical terms (esp. persona), the distinction of the divine persons (distributio), they were less successful in expressing the substantial unity in the distinction, unable to overcome a certain subordinationist tendency (ontological gradation of the persons in the overly close connection of the origin of the Son and the Spirit with the creation).”21

    And finally this sweeping statement from R.P.C. Hanson:

    “Indeed, until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic theology.”22

    So how did, “a fixed part of catholic theology,” eventually come to be rejected by the organized Church at large? Hanson alluded to the answer when mentioning Athenasius who, overreacting to the Arian heresy, went to the opposite extreme, to what his own predecessors would have considered to be heterodox as well. His polemics against the Arians ultimately led him to throw out the baby with the bathwater, expelling Arianism at the expense of having to reject Subordinationism. We see this attested by another patristic scholar, John Davies, regarding the culmination of events in 381:

    “[The Council of Constantinople] meant the end of subordinationism. The Son and the Spirit are equal to the Father as touching their divinity because each is a presentation of an identical divine being. The only priority of the Father is a logical, not a temporal, one since the Son and the Spirit derive from him as their source; but this priority involves no superiority.”23

    This was even more thoroughly established early in the next century by Augustine from whom the author of the Pseudo-Athanasian Creed would pull, which Creed has proven to be most persuasive to modern, mainstream, Christian laity. And thus has the view of superiority (and consequently inferiority) within the Trinity largely been lost to Christendom. What was originally considered orthodoxy has been condemned as heresy, and vice versa.

Footnotes

1 David W. Bercot, 'What the Early Christians Believed About the Trinity'

2 Ibid.

3 Justin Martyr, ca. 153, First Apology 12, in Fathers of the Church 6:44, brackets in original

4 Thomas B. Falls, Fathers of the Church 6:44

5 Justin Martyr, ca. 153, Apology 13:3, in Oxford Early Christian Texts 11:111

6 Denis Minns & Paul Parvis, Oxford Early Christian Texts 11:111

7 Justin Martyr, ca. 160, Dialogue With Trypho 56, in Fathers of the Church 6:232

8 John Behr, Formation of Christian Theology 1:104

9 The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed., pg. 1319

10 Origen, ca. 239, Commentary on John 13:151-152, in Fathers of the Church 89:100

11 Ronald E. Heine, Fathers of the Church 89:28,34

12 Origen, ca. 233, On Prayer 6:5;13:1;15:1, in Ancient Christian Writers 19:34,48,57

13 John J. O’Meara, Ancient Christian Writers 19:206

14 Bogdan G. Bucur, ‘‘The Glory of Israel’: The Jewish Apocalyptic Inheritance,’ lecture from the ‘Preparing to Read the Fathers’ course at St. Vladimir’s Online School of Theology

15 Origen, cited by Justinian, Ad Menam, in The Early Christian Fathers, pg. 239

16 Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers, pg. 239

17 Bogdan G. Bucur, Angelomorphic Pneumatology, pp. 139-140

18 Joseph W. Trigg, Fathers of the Church 141:91

19 Manlio Simonetti, Oxford Encyclopedia of the Early Church 2:797

20 Kevin Giles, The Trinity & Subordinationism, pp. 60-62

21 Basil Studer, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity 3:836

22 R.P.C. Hanson, ‘The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD,’ in The Making of Orthodoxy, pg. 153

23 John G. Davies, The Early Christian Church, pg. 194