History of Philosophy | 18 Middle and Neo-Platonism

[Ahanu]

It's not one or t'other, it's a two-way street and it requires a careful reading, as scholars like Ramelli show.

This better reflects the historical reality than the assertion that "the Christian belief in the Trinity is something independent of Greek philosophy."

 

[Ahanu]

Whereas Illaria Ramelli argues, in her Origen’s Anti-Subordinationism and its Heritage in the Nicene and Cappadocian Line two significant points:
1: Origen was not, as commonly supposed, a subordinationist, and
2: That his influence on the Cappadocian Fathers in their Trinitarian formulation is, in Gregory at least, there in every line.

Aren't you concerned about reviews regarding Ramelli's scholarship, which has been described as containing fundamental methodological flaws due to a pattern of misrepresentation, fabrication of evidence, and so on?

A Review of Ilaria Ramelli’s History of the ‘Apokatastasis Doctrine’: A Critical Assessment of Evidence from before Origen by JP

According to some critics, she routinely cites phrases and supposed "glosses" in patristic texts that simply do not exist. She "glossed" a non-existent phrase in Basil, attributes imaginary interpretations to Theodore and Gregory of Nyssa based on absent textual elements, and even makes up entire clauses out of thin air in her translations of Origen.

A review of Ramelli's translation work in Megathread on Ilaria Ramelli's Translation Work

Critics note that despite offering hundreds of references and translations, her work lacks any meaningful engagement with the broader contexts essential to sound exegesis: "One major thing I immediately noticed in my analysis is that, because Ramelli offers so many hundreds of individual references and translations, she basically never offers any actual contextual analysis of any particular passage she mentions. There’s virtually no engagement with the various contexts that other scholars look at when they offer deep exegetical analysis of their own."

A review of Ilaria Ramelli’s History of the ‘Apokatastasis Doctrine’: A Critical Assessment of Evidence from before Origen by Nils Arne Pedersen

Her errors, according to Nils Arne Pedersen, stem from fundamental methodological flaws, including a failure to analyze word meanings within their proper contexts.

A review of Terms for Eternity by Helen M. Keizer

"The study under review presents much and rich material that allows one to come to these conclusions, but weakness of method, a leaning on unwarranted assumptions, an equivocal formulation of outcomes, and numerous erroneous details unfortunately make it an unreliable guide."

 

[Thomas]

I realise that that is what you believe..

..but it can't be proved.

What can't be proved?

It's interesting that you think we can know more about Origen now, than they all did
back in the day.

LOL, I never said that.

No, not accused of heresy due to confusion .. a political mess, yes!

How much do you actually know about Origen?

 

[Ahanu]

Whereas Illaria Ramelli argues, in her Origen’s Anti-Subordinationism and its Heritage in the Nicene and Cappadocian Line two significant points:
1: Origen was not, as commonly supposed, a subordinationist, and
2: That his influence on the Cappadocian Fathers in their Trinitarian formulation is, in Gregory at least, there in every line.

A review of Ilaria Ramelli’s History of the ‘Apokatastasis Doctrine’: A Critical Assessment of Evidence from before Origen by Nils Arne Pedersen

"As regards the Christian literature before Origen—which is the subject of this article—Ramelli’s history of the ‘Apokatastasis doctrine’ suffers under a methodological problem: an inclination to refrain from distinguishing between early ideas and later patristic concepts and interpretations, and even a tendency to paint the relation between early and later ideas with teleological phrases. As regards semantics, Ramelli and Konstan do not always seek the meaning of words in the context in which they are used, but in particular there is a lack of acribia. Hence their conclusions are not convincing.

There may be several reasons for these errors. One may lie in the circumstance that there exists a strong theological interest in a revisionist historiography which makes ancient Christianity look more like modern mainstream Christianity in Western Europe, Canada, and parts of the USA. Undoubtedly Ramelli’s (and Konstan’s) semantic arguments are rooted in a universalistic tradition, and similar arguments have also formerly been raised by universalists and annihilationists, as they are themselves aware.57

It remains an open question whether Ramelli’s history of the ‘Apokatastasis doctrine’ is more well-founded as regards the Christian literature after Origen. Unsystematic research has at least revealed another example of a lack of acribia: Ramelli ascribes a universalistic passage to Titus of Bostra’s Contra Manichaeos which has been known to belong to Serapion of Thmuis’ Adversus Manichaeos since 1894, and there are very strong reasons to assume that she has uncritically copied one of Hanson’s dated books.58."

 

[Thomas]

Aren't you concerned about reviews regarding Ramelli's scholarship, which has been described as containing fundamental methodological flaws due to a pattern of misrepresentation, fabrication of evidence, and so on?

Well I take that on board, and bear it in mind ... so while I look to scholars like Fredriksen and Ramelli, Hart and Ehrman, for their scholarship and their insight, I have not built a theology or my faith on their work alone ... I always reference back to Scripture and to what seems right and proper and just ...

But we have to admit a certain partisan leaning to our scholars of choice.

Like the Fathers, no scholar is infallible. Where they are all in accord, one can safely take that proposition 'to the bank', as the saying goes ... where they differ, we have to tread our way cautiously, but acknowledge, in the end, we lean on our own convictions.

My benchmark in all this is St Maximus the Confessor, for his 'corrections' of both Origen and Plato.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Although this video is very long, I thought I'd add it here for reference, and also in the Broaching the Trinity thread.
I really think the way Dan McClellan explores the patristic thought and the development of the trinitarian idea to be very edifying and informative.
This video involves Dan replying to someone else's video, and offering more information and explanation, so that's the commentary you see.

 

[Ahanu]

Although this video is very long, I thought I'd add it here for reference, and also in the Broaching the Trinity thread.
I really think the way Dan McClellan explores the patristic thought and the development of the trinitarian idea to be very edifying and informative.
This video involves Dan replying to someone else's video, and offering more information and explanation, so that's the commentary you see.

McClellan critiques the interpreter for failing to explain Justin's explicit view of the Logos as "another God below the Creator God." He also speaks of a functional unity rather than ontological unity in Justin's writings (e.g., "fire kindling fire"). The concept of the Logos as "another God" (heteros theos) is deeply rooted in Middle Platonic philosophy.

 

[Ahanu]

Although this video is very long, I thought I'd add it here for reference, and also in the Broaching the Trinity thread.
I really think the way Dan McClellan explores the patristic thought and the development of the trinitarian idea to be very edifying and informative.
This video involves Dan replying to someone else's video, and offering more information and explanation, so that's the commentary you see.

McClellan critiques the interpreter for failing to explain Justin's explicit view of the Logos as "another God below the Creator God." He also speaks of a functional unity rather than ontological unity in Justin's writings (e.g., "fire kindling fire"). The concept of the Logos as "another God" (heteros theos) is deeply rooted in Middle Platonic philosophy.

Notes from Paula Fredriksen related to the topic:

"For Philo, further, the Jewish god’s logos was a “second god” (QG 2.62) as, similarly, was Jesus for Justin (heteros theos, Dial. 59.1).13

Fluid terminology marks Justin’s usage, too: in this same passage, he refers to Jesus as angelos, and shortly later as God the Father’s creative Logos (Dial. 61.1). Christ in other words is Justin’s go-between god, showing up in history, as the highest, “nameless” god never would (1 Apol. 63, cf. 60)."

 

[Ahanu]

His critique of interpretations that retroject Nicene Trinitarianism onto Justin serves as an important reminder: avoid anachronism in historical theology.

 

[TheLightWithin]

McClellan critiques the interpreter for failing to explain Justin's explicit view of the Logos as "another God below the Creator God." He also speaks of a functional unity rather than ontological unity in Justin's writings (e.g., "fire kindling fire"). The concept of the Logos as "another God" (heteros theos) is deeply rooted in Middle Platonic philosophy.

Do you think his critiques are accurate and fair, or not so much?

 

[Thomas]

His critique of interpretations that retroject Nicene Trinitarianism onto Justin serves as an important reminder: avoid anachronism in historical theology.

Quite.

 

[Thomas]

I have discussed this elsewhere, but I thought it work repeating here that ...

The development of Christian Trinitarian theology utilised Greek philosophical thought and lexicon, in a movement through and then beyond Middle and later Neoplatonism, defining those terms according to its own light.

Having said that, I am inclined to look at Neoplatonism especially as offering a useful (dare one say providential) means of thinking about Christian Trinitarianism ... or put another way, neither school has said all it has to say, and there is still fruitful grounds for discourse.

 

[Ahanu]

Do you think his critiques are accurate and fair, or not so much?

I have discussed this elsewhere, but I thought it work repeating here that ...

The development of Christian Trinitarian theology utilised Greek philosophical thought and lexicon, in a movement through and then beyond Middle and later Neoplatonism, defining those terms according to its own light.

Having said that, I am inclined to look at Neoplatonism especially as offering a useful (dare one say providential) means of thinking about Christian Trinitarianism ... or put another way, neither school has said all it has to say, and there is still fruitful grounds for discourse.

I have not read his work.

With that being said, according to what he said in the video, he is accurate in pointing out that Justin explicitly uses the language of "another God" (heteros theos). He also makes another accurate point: there is a "functional unity rather than ontological unity" in Justin's writings. This conflicts with the ontological unity of "same substance" (homoousios) that became central to later Nicene Christian theology.

@Thomas does not agree with McClellan as a whole, for he said: "In response to McClellan, I'd say: No, Justin is not a 4th century Trinitarian, he's a 2nd century Trinitarian." Note "Trinitarian" in the 4th century means Nicene Trinitarianism with its emphasis on homoousios, ontological unity, and co-equality, whereas 2nd century Trinitarian means something quite different. What does the label "2nd-century Trinitarian" even mean? A mere functional unity? The label "2nd-century Trinitarian" itself slides into the realm of anachronism. The label "2nd-centurty Trinitarian" is an attempt to blur distinctions. The strange label Thomas uses should be discarded. What justification is there in using such a label?

 

[Thomas]

With that being said, according to what he said in the video, he is accurate in pointing out that Justin explicitly uses the language of "another God" (heteros theos). He also makes another accurate point: there is a "functional unity rather than ontological unity" in Justin's writings. This conflicts with the ontological unity of "same substance" (homoousios) that became central to later Nicene Christian theology.

No disagreement there ... I think I read somewhere that Justin, knowingly or otherwise, sidesteps the question of ontological unity.

@Thomas does not agree with McClellan as a whole, for he said: "In response to McClellan, I'd say: No, Justin is not a 4th century Trinitarian, he's a 2nd century Trinitarian."

I think that's a fair comment if McClellan is judging 2nd century Justin by a 4th century yardstick – but I'm not sure he is. He seems to be saying what Christian scholars (should) know ... I don't see anything revelatory or groundbreaking in his video.

Note "Trinitarian" in the 4th century means Nicene Trinitarianism with its emphasis on homoousios, ontological unity, and co-equality, whereas 2nd century Trinitarian means something quite different.

Yes, that was rather my point.

What does the label "2nd-century Trinitarian" even mean?

Well for 2nd century Theophilius, his "Trinity" (Τριάδος) is "God (the Father), and His Word (Son), and His wisdom (Holy Spirit)."

For 2nd century Tertullian, In his Adversus Praxeam Chapter II
"We, however, as we indeed always have done ..."

– What follows now is a statement of faith, a creed in everything but name, which not only bears a remarkable resemblance to the Creed of Nicaea, but also asserts a belief in the dispensation of the charism of faith as a particular operation of the Holy Spirit – in short a more complete expression of a Trinitarian faith than the one defined at Nicaea – indeed the Virgin Birth is not mentioned at all in the 325 creed –

"... believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or οἰκονομία, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her—being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel ..."

The label "2nd-century Trinitarian" itself slides into the realm of anachronism.

Not at all – the term was coined in the 2nd century, so is entirely valid, especially when referencing writings using that very term.

The label "2nd-centurty Trinitarian" is an attempt to blur distinctions.

Au contraire, mon brave. It is a necessary clarification with regard to this discussion.

You cannot simply dismiss any reference to 'Trinity' prior to the 4th century as tout court – that would be disingenuous.

What justification is there in using such a label?

Polycarp of Smyrna c155AD Martyrdom of Polycarp 14:3
"For this cause, yea and for all things, I praise Thee, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, through the eternal and heavenly High-priest, Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, through whom with Him and the Holy Spirit be glory both now [and ever] and for the ages to come. Amen."
A triform expression.

Ignatius of Antioch c110AD  Epistle to the Magnesians, Chapter 13
"Study ... in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit"
Ditto

Theophilus of Antioch used the term in Greek by at the latest 185CE
Tertullian used the term in Latin by latest 215CE

That none of these were teaching a 4th century doctrine is obvious, but to dismiss them for not doing so is itself an anachronism and a falsehood, giving the appearance of a doctrine spun from nowhere, or directly from the Greek philosophers.

The doctrine of the 4th century would involve discussing and defining such terms as nature, substance and essence (two things in Latin, but confusingly under the same term ousia in Greek), prosopon, hypostasis, indeed, almost every philosophical term in the discussion would be utilised and where necessary redefined.

+++

For the vast majority of Christians however, it means the same today as it did from the very beginning, a profession of faith in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit ... simply that.

 

[Ahanu]

No disagreement there ... I think I read somewhere that Justin, knowingly or otherwise, sidesteps the question of ontological unity.


I think that's a fair comment if McClellan is judging 2nd century Justin by a 4th century yardstick – but I'm not sure he is. He seems to be saying what Christian scholars (should) know ... I don't see anything revelatory or groundbreaking in his video.

I'm glad you agree. While you say you agree, some of your statements seem to fall back into anachronism, or at the very least minimize McClellan's distinctions.

In response to McClellan, I'd say: No, Justin is not a 4th century Trinitarian, he's a 2nd century Trinitarian.

The term 'trinity' is also 2nd century, so is entirely valid, especially when referencing writings using that very term.

Labeling Justin a "2nd-century Trinitarian" is, in my view, misleading. While the word "Trinity" and triadic language did appear in the 2nd century (and you rightly point out examples), equating this with being "Trinitarian" in any doctrinally meaningful sense is a problem. "Trinitarian" in this discussion inevitably evokes the Nicene understanding of the Trinity (ontological unity, homoousios, co-equality). To then apply "Trinitarian" to Justin - even with a "2nd-century" qualifier - suggests in a subtle way a continuity with Nicene doctrine. You're implying Justin was on a path directly leading to Nicaea or was engaged with a less developed version of Nicene Trinitarianism. "2nd-century Trinitarian" is anachronistic and ultimately obscures more than it clarifies in my opinion. Nothing you have said here proves otherwise.

No disagreement there ... I think I read somewhere that Justin, knowingly or otherwise, sidesteps the question of ontological unity.

The point is Justin's theology suggests a different kind of divine relationship than the ontological unity that was later defined at Nicaea. McClellan argues it is not a matter of Justin's theology being less developed. Rather, he is operating with a distinct theological paradigm, which was shaped by Middle Platonism, a philosophy in which subordination and hierarchy are inherent in the divine structure.

I think that's a fair comment if McClellan is judging 2nd century Justin by a 4th century yardstick – but I'm not sure he is. He seems to be saying what Christian scholars (should) know ... I don't see anything revelatory or groundbreaking in his video.

Nobody said his video is valuable because it is revelatory. He is arguing against interpretations that judge Justin by a 4th-century yardstick by retrojecting Nicene assumptions onto him. To me, he simply challenges this assumption.

You cited Polycarp, Ignatius, Theophilus, and Tertullian as evidence for "2nd-century Trinitarianism." However, they are not Nicene Trinitarianism itself, even in a "2nd-century" form. Theophilus, for example, doesn't negate a hierarchical or subordinationist understanding.

For the vast majority of Christians however, it means the same today as it did from the very beginning, a profession of faith in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit ... simply that.

The doctrinal understanding of what that formula means has evolved a lot and been debated throughout history.

 

[Ahanu]

For 2nd century Tertullian, In his Adversus Praxeam Chapter II
"We, however, as we indeed always have done ..."

– What follows now is a statement of faith, a creed in everything but name, which not only bears a remarkable resemblance to the Creed of Nicaea, but also asserts a belief in the dispensation of the charism of faith as a particular operation of the Holy Spirit – in short a more complete expression of a Trinitarian faith than the one defined at Nicaea – indeed the Virgin Birth is not mentioned at all in the 325 creed –

"... believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or οἰκονομία, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her—being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel ..."

There's an interesting contrast between Justin Martyr and Tertullian regarding their view of Plato. Justin embraced Platonic philosophy. He even believed Plato himself had even gleaned insights from Jewish tradition:

"For I think that some of you, when you read even carelessly the history of Diodorus, and of those others who wrote of these things, cannot fail to see that both Orpheus, and Homer, and Solon, who wrote the laws of the Athenians, and Pythagoras, and Plato, and some others, when they had been in Egypt, and had taken advantage of the history of Moses, afterwards published doctrines concerning the gods quite contrary to those which formerly they had erroneously promulgated."

However, Tertullian condemned Plato as the source of heresies.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that Tertullian was "pressed on one side by catholic Christians who objected to late second century logos christology . . . They considered this scheme of two creators and a divine Jesus to be inconsistent with monotheism." Even in Tertullian's time (late 2nd/early 3rd century), concerns about monotheism were being raised against Logos Christology models that resembled Justin's.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy also states Tertullian's "trinity" is "not a triune God, but rather a triad or group of three, with God as the founding member." Tertullian, a Latin Church Father, has a theology that was influenced by Stoicism and involved "spiritual matter" and emanation:

"Under the influence of Stoic philosophy, Tertullian believes that all real things are material. God is a spirit, but a spirit is a material thing made out of a finer sort of matter. At the beginning, God is alone, though he has his own reason within him. Then, when it is time to create, he brings the Son into existence, using but not losing a portion of his spiritual matter. Then the Son, using a portion of the divine matter shared with him, brings into existence the Spirit. And the two of them are God’s instruments, his agents, in the creation and governance of the cosmos.

The Son, on this theory, is not God himself, nor is he divine in the same sense that the Father is. Rather, the Son is “divine” in that he is made of a portion of the matter that the Father is composed of. This makes them “one substance” or not different as to essence. But the Son isn’t the same god as the Father, though he can, because of what he’s made of, be called “God”. Nor is there any tripersonal God here, but only a tripersonal portion of matter - that smallest portion shared by all three. The one God is sharing a portion of his stuff with another, by causing another to exist out of it, and then this other turns around and does likewise, sharing some of this matter with a third."

We see the idea of "one substance" emerging, but it’s embedded within a subordinationist, Stoic framework that is a world away from the Nicene homoousios.

 

[Ahanu]

For 2nd century Tertullian, In his Adversus Praxeam Chapter II
"We, however, as we indeed always have done ..."

– What follows now is a statement of faith, a creed in everything but name, which not only bears a remarkable resemblance to the Creed of Nicaea,

A remarkable generic resemblance, perhaps. But if it's only a generic resemblance then it's hardly remarkable.

As the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy demonstrates, the "resemblance" is only a generic one, masking huge doctrinal differences:

"Here is a graphic illustration of Tertullian’s trinity—not a triune God, but rather a triad or group of three, with God as the founding member."

"God’s instruments, his agents, in the creation and governance of the cosmos"

"The Son, on this theory, is not God himself, nor is he divine in the same sense that the Father is."

"Rather, the Son is ‘divine’ in that he is made of a portion of the matter that the Father is composed of."

"Nor are the persons equally divine; Tertullian holds that the Son is ‘ignorant of the last day and hour, which is known to the Father only’"

"This makes them 'one substance' or not different as to essence. But the Son isn’t the same god as the Father... Nor is there any tripersonal God here, but only a tripersonal portion of matter - that smallest portion shared by all three. The one God is sharing a portion of his stuff with another, by causing another to exist out of it, and then this other turns around and does likewise, sharing some of this matter with a third."

Even the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy concludes there exist "fundamental differences from later orthodoxy" in Tertullian's thought.

 

[Thomas]

Labeling Justin a "2nd-century Trinitarian" is, in my view, misleading.

OK. I see it differently. If you're going to discuss the influence of Middle Platonism, or any external philosophical paradigm, you are obliged to take on board the belief engaged by the philosophy, otherwise it seems to me you're making your whole case from a one-sided argument.

While the word "Trinity" and triadic language did appear in the 2nd century (and you rightly point out examples), equating this with being "Trinitarian" in any doctrinally meaningful sense is a problem.

I disagree. Theophilus uses the term to define a relation, there's the nascent doctrine right there.

"Trinitarian" in this discussion inevitably evokes the Nicene understanding of the Trinity (ontological unity, homoousios, co-equality).

OK, but that in itself is problematic, as the council said the barest minimum with regard to the Holy Spirit. It was a Christological definition, not a Trinitarian one, so I'd say 'the Nicene understanding of the Trinity' is misleading, as it did not address the unity of the Three, but just the Two.

Nicaea says nothing about the Holy Spirit other than a belief: "Καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα." – "And (we believe) in the Holy Spirit".
The Evangelic theologian William Lane Craig argues that the Holy Spirit was believed to be homoousios by extension – an argument I am sure would not satisfy you – it doesn't satisfy me.

There were eighteen synods and councils between 325 and 381, and none define the Holy Spirit in any terms other than 'proceeds from'.

The Creed of Constantinople (381) says: "And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who in unity with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets."
But quite how He 'proceeds' or what type of 'unity' – bearing in mind the Greek means 'together with' – is not defined.

At the Council of Toledo (400), we have credal statements:
1. We believe in one true God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, creator of that which is visible and invisible, through whom everything in heaven and on earth was created.
2. This one God also has one divine name – the Trinity.
3. The Father is not the Son, but he has the Son, who is not the Father.
4. The Son is not the Father, but is by nature the Son of God.
5. Also the Spirit is the Paraclete, who himself is neither the Father nor the Son, but proceeds from the Father.
6. Therefore the Father is unbegotten, the Son begotten, the Paraclete not begotten, but is proceeding from the Father
10. This Trinity is distinct in persons, of one substance, virtue, power and undivided majesty, unable to be differentiated.
11. Besides him there is no one else with a divine nature, neither angel nor spirit nor anything else of excellence which one ought to believe to be God.

Anathemas:
2. If anyone should say or believe that God the Father is himself the Son or the Paraclete, let him be anathema.
3. If anyone should say or believe that God the Son is himself the Father or Paraclete, let him be anathema.
4. If anyone should say or believe that the Paraclete, the Spirit, is either the Father or the Son, let him be anathema.

To then apply "Trinitarian" to Justin - even with a "2nd-century" qualifier - suggests in a subtle way a continuity with Nicene doctrine.

I'm suggesting the Church believed in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit from its foundation.

You're implying Justin was on a path directly leading to Nicaea ...

Where have I suggested 'a path directly'? You're reading that onto me. The path is anything but ...

... or was engaged with a less developed version of Nicene Trinitarianism.

No, simply engaged with a version of Trinitarianism.

Nicaea falls short of the Cappadocian definition, which most people think of as Trinitarianism.

"2nd-century Trinitarian" is anachronistic ...

How can it be anachronistic when the very term is in use?

The point is Justin's theology suggests a different kind of divine relationship than the ontological unity that was later defined at Nicaea. McClellan argues it is not a matter of Justin's theology being less developed. Rather, he is operating with a distinct theological paradigm, which was shaped by Middle Platonism, a philosophy in which subordination and hierarchy are inherent in the divine structure.

OK.

I'm not sure who McClellan is accusing of retrofitting Nicene theology onto Justin.

If you and I accept that Justin was heavily influenced by Middle Platonism, then there's the reason why Justin's theology was so short-lived ... it proved insufficient to the task.

He is arguing against interpretations that judge Justin by a 4th-century yardstick by retrojecting Nicene assumptions onto him. To me, he simply challenges this assumption.

As I said, I'm not sure who assumes that?

You cited Polycarp, Ignatius, Theophilus, and Tertullian as evidence for "2nd-century Trinitarianism." However, they are not Nicene Trinitarianism itself, even in a "2nd-century" form. Theophilus, for example, doesn't negate a hierarchical or subordinationist understanding.

Never said they were ... 'Nicene Trinitarianism' is, by definition, 4th century.

My Trinitarianism is 7th century – the Doctrine of Perichoresis (Gk: περιχώρησις perikhōrēsis, 'rotation'). The term first appears in Maximus Confessor (d. 662), but the verb is used by the Cappadocian Gregory of Nazianzus (d. 389/90). It's latin equivalent is Circumincession.

 

[Thomas]

There's an interesting contrast between Justin Martyr and Tertullian regarding their view of Plato. Justin embraced Platonic philosophy. He even believed Plato himself had even gleaned insights from Jewish tradition ... However, Tertullian condemned Plato as the source of heresies.

Yes. I think generally the Fathers thought highly of Plato.

 

[Thomas]

A remarkable generic resemblance, perhaps. But if it's only a generic resemblance then it's hardly remarkable.

I think your argument is mistaken. I'm not arguing Tertullian's Trinity, I was pointing out a clear list of credal statements over 100 years before Nicaea – a point of interest, no big deal.

And as we know, Tertullian ended up a Montanist.