Yesterday I tweeted a quote from the preface to Günther Zuntz’s monstrous “A Course in Classical and Post-Classical Greek”. It’s only monstrous because of its size. Zuntz leaves no stone unturned, not even the tiny crushed ones that were what was left of your ego before you started Greek. Also, the two volumes in the English edition are enough to start weight-training as well as break the bank at current prices.

Anyway, Zuntz writes, “Rather than being for the spare hours of a novice, teaching Elementary Greek is a demanding task for a conscientious professor; as difficult as it is important.”

I think this is dead right. There’s a tendency to think of the introductory levels of language instruction as something that can be palmed-off to the less advanced. And, in one limited sense, that is true – you only need enough Latin/Greek/whatever to teach those knowing less than you do. However, this is short-sighted.

Assuming, as is most common these days, that your students arrive at a tertiary level without their requisite languages, their first language teacher has a vital role. They are responsible for introducing them to the language, and so their task involves two essential elements. Firstly, students must learn to love the language enough to learn it. Our whole appreciation and attitude towards a language is bound up tightly with the person who teaches it, their approach to teaching, the ambiance of the classroom. Introductory Latin, Elementary Greek, these are the gateways for Classics students. They will almost always have larger numbers than any intermediate or advanced courses, because you will only drop numbers from your beginning enrolment. Any hope of seeing good retention of students depends upon students actually enjoying their first-year language course.

Secondly, how well they learn language in that first year is critical to their success. Any deficiencies in their acquisition in the first year will be felt throughout the rest of the program. One simply cannot go on to the reading of texts without the language ability to handle those texts. This is the cause of Zuntz’s comment – he goes on to say that a one-off bad lecture on Paul or Plato won’t do that much harm, but failure to learn the language of Paul or Plato will do much harm.

This is why the choice of the first-year teacher is so important. It should not necessarily be the most junior person, because that person may well lack the depth of language to teach it effectively. Neither should it be the most lauded researcher, for language acquisition is not necessarily aided by research in fields that depend upon language. Indeed, even being a specialist in, say, Greek linguistics, is no guarantee of solid pedagogy for the beginners’ class.

No, I contend that the teacher of the elementary levels of a language ought to be someone passionate and committed to applying the best practices and latest research in second language acquisition, and bringing that to bear on the classroom experience. You want someone who wants to teach first year Latin, and who zealously pursues the best methods to do so. Whatever else is in their portfolio, archaic religion, Attic politics, post-Augustan poetry, they need to be someone who is hell-bent on seeing beginner students thrive and acquire the language as best as possible.

I have a vested interest in this topic, since I’ve just completed a PhD in the field and would like a job in it. So, I thought it would be interesting to look at the place of ECS/ECH (Early Christian Studies/History) in Australian tertiary institutions.

By ECS, I specifically mean post-biblical material, anything from the Apostolic Fathers through to the early middle ages. I exclude New Testament studies as a specific discipline for reasons that ought to be relatively apparent.

I divided my survey into three categories: Evangelical institutions, non-Evangelical religious institutions, and Universities (generally state, but not always).

1. Evangelical institutions.

I examined 12 different colleges across Australia, drawing my data from publically available Faculty profiles, and course descriptions. Of these 12, 11 are affiliated with the Australian College of Theology, a kind of umbrella accrediting organisation. This is important, as I will explain below. I defined ‘primary specialisation’ by examining the doctoral thesis of faculty, and considering listed research interests and publications where available.

Of these 12, only 4 staff have a primary specialisation in an ECS/ECH area. 2 of those faculty are at the same institution, so 3/12 colleges have a faculty member with an ECS/ECH specialisation.

I also considered what the primary specialisation was of the faculty responsible for teaching ECH. For members of the ACT, ECH is a single overview subject of “Church History to 1550” in the undergraduate and graduate programs. Of the 12, the 9 who did not have ECH specialists have the subject taught by someone whose specialty is either (a) systematic theology, or (b) reformation or denominational church history.

Furthermore, at 3, or possible 4, of these institutions, ECH is currently taught by someone without a doctoral degree (generally an MTh).

That’s the data of Evangelical Colleges. I would now like to speculate as to why. Firstly, ACT exerts a controlling influence on the course structures and units provided, so that ECH is, in a 24 unit 3-year degree, a single unit, which is either (a) The Church to 1550, or (b) Early Church History (30-451). There is no single unit that covers 451-1550, so all periods of medieval and byzantine theology are excluded.

The ACT also provides for these same 2 modules to be taught at varying levels (200, 300 representing undergraduate subjects, 500 being MDiv equivalents. Theology of Augustine may be taken as a higher level subject for an MA, 700 level.

Nonetheless, for most member institutions, ECH represents a single, undergraduate overview subject. It is difficult to put forward a specialist ECS hire for a teaching load of 1-0, and such a hire would have to teach outside their specialty. This in itself is not a problem, but I suggest that Evangelical institutions are far more likely to hire a reformation/denominational history specialist, or a systematic theologian, and ask them to teach ECH, than vice versa.

Of the 4 faculty with ECS specialisations, one is the principal and has a strong NT and Greek profile. One presents more as a systematic theologian whose primary doctoral research happens to be in ECS. One was in their faculty position prior to completion of their ECH doctorate, and the last is a focused ECH specialist.

I mean these observations primarily as observations, and my critique should be considered very mild at best.

2. Non-Evangelical Institutions

To survey these religious colleges, I examined member institutes of the Sydney College of Divinity, and the University of Divinity (formerly the Melbourne College of Divinity). These two do not represent all such colleges, but I believe they are a representative group. In each case I looked at who the primary faculty responsible for ECH studies/courses were. This approach is justifiable since these institutes are generally too small to field research-only faculty.

This generated 17 institutes, 4 of whom are Catholic in identity, 3 Eastern (one Eastern Orthodox, two Coptic), and the rest a mix of protestant denominations (including liberal and conservative groups).

Out of these 17, 3 faculty members have identifiable ECH specialisations, and they teach in the Orthodox/Coptic colleges. These colleges, likewise, have more than 2 ECH subjects as part of their standard curricula.

In all 14 other non-Orthodox and non-Coptic colleges, ECH is taught by a non-specialist, and typically occupies a single subject, or 2 at most (often ECH forms a single subject taught at multiple levels, or else is subsumed in a larger survey history subject). Even at Catholic institutes, where one might have expected more ECH expertise, ECH is taught by specialists in other periods.

3. Universities

To understand the place of ECH in Australian universities, one needs to understand how religion is differently situated in Australian higher education, compared to say the USA or Britain. The founding of the University of Sydney, in 1852, occurred at a time of significant religious conflict in that Oxbridge entry was restricted to Anglicans. Australian universities avoided sectarian conflict by pursuing a deliberate secularisation strategy, excluding theology from their purview and ordained clergy from faculty. ‘Religion’ was apportioned out to the ‘member’ colleges, which now primarily serve as residential colleges for the university rather than true colleges in the Oxbridge model.

This explains why, unlike the USA or Britain, almost no major university has a theology department in Australia. That has changed since the 60s and the Martin Report, and some universities such as Flinders (SA), Murdoch (WA), and Charles Sturt (NSW) do include theology, often in partnership with local religious colleges and faculty.

Religious studies has re-entered some institutions, such as U.Sydney, but not in a significant way. At U.Syd, for example, ECH occupies a single subject, taught by Iain Gardiner, whose specialty is ECH areas.

This leaves two universities where ECH is flourishing: Australian Catholic University, and Macquarie University.

ACU is the host of the Centre for Early Christian Studies, which includes such powerhouses as Pauline Allen, Wendy Mayer, Geoffrey Dunn, and many others. It is a research focused centre with considerable funding. It sits within the Theology and Philosophy Faculty of ACU, which lists at least 13 faculty staff with Patristics or ECH as specialist areas.

Macquarie University’s Ancient History department took on an ECH focus largely due to the pioneering influence of Edwin Judge. That work continues in the broader setting of a large Ancient History faculty, with at least 5 faculty/staff that I can identify working primarily in ECH or Late Antique patristics. Particular research has focused on papyri.

So, that’s a wrap. University wise, almost all ECH work is being done out of two places in Australia – ACU and Macquarie, and they have different foci. The larger of these is definitely ACU and that is unlikely to change. Reflecting back across the religious colleges, only the Orthodox and Coptic colleges can be said to have a major interest in ECH in their curricula and faculty, while the number of protestants, evangelical or otherwise, specialised in ECH is very low.

Well, if you didn’t hear by other media, I’ve completed the dissertation and submitted it for examination!

Now a few months of waiting semi-anxiously for external examiners to read, digest, and decide my fate.

In the meantime I’ve been applying for jobs, a depressing task. In the meantime-meantime, I’m revising one paper, working on Nyssen’s De Deitate, devising a third, continuing with a bit of tutoring, and enjoying the Australian summer.

Back at my former blog, I made a list of books for Latin and Greek, generally related to the Direct-Method, Rouse, etc., that it would be good to source. Some of them already exist on google books, or other places, but some of them are proving hard to track down. Since then I received a few new links which I’ve added to this one (thanks to that commenter!). Feel free to comment if you have located any others, and I’ll incorporate the link into this page.

WHD Rouse Demonstrations in Greek Iambic Verse (1899)

– , Demonstrations in Latin Elegiac Verse (1899)

– , A Greek reader (1907)

-, Latin Stories for Reading and Telling

Rouse and Appleton, Latin: on the direct method

E.H. Scott and Frank Jones, A first Latin course (1913)

WHS Jones, First Latin book (1919)

– , Via Nova; or, The application of the direct method to Latin and Greek (1915)

RB Appleton and WHS Jones Initium (1916)

– , Puer Romanus (1913)

– , Pons Tironum (1924)

– , Perse Latin Plays (1913); 2nd edition (?) RB Appleton, Ludi Persici

Edward Adolf Sonnenschein Ora Maritima (1914)

– , Pro Patria (1907)

WL Paine and CL Mainwaring, Primus Annus (1912)

Paine, Fabulae virginibus puerisque

TA Wye; WL Paine Primus Annus: Vocabula explicata

WL Paine, Decem fabulae pueris puellisque agendae (1927)

Frank Stephen Granger, Via Romana (1915)

A wealth of texts, out of copyright, enjoy and use!

Recently Charles Lee Irons posted on TGC a defence of the translation of μονογενής in the New Testament as “only-begotten”, instead of the modern consensus that it means “unique” or “one of a kind”. Why? I can only presume, and the article indicates as much, that it’s in response to the ongoing controversy in Evanglical circles over Grudem and Ware’s “Eternal Relations of Authority and Submission” (ERAS) and problems with Eternal Generation (EG). One should also look at Daniel Wallace’s musings in response.

Grudem, as I hear it, has affirmed EG at the recent ETS conference, but without retracting his position on ERAS. I wasn’t there, so I don’t know what he has said most recently.

Nonetheless, if you go back to Grudem’s Systematic Theology, he makes a clear case *against* EG in Appendix 6. He basically states that μονογενής derives from μονός and γενός rather than μονός and γεννάω. He also states that it as misunderstood, to mean ‘only-begotten’, and that this is the erroneous usage found in the Nicene Creed.

Grudem also states, erroneously, that the Greek Fathers should have used μονογέννητος! (One should exercise more caution in telling Greek theologians how to use their own language)

Let me quote Grudem at length:

If the phrases “begotten of the Father before all worlds” and “begotten, not made” were not in the Nicene Creed, the phrase would only be of historical interest to us now, and there would be no need to talk of any doctrine of the “eternal begetting of the Son.” But since the phrase remains in a creed that is still commonly used, we perpetuate the unfortunate necessity of having to explain to every new generation of Christians that “begotten of the Father” has nothing to do with any other English sense of the word beget. It would seem more helpful if the language of “eternal begetting of the Son” (also called the “eternal generation of the Son”) were not retained in any modern theological formulations. Similarly, to refer to Jesus as God’s “only begotten” Son—language that derives from the King James translation—seems to be more confusing than helpful. What is needed is simply that we insist on eternal personal differences in the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that the Son eternally relates to the Father as a son does to his father.^[1]

The main problem with Grudem’s view is that the pro-Nicene articulation of the doctrine of Eternal Generation does not depend upon how they read μονογενής. And this is why Irons’ article is chasing a red herring – you don’t need to defend μονογενής as “only-begotten” to defend EG.

When Grudem says that ‘eternal begetting’ means we have to keep re-explaining what ‘beget’ means in this context, this is no different than the pro-Nicenes in the fourth century. They have to continually say that the relationship of ‘generation’, i.e. that the Father is father to the Son, and the Son is son to the Father, does mean that (a) they are of the same essence, and (b) that the Son’s origin is in the Father in a causal sense, but that it doesn’t mean there is any temporal beginning to the Son, change or diminishment in the Father, difference in essence of the Son, or materiality or even sexual intercourse involved in the Son’s coming into being.

That is, for the Father-Son language of the Scriptures, the pro-Nicenes articulate how the analogy works – what parts are actually analogous, and what parts are not analogous. All good analogies work by providing a comparison between two things, but two things that are alike in every respect are in fact the same thing! Saying that an apple is analogous to an apple is true, but unhelpful. Analogy works when something is alike in a pertinent respect, and unlike in other respects. That’s why a careful use of analogy distinguishes its points of analogy, and its points of disanalogy.

Does μονογενής mean ‘only-begotten’ in the New Testament in the sense the fourth century Fathers understand it? I don’t think so. I actually don’t want to go down that linguistic path today, but my point is that it doesn’t matter for Eternal Generation of the Son. It’s similar to, though perhaps more contentious than, the fact that Hebrews 1:3 uses the word ὑπόστασις in a way totally uninformed by late fourth century discussions of God existing in three ὑποστάσεις. The fourth-century pro-Nicenes are “free” to use μονογενής to mean only-begotten in the context of their debates, without having to either import that meaning back into the New Testament texts, or us thinking that their articulation of Nicene Trinitarianism depends upon such a reading being present in those texts.

It’s certainly true, I should say, that those same pro-Nicenes make arguments from those Johannine verses; it’s also true that the pro-Nicene arguments are exegetically propelled. But in this case, understanding μονογενής as “unique” does no harm to this position. Though thinking that understanding μονογενής as “unique” was an argument for rejecting Eternal Generation does great harm to orthodox trinitarianism (and is one reason Grudem was wrong).

^[1] Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House, 2004), 1234.

Recently I came across a project I hadn’t heard about before, the Bridge, and a new version of the same. It’s a site, and an interface, that lets you build customisable vocabulary lists based on Greek and Latin textbooks and texts.

In general, I don’t believe rote memorisation of vocab is the most effective or pedagogically sound method for expanding vocabulary, but it’s not without merits. This tool is incredibly useful for that purpose (and others). Especially it allows you to build a list from (a) the text your working on, excluding (b) texts/textbooks/lists you’ve already learnt. That allows you to stage your learning of vocab, or target what you don’t know. You can also design a list including words from another list only, so you could create a list of words, for example, you should already know.

If you wanted to brute force your way to a very solid Greek or Latin vocabulary, here’s how to do it.

Steps:

1. Download or otherwise install Anki.
2. Set up an Anki account online for syncing.
3. Create a single list at the Bridge, starting with the DCC Core vocabulary, or your textbook.
4. Export that list as a TSV (tab separated values) file.
5. Import that file into Anki (make sure you get the right entries to line up for the correct front/back fields).
6. Start learning these words rigorously using Anki.

There’s very good reasons to start with the DCC Core vocabulary lists. They (each) represent a curated and carefully composed list that draws upon corpus analyis and frequency of occurence to generate a core list that is ‘biggest bang for buck.’ The Greek list is probably not quite as useful if you’re purely a NT Greek student, but you shouldn’t be so fixated on the New Testament corpus anyway (but if you are, you will get best value by learning a frequency list of NT occurences only).

If/when you learnt/mastered/totally conquered the DCC list, then I’d create a new list – a particular text minus all the words from DCC. If you did DCC first, then I’d do your primary textbook second. Then repeat: new list, minus all the previous lists. If you want to read through a particular actual text, then same process – new list, minus all previous lists.

Voila, you are now on your way to brute forcing your vocabulary acquisition. Is it ideal? No, but if your disciplined it will work and it will pay off.

I’m not sure I’ve written about this before, but here’s how I prepare a text for a patristic reader (and if I plan to teach it closely).

Step 1: I obtain a clean, digitised version of the text. Depending on the text, that changes where and how I try to obtain it. Basically, I want a version without any copyright claims on it. Personally, I don’t think copyright inheres in edited or critical editions anyway, but I don’t have the legal resources to test that kind of claim in a court. So, open texts it is.

Step 2: If I can’t get a digital copy of an open text, I’ll use a text with claims on it, and re-edit it based of an open text. Texts are copyrightable, not origins, so conforming it to a rights-free edition removes any legal issues. Usually this means a PG or PL version. Thanks Migne, you were a hero in your own way.

Step 3: I alphabetise the base text. I then open up two files: the alphabetised base text, and a “Master Patristics Vocab file”. The latter has every word I’ve written a vocab entry for in previous texts. The current Greek file has 1911 entries. I then work through the base text file and (a) cut and paste entries for which I’ve already got data, (b) analyse any words that don’t have entries, (c) compile frequency numbers as I go, (d) note any words that are morphologically ambiguous. At the end of this, I revisit (d) words and look at them in context. Resolving (d) words is usually much easier for Greek than Latin.

Occasionally there are (e)-class words: words that aren’t easily analysed/parsed. For these I will find them in context in the text, look at a translation, run a parsing program, and then try every parsing-trick that I know. Usually I can resolve them, but some are tricky little suckers. Those are the cases where you need to undo some unusual vowel contractions/formations and run guess versions of a lexical form through a couple of dictionaries. Sometimes it’s a fairly unique or neologistic word that you need to backwards derive. That’s always fun.

Step 4: Once this is done I have a master vocab list for the individual text. I then open up the clean base text file again, as well as a template document for the reader’s edition. I work a page at a time, copy and paste 10 lines of text into the template, mark the cut-off point in the base text, and then work on that page.

Step 5: for an individual page, I work through these steps:

(a) alphabetise the vocab and cut and paste entries out of this document’s vocabulary file, thus producing a vocab list for this page. I eliminate high frequency vocab.
(b) I work through the text, producing a translation of my own. If a pre-existing translation exists, I’ll leverage that for speed of comprehension.
(c) make notes on any grammar I think is interesting or difficult
(d) tidy up the page and move on.

Step 6:
Each page is on average 90-100 words. It takes 20-30 mins to work through a page, depending on complexity and issues. So it’s not a fast process to produce a full text. But it does get me up close and personal with a text. At the end of all the pages, I go through and convert them all to pdf, and compile into a single file. I then add front material (introduction) and end material (vocab lists).

And that’s pretty much it. That’s how I produce a patristic reader text.

Well the big news is that I’m almost done with the PhD dissertation. I’m sitting on a fairly full draft, a proofreader is working through it, I’ve had a good friend read the whole thing, and my supervisor is working their way through this version. If all goes well, I’ll do some final edits, supervisor will sign off, copies will be printed and sent off to my three external examiners, they will read it and be convinced it’s up to scratch, and it will ‘Dr. Patrologist’ from here on in.

In January, as my last post mentioned, I’ll be teaching a 1-week course again at MALS, and I plan to work through Nyssen’s De deitate filii et Spiritus Sancti et in Abraham. This means that for the rest of November and December, I’ll be preparing that text, which also means I’ll be producing (a) a Patristic Readers edition of the text, (b) an English translation (there isn’t one), and (c) since this will be a third Nyssen text of suitable length, I plan to incorporate it with Ad Ablabium and Ad Simplicium to produce another print version. Sales of my first reader have been unsurprisingly miniscule, but I’m not bothered by this. My market is niche, and I derive a lot of benefit from the preparation of these texts.

My other plan for summer here going forward is to turn attention back to article writing and really get a few articles submitted over the next 4 months. I don’t lack for materials, but I do need to turn them into submissables.

I have no idea what I’ll be doing in 2017. I’m applying for jobs, obviously, but I have an unhealthy pessimism about employment in contrast to my otherwise general optimism. If I can find a few more online students, I’d be happy to take them on for the year ahead. We’ll see.

It’s a warm Saturday night and I’ve just polished off some delicious milo as I type this. In the morning the lords of time and date decree that we will lose an hour to make summer more bearable (they are wise, because I’ve been getting up at 5:30 this week, and without daylight savings time, it’ll be 4:30 by the middle of summer, which reminds me of Mongolian summer which was very productive).

This, if you haven’t realised, is me at my rambling best.

Very little to report on ‘the projects’. I did receive a lovely email a few weeks past asking about my shelved Greek Ørberg work. Happy to share that around, such as it is.

I, of course, am about waist-deep in trying to bring my thesis to completion by mid-November. This is stymied by the delightful distraction of only studying 3 days a week and looking after a beautiful 6 month old for 2 days a week (out of 5, if you’re confused by my maths).

That thesis is coming along well, but a metric tonne of work remains to be done. A lot of editing, revising, formatting, following up references, incorporating some material, and a bit of writing.

I’m also applying for jobs for which I have great anti-enthusiasm and a fair share of pessimism. I’m hyper-aware of the defects in my c.v. and my applications, which are generally fixable but I can’t fix them right now.

One of those is my lack of publications. I have just an odd assortment of ‘things’ I’ve published, but I am missing those stand out bejewelled peer-reviewed prestige journal articles. Partly, I believe, because my doctoral candidature never pushed me hard enough to publish.

I can literally count up about six articles worth of material that I have sitting in digital form. Some of these need more work than others. One has been rejected once so far. All need sustained attention to bring them to fruition. But time and the self-review has never been my friend here.

So right now, I have been carving out a minimal but important amount of time to diligently work through Wendy Laura Belcher’s  Writing Your Journal Article in 12 weeks. Though I’ve read a couple of really helpful books about article writing, this is a workbook designed to get you doing the process. So I’ve got a single article that parallels some thesis material that I’m working over for resubmission.

Once the thesis is done my secondary plan is to start working over those other article materials at a staggered schedule and just keep at it until I (a) fix the deficit in my c.v. (b) become habituated to a work flow that results in journal articles.

Of course, this is all future plans, which helps my current job applications not one whit. Hence, healthy pessimism.

Then, too, I have some good ‘projects’ lined up to resume – again, once that thesis is done and submitted. Until then, almost everything else must wait.

On the just passed Friday and Saturday I was delighted to attend the Seventh Saint Andrew’s Patristic Symposium at St Andrew’s Greek Orthodox Theological College, Sydney. The topic was Chrysostom, and the keynote speakers were Wendy Mayer and Pauline Allen. Top class speakers!

Anyway, I have uploaded a recording of my own presentation, “Chrysostom: Proof Texts and Problem Texts” which you may listen to at your leisure. I think with a bit more work it will turn into a nice article of its own.

This is my introductory paragraph and my written description of contents:

The following study compares the exegetical practices of two authors, Basil of Caesarea and Hilary of Poitiers, in two of their most significant works, Contra Eunomium and De Trinitate, in order to demonstrate that one of the features of fourth century theologians that are traditionally identified as ‘Orthodox’ or ‘Pro-Nicene’ is their common exegetical practice. It thereby explores the larger question, of whether pro-Nicene exegesis is a consistent phenomenon, in light of a small question, of the extent of similarity between Basil and Hilary writing in the early 360s.

The study proceeds in two sections. In the first, I survey recent revisionism around the concept of pro-Nicenism and the general historiography of the fourth century theological debates, examine the work of Hanson, Behr, Ayres, and Anatolios, and move towards a synthesis of this recent revisionism. This provides the basis for the construction of the idea of pro-Nicenism and the context in which pro-Nicene exegesis may be configured. In the following chapter, I provide a historical contextualisation of the fourth century debates leading up to the writing of the two focus texts, a survey of approaches to Basil and Hilary, in these two texts and in relation to exegetical practice and Trinitarian doctrine, and lastly a brief synopsis of the argument structures of the two texts.

In the second part, we turn to a series of analyses of primary themes, practices and texts in the two authors, placing their treatment of Scriptural passages in comparison to each other, as well as situating them in relation to other key authors of both pro-Nicene and non-Nicene theologies. These analyses focus on key texts and themes, including Partitive Exegesis (chapter three), the Johannine prologue (chapter four), the language of ‘made’ applied to the Son and its associated texts (chapters five and six), the relationship between power and nature and ‘equality’-texts (chapter seven), and John 14:28 as a problem text (chapter eight).

I’m trying to wrap up chapter 8 right now. Here’s what’s in my thesis (more or less…)

an overly long and complicated title: “An analysis and comparison of the exegetical practices of Basil of Caesarea in his Contra Eunomium, and Hilary of Poitiers in his De Trinitate, in relation to their doctrine of the Trinity”.

1. Introduction: Pro-Nicenism in the light of recent scholarship

2. Hilary and Basil in their historical context and recent scholarship

3. Economy and Theology: Partitive Exegesis in Practice

4. John 1: A theology of the eternal Son

5. The ‘made’ Son (1): Approaches to Proverbs 8 among fourth century authors

6. The ‘made’ Son (2): Basil and Hilary on Proverbs 8 and Acts 2

7. Names, Nature, Nativitas: John 5 and 10

8. Causality and Economy: John 14

9. Conclusion: Basil, Hilary, something something pro-nicenism something something.

I was very glad to awake this morning and see that Geoffrey Steadman as returned to his Greek and Latin texts with Facing Vocabulary and Commentary projects with some very fine new additions.

It has reminded me that I do need to return to my inspired-by-the-above Patristic Readers. Really, my work on these ground to a virtual halt due to the twin pressures of a thesis and an infant child.

It also hasn’t helped that I have so far worked on relatively short texts which do not provide enough material for a print volume in themselves.

I do have hopes though! I have already made a decent start on the third Gregory of Nyssa text, and that should not take forever, which could see the three of them put together for a printable volume.

Also, teaching Gregory Nazianzus Oration 29 this week, I normally format my own teaching materials in the same style as the readers. So that would be a headstart there for a next volume. It would be nice to offer all 5 Theological Orations together.

Even after just a day of teaching with some experienced students, I’m reminded how great the gap is for those wanting to transition into Patristic texts. It is not easy, and good help is hard to come by. I myself have had recourse to ask more than a few questions about Gregory’s Greek to an associate.

Anyway, we live in hope, and particularly I hope to put this dissertation to bed in a few months…

One of the interesting things about the intra-Evangelical Complementarian Trinity Debate with a really-long-name, is that people’s positions appear to fall out along some very clear party lines.

The leading American ERAS/ESS/EFS proponents all come from very particular backgrounds. There’s not a lot of surprise in their positions. When you line up other defenders of the same position in the UK, and Australia, it becomes very obvious that there are party lines.

What I think is a most telling fact, even though it’s not a compelling argument in and of itself, is that (so far as I can tell), historical theologians and the like whose field is Patristics, and particularly 4th century Patristics, almost universally reject ERAS as a valid reading of Nicene Orthodoxy. Whether ERAS is right or not, it’s not what historians think pro-Nicene theologians were wanting to say.

That, if anything, ought to give doctrinal theologians a pause. ERAS clearly is novel. It’s a set of categories and an attempt to think about ad intra relationships in a way that our predecessors did not. Even if you think it’s right, you should at least come clean and recognise that it’s new. If you want to argue that it’s ‘in line’ with the tradition, that’s another argument. It’s not the same argument as trying to rustle up some Patristic supports.

Every time someone trots out a quotation in this debate, my critical alarm bells start ringing, “What’s the context of this quotation? What is the overall shape of that author’s theological argument? Is this quotation true to their authorial intention?” Language about Trinity can get really confusing, really fast. And 4th century Greek writers are not easy to translate into clear, comprehensible, nuanced English (pick 2 of 3). It’s easy to find quotations that sound like they support your position, but do they really?

For my part, I think the onus is very much on ERAS proponents to make a case. Classical Trinitarianism doesn’t need to defend itself here – no one on that side of the Nicene fence is trying to say “hey, the Son doesn’t submit to the Father”, but rather, “hey, why are you trying to shoe-horn in authority-submission relations into the ad intra relations of the three hypostaseis? We don’t need that in here thanks very much.” The problems of ERAS remain: how is it not a rejection of a single Will in the Godhead? How does it not violate Divine Simplicity? How is it not over-privileging authority-submission as a paradigm to understand Trinitarian relations?

In terms of the most recent posts, I think Ware did a very admirable job in clarifying his own views. I am sympathetic to his statements that it is ‘hard to see’ the direct Biblical basis for Eternal Generation, but that it still remains a compelling account. It seems to me that Ware is wrong, but has shifted to be less wrong over time.

I have less sympathy for Grudem’s position, because quite frankly Grudem continues to demonstrate to me in his writing and thoughts that he is far from competent in this area: his systematic doctrine textbook is notorious for prooftexting. Appendix 6 in it shows me he doesn’t understand μονογενής in the Fathers, even if he is technically right about John 1. His reasons for rejecting impassibility show me that he has not understood the classical formulation of that doctrine. His prooftexting of historical support for ERAS continues to call into question his ability to read historical texts accurately. And his frank admission that he doesn’t understand Eternal Generation but thinks it would be better replaced by ERAS just seems to confirm this trajectory – Grudem doesn’t understand Nicene Orthodoxy.

I think we’ll see this topic simmer down in the next few weeks. My post chronicling blog-posts on the subject has hit 72 different posts, and that is not even all of them! But it seems this civil war is going to cool down for awhile. I suspect Grudem will formulate something more specific and ‘weighty’ at his ETS presentation, and I think his opponents are going to rip it to pieces, but this isn’t going away. Neither, sadly, are some of the hysterics.

I became intrigued by this modal construction recently, after I berated some undergraduates in my comments on their essay that what they really meant was ‘X cannot be overstated’. However, greater reflection leads to me to believe that, while they were probably wrong, the structure is ambiguous.

It turns on the meaning of ‘cannot’, and whether you take it to mean “must not be allowed to be the case” or “is an impossibility that will never occur”. If the former, then “X cannot be understated” means something like “I can’t and won’t allow it to be stated as of less importance than it actually is.” If the latter, then “X cannot be understated” means something more like, “It is impossible to state the importance of X any lower than it actually is” (hidden premise: the importance of X is incredibly low).

The problem with the latter option, is that it is exactly the opposite of what the speaker presumably intends, especially if they meant the former. They might have chosen to construct the opposite statement, “X cannot be overstated”, but it too suffers from the same ambiguity.

I’m still not convinced that “X cannot be understated” means “X is highly important” so much as it means “X is so unimportant that it is not possible to understate it”, but I’m prepared to start giving students the benefit of the doubt, or at least start pointing our the ambiguity of the construction.

(I’d never planned to get into this, but here are a few thoughts on the current debates, from mostly a historical perspective. I may (or may not) wade into the theological argument more seriously later.)

1. It’s much more difficult to accurately portray the 4th century controversies than you’d like. That’s why it’s a whole field of studies in and of itself. What escapes a lot of people is that Nicaea in 325 solved very little. It did deal with Arius. However, it never fixed ‘Nicene orthodoxy’, nor finalised the debates that followed in its aftermath. homoousion did not become an important term until the late 350s. Athanasius isn’t as important as 1st year students think. ‘Lines’ between ‘parties’ are much, much blurrier than textbooks make them out to be. The Creed of Constantinople 381 is so different to Nicaea 325 that JND Kelly doesn’t think you can even call it a revision. For all this, I do think something called ‘Nicene Orthodoxy’ on the Trinity comes to exist. However, its emergence is late, its synthetic, its primarily Cappadocian, and it still contains theological variety within itself.

2. Whether it’s proper to speak of order within the Trinity or not, it’s not proper to tie this to gender debates or ecclesiology (in this case, what women may or may not do in churches). In fact, it’s probably heretical to make those moves. I can see why these moves have come about on both egalitarian and complementarian sides, but they are bad moves to make.

For example, some egalitarians have a theology that tightly links function to being. Woman are the same being as Men, and therefore you can’t exclude them from certain functions, without suggesting difference at the level of being. Therefore, they can’t conceive that in the Godhead there is any difference of function without difference of being. In that view, for the Son to submit to the Father would be Arianism – because it would imply the Son’s inferiority to the Father. That’s why some egalitarians are so committed to proving Eternal Functional Subordination wrong.

It goes the other way too. Ware, Grudem, et alii, are so committed to seeing functional differentiation between men and women, that they want to see it in the Trinity in order to ground their gender arguments.

These are both wrong ways to argue. Wherever you are on the gender and ecclesiology issues, just stop dragging the Trinity into it because you are making a mess of your Trinitarian theology and it’s not helping your anthropology nor your ecclesiology.
3. Reading 4th century theology accurately is really hard work. And systemic theologians and protestant reformation historians often do it less-than-well. Not always, but more than I’d like to see. It’s not that I think non-specialists in this field should just go home, but a recognition that they’re playing an away game would be helpful. The problem, as I see it, is a tendency to read 4th century debates in alien terms of their own frameworks, which gets in the way of reading these theologies on their own terms and in their own contexts.

5. Configuring the debates as primarily ‘Orthodoxy’ vs. ‘Arianism’ misses a huge component: Marcellus of Ancyra. While Marcellus was an early ally of Athanasius, his theology came to be seen as modalist, and the consensus of Eastern bishops was always against him. This tarred Nicaea with guilt by association, and Athanasius as well (though he was opposed for political reasons as well). The final consensus emerged as much from a continuing regard to exclude modalist and Marcellan theology, as it did from ‘defeating Arianism’; for almost all parties, Arianism was dead in 325, Marcellus was the problem moving forward.

The whole ‘Arian’, ‘Semi-Arian’, ‘Neo-Arian’ set of terms is now virtually dead in Patristics. Because after Arius and possibly Asterius, it’s just inaccurate to call other theologians Arian. This is a legacy of over-realising Athanasius’ importance, because it’s he who both constructs ‘Arians’ as the enemy, polemically, as well as champions Nicaea and homoousios from the late 350s onwards.

6. Nicaea wasn’t envisioned as offering a solution. Indeed, beyond being a council that deal with Arius and his heresy in particular, its participants did not give it the kind of status common today. As Sieben argues, the view of the Council itself develops over time, becoming only latter a confession of faith of enduring value, and eventually seen as embodying revealed truth that is essential to the church’s faith-confession. What’s most intriguing about Nicaea is its absence from the debates for at least 25 years following. It’s prominence in introductory church history courses, textbooks, and popular Christian historical imagination is in large part due to Athanasius later writings and his construction of ‘Arianism’ as a threat and ‘Nicaea’ as the solution.

7. With Ayres, I recognise that the range of options is more than just ‘eternal functional order in the Godhead’ vs. not. The danger, as I see it, of EFS/ERS is that it appears to create problems with divine simplicity and the will of God. The danger without it, is that it may be impossible to say anything about intra-hypostatic relations at all.

(nota bene: I was updating this post about daily with any new contributions I came across. I am no longer doing so, as the debate has largely moved on. [It’s certainly not over, people are indeed still writing and blogging about it. I would say the initial storm of discussion has subsided though, and I am no longer actively monitoring it]

The posts below are in roughly chronological order. New additions welcome!)

Blog posts galore have flown back and forth this week over whether certain persons in contemporary reformed Calvinist circles are pushing their Trinitarian barrels in a non-orthodox direction because of gender debates between Complementarian and Egalitarian positions. Here’s a collation of posts so far:

Liam Goligher kicked things off with two fiery posts:

1. Is it okay to teach a Complementarianism based on Eternal Subordination?

2. Reinventing God

They were particularly fiery posts in that they didn’t stop short of saying that using Eternal Subordination to prop up complementarianism was a departure from Nicene Trinitarian theology and thus tantamount to a heretical view of the Trinity.

Carl Trueman then followed up from Goligher’s post:

3. Fahrenheit 381

Michael Bird weighed in:

4. The Coming War: Nicene Complementarians vs Homoian Complementarians

Mark Thompson gives us:

5. ERS: Is there order in the Trinity?

and promises a second post.

Michael Bird gives a second post outlining some of his own thoughts on the issue:

6. More on the Calvinist Complementarian Divide on the Trinity

Wayne Grudem gives a defence of his position:

7. Whose Position on the Trinity is really new?

As does Bruce Ware:

8. God the Son–at once eternally God with His Father, and eternally Son of the Father

Denny Burk gives a few follow-up comments to Ware and Grudem:

9. A brief response to Trueman and Goligher

And Trueman offers some brief rejoinders to Ware and Grudem:

10. A rejoinder to Wayne Grudem

11. A surrejoinder to Bruce Ware

Mike Ovey’s comments in support of Eternal Subordination:

12. Should I resign? On the eternal subordination of the Son (original post here, reblogged at Credo)

See also posts by

13. Scot McKnight: Is it New? Yes. It is Orthodox? No.

14. Darren Sumner: Some Observations on the Eternal Functional Subordination Debate

15. Mark Jones: God’s Will and Eternal Submission

Michel Barnes, a renowned Patristics scholar, added some comments apparently on facebook, reproduced by Michael Bird (with permission):

16. Comments from Michel R. Barnes.

There is also a bit of a response from Patristics scholar Lewis Ayres, on the same facebook post. Here’s the repost on Bird’s blog:

17. Lewis Ayres’ comment. (Original facebook comments from Barnes and Ayres)

There’s also a summary post by Andrew Wilson

18. Submission in the Trinity: A quick guide to the debate

My friend Ryan Clevenger has a great post on Gregory Nazianzen’s view of the subject:

19. Gregory of Nazianzus on the Submission of the Son.

Luke Stamps has a tidy contribution that brings in Calvin and Gregory of Nazianzus together:

20. The Trinity debate and the history of interpretation

Fred Sanders offers his own related contribution here:

21. 18 Theses on the Father and the Son

Mike Ovey responds with quite a bit of sass to Michael Bird’s take on his position:

22. Can Michael Bird read my mind? Alas it seems not.

Owen Stracham, a self described advocate of “Eternal Relations and Authority Submission” defends his position here:

23. The Glorious Godhead and Oroto-Arian Bulls

A second post from Mark Jones:

24. Eternal Subordination of Wills? Nein! Part Two

A third post from Mark Jones, really getting stuck into Strachan:

25. Biblicism, Socinianism, and “Arid” Scholarhip

TGC Australia have decided to write a whole series addressing it, by Andrew Moody and Mark Baddeley

26. The Ordered Godhead: (1) Commending Nicaea – Moody.

Luke Stamps also shares some thoughts on the divine will:

27. Further reflections on the unity of the divine will.

There’s a post from Derek Rishmawy,

28. On Trinitarian controversy: why it’s not always terrible and how to go about it.

Andrew Perriman:

29. The subordination of the Son, and why it has nothing to do with gender. (and a whole bunch of related posts there)

D. Glenn Butner, Jr.:

30. Eternal Submission and the Story of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

And a recent round-up post by Alastair Roberts:

31. The Eternal Subordination of the Son Controversy: The Debate so Far.

Darren Sumner again, with:

32. What is the Immanent Trinity? A Clarification for the Eternal Subordination Debate

Matt Emerson, with:

33. What makes a Doctrine “Biblical”? On method.

Matthew Barrent, with:

34. Better late than never: The Covenant of Redemption and the Trinity Debates.

Michael Bird points out the line-up for a section at ETS this year:

35. The 2016 Evangelicals and Gender Study group session on the Trinity.

And lately the ‘civil war’ has even made it to Christianity Today: Caleb Lindgren writes

36. Gender and the Trinity: From Proxy War to Civil War

A guest post by Scott Harrower on Michael Bird’s Blog:

37. Why Trinitarian Debates Really Do Matter!

Another good descriptive post, by Mike Riccardi:

38. Making sense of the Trinity (EFS) debate.

Andrew Moody’s second post over at TGC Australia:

39. The Ordered Godhead: (2) The Beauty of Ordered Willing

And finally a response from Goligher to Ovey:

40. Dr. Liam Goligher responds to Dr. Mike Ovey

Grudem combed through some evangelical scholars to prove the lineage of his view:

41. Another Thirteen Evangelical Theologians Who Affirm the Eternal Submission of the Son to the Father

Then Owen Strachan wrote what I would call a snarky “see told you we were right” post following on:

42. Wayne Grudem Critiques Liam Goligher’s Historical Theology

There’s also a helpful post here from Alistair Roberts giving some reading for those playing at home:

43. The Eternal Subordination of the Son Controversy: Survey of Some Relevant Material

Goligher also as a response to Ware and Grudem, here:

44. A Letter to Professors Ware and Grudem

Keith Johnson has a post over at TGC:

45. Is the Eternal Generation of the Son a Biblical Idea:

Mark Jones offers a response to Wayne Grudem’s list of evangelicals in support of his position:

46. Wayne Grudem’s Historical Theology Analzyed

Carl Trueman gives what he promises to be his last response to Grudem (for now?):

47. Once more unto the breach…and then no more: A final reply to Dr. Grudem

Over at Cripplegate, there’s a whole bunch of useful posts. This most recent one is quite helpful and promising:

48. The Complementarian Trinity Debate: A summary of its beginnings, by Wyatt Graham.

Wyatt Graham continues with

49.  The Complementarian Trinity Debate: A chronological Summar Part II.

Christopher Cleveland has an interesting post, outlining a case for a long-term background in evangelical scholarship, here:

50. Why the Trinitiarian Controversy was Inevitable

Scot McKnight hosts a post from Jamin Hübner at CBE, with plenty of ‘quotation marks’ to undermine Complementarianism and EFS:

51. Subordinationism: Some Major Questions/

Carl Trueman continues, tangentially:

52. The Ecumenical Consequences of the Peace

Malcolm and Karen Yarnell start in with a baptist perspective:

53. Trinity and authority, part 1 of 5.

A mini-essay from Matthew Crawford:

54. Clarifying Nicene Trinitarianism with Cyril of Alexandria

Carrying on from Andrew Moody, Mark Baddeley at TGC Australia writes:

55. The Ordered Godhead: (3) Speaking of God…

Luke Stamps tries to take stock of things:

56. The Trinity Debate: Where do we stand?

Wend Alsup (and Hannah Handerson) at theologyforwomen.org write:

57. The Eternal Subordination of the Son (and Women)

While Coutney Reissig at Christianity Today writes:

58. Why Complementarian men need Complementarian women

Al Mohler offers his thoughts with:

59. Heresy and Humility – Lessons from a Current Controversy

To which Carl Trueman offers his response here:

60. A Reply to Dr. Mohler on Nicene Trinitarianism

Mark Woods gives a piece for Christianity Today:

61. Complementarianism and the Trinity: Is Wayne Grudem a dangerous heretic?

Matt Emerson gives us two fine pieces:

62. A Summarized Biblical Case for Eternal Generation

63. An Attempt to Arbitrate the Trinity Debate

Lewis Ayres contributes another guest post on Mike Bird’s blog:

64. On the meaning of Nicene Orthodoxy

Kyle Claunch, doctoral candidate under Bruce Ware, responds to use of their work in critiquing ERAS, with:

65. Some Clarifications from @kdclaunch on Bruce Ware and the Trinity Debate

Some new contributions…

Mark Baddeley continues at TGC Australia:

66. The Ordered Godhead: (4) Athanasius and Nicea

Meanwwhile Mark Jones offers up a reading list!

67. A (Somewhat Annotated) Bibliography on the Trinity.

Clarification from Bruce Ware over his views:

68. Knowing the Self-Revealed God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

Here’s Nick Norelli offering us:

69. Some Scattered Thoughts on the EFS/ERAS Debate

Mike Bird has three questions in response to Bruce Ware’s post (68):

70. Bruce Ware’s Clarification on EFS/ERAS and Nicene Orthodoxy

Mark Jones, after some heated twitteractions, responds with an article engaging Ware’s latest post:

71. Guest Post from Mark Jones (includes some free commentary on ‘tone’ and ‘fallout’ by Trueman.

Mark Baddeley wraps up the series at TGC Australia

72. The Ordered Godhead: (5) Final Reflections

Todd Pruit just fired a salvo, with a post quoting extensively from Ware and showing some real problems in his book ‘Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance’:

73. Let’s all be Nicene

Bruce Ware gives another guest post defending his position and trying to contextualise statements in the aforementioned book:

74. An Open Letter to Liam Goligher, Carl Trueman, and Todd Pruitt, on Trinitarian Equality and Distinctions

Matt Emerson and Luke Stamps offer a nuanced response to Ware’s latest two posts:

75. Responding to Bruce Ware with Charitable Criticism

A response letter from Goligher, Trueman, and Pruitt

76. The Looking Glass War: Responding to Bruce Ware

An engagement with Ware’s recent post from Geoff Holsclaw:

77. Holsclaw responds to Ware (a little cluttered since it quotes Ware’s post in full and responds point by point.)

A response from Steven Wedgeworth offers a critique of Ware’s position:

78. Bruce Ware’s “Essential Properties of Personhood”: Social Trinitarianism and Pro-Nicene Logic

I was disappointed not to go to the North American Patristics Society’ conference for 2016, but I do not regret my decision not to go this year. Here’s what not-going did for me:

1. I saved about $2000-3000 dollars and 4 days worth of air travel.
2. I spent some quality time with my 11 week-old daughter.
3. I visited my 90-year-old grandmother.
4. I made some good progress in my rapidly overgrown and overgrowing treatment of 4th century exegesis of Proverbs 8.
5. I gave a presentation about my time teaching in Mongolia.
6. I followed as much of the conference as I could via twitter.
7. I finally had a gym bro compliment me on my strong deadlifts.
8. I saved myself the abomination of drinking the american excuse for coffee.
9. I heard a local paper comparing the Johannine Epistles and with Philodemus and Plutarch.
10. I got to experience the very belated arrival of ‘autumn’ in Sydney.

No, but semi-seriously, I wish I could have been there, but I’m glad I decided not to go this year.

When I teach students who have (some) Greek (these are usually biblical studies/theology students), my go-to method is to use a text-based approach and in particular I tend to get them straight into John’s Gospel in the Vulgate.

Some classicists seem a little down on reading the Vulgate. They seem to think we should just stick to the classical canon and that ‘nothing good came from later Latin’. What nonsense. I love some good Cicero too, but let’s not get caught up on Latinitas.

Teaching this student population from the Vulgate has three powerful advantages.

1. It leverages off their knowledge of Greek. Not that they need to know the Greek underlying the Vulgate necessarily, nor even by particularly familiar with John in the Greek. But having done Greek gives me something easy to which I can relate Latin syntax and vocabulary. Telling a student that ut here is mostly correspondent to ἵνα is a short-cut to comprehension. Similarly, it helps explain some Vulgate oddities, like quia being used for ὅτι when really it shouldn’t.
2. It leverages off their knowledge of both English and the English Bible. When students clue in to the passage they’re reading, it gives them a context to ‘cheat’ – to render the text comprehensible because they know what it ‘ought’ to say. This isn’t cheating, it’s using what you know to understand a text. Similarly, Latin’s influence on English is more profound than Greek’s, and the number of cognates and derivatives also helps a great deal.
3. It gives students a sense of achievement early on. Even filling in meanings and structures for students, they get a sense that ‘hey, reading Latin isn’t so hard! I can understand this.’ That’s a powerful motivator to keep going instead of 16 weeks of grammar all so we can know about poets and sailors giving roses to girls

I wouldn’t teach all students this way. If I had them in person I’d be inclined to a more communicative oral method. If they didn’t have a biblical studies, Koine Greek background, it wouldn’t work as well. But for this population of students, the Vulgate is a great entry point. And you don’t need to stick to something easy like John forever. Reading Old Testament, and deuterocanonical or apocryphal texts, makes for some fun forays into some more difficult terrain.

It’s been a few months since I wrote one of these posts. Honestly, I have little to report – all my side projects have slowed to almost nothing at present. Most of my time is currently devoted to thesis-writing, the small amount of tutoring I do, and looking after the baby.

I do have a beta-version of a reader’s edition of the Acts of Thecla. It’s mainly vocabulary without many grammatical comments. I might post that up soon.