Anyone tasked with teaching early Christian doctrine to undergraduate students should pick up this book. The lack of sources makes developing a course on this material difficult, especially when it comes to a clear explication of the development of fourth-century trinitarian doctrine, which Brian Daley in the foreword calls “the tangled early history of trinitarian dogma.” With Retrieving Nicaea, Khalid Anatolios suggests an approach “toward a creative retrieval of Nicene trinitarian faith,” recognizing that there is not “a single and monolithic path for such a retrieval” (281). Yet, he admits the difficulty in doing so; trying to codify a Nicene theology and its reappropriation cannot be done. Perhaps this book's greatest contribution, along with setting out the various streams of thought in the third, fourth, and early fifth centuries, is the methodology. It focuses on a few of the more prominent minds of the fourth and fifth centuries (Athanasius of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine of Hippo), providing a deeper understanding of the issues specific to a certain place and time. But what truly sets this book apart is its success in merging theoria and praxis, namely, the philosophical aspects of the trinitarian debates with the lived experience regarding how belief in the Trinity was worked out in daily life, which included liturgical practice and devotional life.
Following the preface and introduction, chapter 1 provides a general overview of the early stages of the fourth-century trinitarian controversies and the general doctrinal history of the fourth-century conversation. The pre-Nicene positions regarding the Father and Son, specifically those of Tertullian, Hippolytus, Novatian, Origen, and Methodius of Olympus, are articulated. The “battle” between Arius and Alexander of Alexandria is laid out, and the terms “hypostasis,” “homoousios,” “unbegotten,” and “prosopon” are introduced. The chapter ends with an introduction to the “unity of being” and “unity of will” approaches to understanding the relationship between Father and Son.
The ambitious second chapter emphasizes that doctrinal development should be “conceived as the dynamic and complex process of cumulative interpretation that constitutes the meaning of a doctrine” (33). Invoking French Catholic philosopher Gabriel Marcel, Anatolios frames his discussion on doctrine using primary and secondary reflection, where primary reflection leads to a questioning of specific ideas, and secondary reflection attempts to retrieve those ideas and gain “a deeper integration of transcendent truths that are never finally enclosed within human grasp” (35). This reflects the book's approach. At this point, the “unity of will” (Arius, Asterius, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Eunomius of Cyzicus) and “unity of being” (Alexander of Alexandria, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Apollinaris of Laodicea) positions are set out, as are clear distinctions between each. There are critiques of the modern, post-Augustinian and Western narrowing of soteriology, and analysis of how that concept, when read back into the early Christian writers, muddies the relationship between father and Son (50).
Chapter 3 begins with a short history of Athanasius’ life at Alexandria, then takes up the relationship between the work of the bishop of Alexandria and that of Eusebius of Caesarea (102). The chapter focuses on Athanasius’ Against the Greeks/On the Incarnation, which are approached as one work, and compares the overlap in the Christological vocabulary between the two bishops. Asterius and Arius are also brought into the discussion. The strength of the chapter is the explication of the subtle nuances between the various streams of thought popular in the mid-fourth century on such topics as divine transcendence, the divinity of the Word, and trinitarian salvation.
The fourth chapter focuses on Gregory of Nyssa. Although many aspects of his Contra Eunomius (CE) are found in the other, shorter defense of the consubstantiality of the Trinity, Ad Ablabium, the CE is longer and more detailed. Anatolios clarifies the practical aspects of the Eunomian position, namely, to adopt that position logically leads to a disavowal of any worship of Christ (175). The other important insight is the role of kenosis (“self-emptying”) and the problems in ascribing suffering solely to the humanity (as opposed to the divinity) of Christ. Gregory is trying to reframe the discussion on divine transcendence, insisting that while the divine nature is impassible, through divine philanthropia and power God enters into the human world. How is it that this entry, or ‘mingling’ as Gregory calls it, does not denote a certain passibility in God? “Passible” does not apply to God, who is always active and working out the salvation of the world (176). The suffering of Christ is a mark of the divine nature and its love for humankind: “[w]hat took place was not passion but philanthropia” (183). For Gregory, the ultimate motive for human thanksgiving is the self-humbling of the Son from a full divine state to a condition that shares and reverses human suffering (189).
The final chapter, on Augustine's De Trinitate, focuses on the theme of theological epistemology and determining what kind of knowledge of the Trinity is possible for human beings. Such knowledge can “affirm both divine incomprehensibility and the possibility of being related to the trinitarian being of God” (241). But Augustine warns against the unbridled use of reason to comprehend the Trinity. At the same time, it is impossible to “show” anyone the Trinity; it is found in Scripture and through experience, and any knowledge of God must be viewed as a “quest” (246) that involves the use of symbols, the similitudines. Faith is the starting point that “looks for a trinitarian sight in the human person” who is made in the image of God (279). Therefore, human frailty and weakness (sin) distort the understanding of God.
The author concludes by suggesting future themes that require more attention but admonishes the reader, “[a]n authentic retrieval of Nicene trinitarian theology should endeavor to reappropriate trinitarian eusebia (“piety”). But the focus of the work, the synthesis of unity of being and unity of will approaches in understanding the Trinity (both advocated by Athansius and Gregory of Nyssa), has been largely forgotten; such has been the task of this monograph to remind theologians of the problems when these two approaches are understood as diametrical.
Anatolios's work can easily find a place on the shelf of graduate students and of early Christian systematic and patristic theologians. His positions regarding the implications of a renewed understanding of Nicene Christianity (primarily found in the conclusion) are a welcome addition to the discussion. Perhaps a good use of the text would include a guided reading of specific sections of chapters with graduate students to tease out the varying streams of thought in the fourth century and offer a new way of approaching the study of trinitarian doctrine.
