Copyright holder: Tyndale University, 3377 Bayview Ave., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M2M 3S4 Att.: Library Director, J. William Horsey Library Copyright: This Work has been made available by the authority of the copyright owner solely for the purpose of private study and research and may not be copied or reproduced except as permitted by the copyright laws of Canada without the written authority from the copyright owner. Copyright license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License Citation: Franklin, Patrick S. Review of Nicaea and its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, by Lewis Ayres. London: Oxford University Press, 2006. Canadian Evangelical Review 34-35 (2008): 91-94. ***** Begin Content ****** TYNDALE UNIVERSITY 3377 Bayview Avenue Toronto, ON M2M 3S4 TEL: 416.226.6620 www.tyndale.ca Note: This Work has been made available by the authority of the copyright owner solely for the purpose of private study and research and may not be copied or reproduced except as permitted by the copyright laws of Canada without the written authority from the copyright owner. Franklin, Patrick S. Review of Nicaea and its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, by Lewis Ayres. London: Oxford University Press, 2006. Canadian Evangelical Review 34-35 (2008): 91-94. BOOK REVIEWS The Canadian Evangelical Review gratefully accepts book review requests as well as book review submissions from potential contributors and publishers. All review submissions should be of academic quality and generally conform to the standards laid out within the principal scholarly handbooks of style. We are also happy to provide publishers with prepublication reviews of their submitted mate- rial upon request. Review submissions, requests, and publisher volumes relating to the broader disciplines of Theology, Biblical Studies, and Missiology can be directed to the book review editor at the following address: Kent D. Clarke (Ph.D. Bristol) Brooke Foss Westcott Professor of New Testament Textual Criticism, Greek Studies, and Hermeneutics Trinity Western University Seal Kap House 7600 Glover Road Langley, British Columbia V2Y IYI, Canada Tel: (604) 513-2I2I (Ext. 3116) kentc@twu.ca Nicaea and its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, by Lewis Ayres. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. ISBN 9780198755050. Pp. xvi + 475. $60.00 (Can). Despite the renaissance ofTrinitarian thought in modern theology, Lewis Ayres contends that contemporary theologians only superficially engage the fourth cen- tury Fathers that were crucial in formulating the doctrine of the Trinity. Ayres, a professor of Historical Theology at the Candler School of Theology, and author of Nicaea and its Legacy, chastises theologians for relying upon simplistic categoriza- tions and unfounded distinctions, rather than conducting (or at least consulting) deep exegetical analysis of fourth century documents. In response, Ayres offers a ground breaking study of the development of what he calls ‘pro-Nicene’ theology. Building on the revisionist work of scholars like Michel Barnes and Joseph Lien- 91 hard, he sets out to provide a new, more nuanced and historically credible narrative of the emergence of Nicene Trinitarianism and its implications for theologians desiring to be faithful to ‘pro-Nicene’ thought. While his thesis is complex, it can be summarized as follows: The Nicene tradition involves far more plurality and complexity than is frequently depicted both by traditional historical narratives and by systematic theologians who use such narratives heuristically for their own constructive purposes. Thus, it is more accurate to speak of ‘pro-Nicene’ theologies, which were not univocal but shared a common “life of the mind.” Ayres’s intended audience includes students of Christianity (and late antiquity) and modern Chris- tian theologians. In the opening section of the book (the first of three), Ayres recasts the histori- cal context of the Nicene debate by identifying the divergent streams of thought that preceded and occasioned the Creed of 325. His account challenges traditional narratives, which tend to characterize the controversy as a simple two-party quar- rel between ‘Nicenes’ (Athanasius and his followers) and Arians’ (Arius and his followers). In contrast, Arius himself was a relatively minor figure in the fourth century debates. While his initial dispute with Alexander played a catalytic role in unleashing the subsequent Arian controversies, it did not cause those contro- versies, nor did it greatly influence the thought of later ‘homoians or ‘homoiousians . Divergent trajectories of ideas were already operative and ripe for an immanent confrontation. These trajectories stem from the following four sources: (i) Alex- ander and Athanasius; (ii) the ‘Eusebians’ (Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Aste- rius, and Eusebius of Caesarea); (iii) Marcellus and theologians of the ‘undivided monad’; and (iv) Western anti-adoptionism (Novatian, Lactantius, and Hilary). This section of the book narrates events up until 350. In the second section, Ayres discusses the shaping of ‘pro-Nicene’ thought as it came to be distinguished from various contemporaneous anti-Nicene ‘groups’ (loosely defined—Ayres says we must not envision clearly distinct parties’). The ‘homoians’ (e.g. Acacius of Caesarea, Eudoxius of Antioch) represented one such opposing group. Homoians rejected essence language in describing the Son’s gen- eration from the Father and promoted ontological subordinationism. For ho- moians, the Son is ‘like’ the Father but ontologically inferior to him. A second group, which Aryes calls the ‘homoiousians’ (e.g. Basil of Ancyra), retained essence language but insisted that the Father and Son are of ‘like’ essence but not of the same essence (homoousios). They feared that the homoousian position of Athanasius would lead to modalism. A third group, the ‘heterousians (e.g. Aetius and Euno- mius), pushed the homoian doctrine further in order to emphasize the complete difference between the essences of the Father and the Son. They also clearly subor- dinated the Son, whom they regarded as being generated by the Father’s will (not his essence). During the period of 360-381, the exchanges and debates between 92 these opposing streams helped to sharpen what became a clear (but not univocal) ‘pro-Nicene’ position. Important figures during this process included Athanasius, Hilary of Potiers, Ephrem the Syrian, and the ‘Cappadocians’ (Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzen, and Gregory of Nyssa). In the final section of Nicaea and its Legacy, Ayres draws together dominant themes and implications of his revised narrative to reconstruct a consistent portrait of (pro-) Nicene theology. He argues that ‘pro-Nicene’ theology always employed three fundamental strategies. His selection of the word ‘strategy’ is significant, because while various ‘pro-Nicene’ theologians might have differed in their choice of words and emphases, their strategies nevertheless reflected a common “life of the mind” involving the reshaping of thought and imagination (pp. 274ff). These strategies concerned particular ways of speaking about: (i) divine unity and diver- sity (i.e., stressing divine simplicity and the inseparable operations of the distinct Trinitarian persons); (ii) Christology and cosmology (i.e., revealing the close con- nection between Trinitarian theology and sanctification, transformation in Christ, and ‘participation’ in the divine life); and (iii) anthropology, epistemology, and Scripture. The latter strategy reflects the ‘pro-Nicene’ practise of reading Scripture in order to reform and train the soul. A trained soul enables proper bodily action and facilitates appropriate contemplation of Christ’s mysterious and transforming presence. Such contemplation continually reshapes one’s understanding of God, self, and world. Nicaea and its Legacy persuasively reinterprets the Nicene tradition in a way that both incorporates and goes beyond previous landmark works in the filed (e.g., R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988). Its detailed narrative and careful analysis allows fourth century voices to speak forth with credibility and faithfulness to their original contexts and in- tentions. In addition, the book debunks several erroneous (and overly simplis- tic) ways of categorizing Nicene Trinitarian debates. Aryes helpfully transcends common fallacious distinctions, like Eastern versus Western starting points for Trinitarian reflection (threeness versus oneness respectively), an Arian conspiracy versus an original Athanasian orthodoxy, and political/pragmatic influences versus ‘pure’ theological ones (his discussion of the role of Constantine and his sons is refreshingly balanced). He accomplishes this by demonstrating the complexity of the various positions, the plurality of individual opinions within those positions, and the diversity of loyalties and allegiances within the same geographical areas. Furthermore, Ayres offers helpful summaries of the Trinitarian theologies of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine, showing their mutual concerns as ‘pro-Nicene’ theologians. In sum, Ayres is to be commended for achieving his dual aim of showcas- ing good historical research to students of antiquity, and encouraging modern 93 theologians toward serious engagement with Nicaea. Students and teachers of Trinitarian theology simply cannot afford to ignore Ayres’s contribution. My only criticism of the book is that its portrayal of contemporary Trinitarian theologians as “shallow” is itself simplistic and somewhat high-handed in tone. One wonders if Aryres extends to contemporary theology the same charity and careful analysis he demands for Nicene theology. —Patrick S. Franklin, McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton 94 ***** This is the end of the e-text. This e-text was brought to you by Tyndale University, J. William Horsey Library - Tyndale Digital Collections *****