This is the transcript of Restitutio episode 528: Dynamic Monarchianism with Dr. Thomas Gaston This transcript was auto-generated and only approximates the contents of this episode. Sean Finnegan: Hey there, I'm Sean Finnegan. And you are listening to Restitutio podcast that seeks to recover authentic Christianity and live it out today. Today, my guest is Thomas Gaston, whose book is called Dynamic Monarchianism. The earliest Christology Dr. Gaston earned his PhD from Oxford University, and this book is one of the fruits of that labor. In this interview we talked about the earliest dynamic monarchianism's including. Unites in Theodotus as well as how logos Incarnational Christology took off under the influence of middle Platonism in the writings of Justin Martyr and his doctrinal successors. Dynamic monarchianism affirm the supremacy of the father as the only true God, and that Jesus was miraculously conceived but did not pre exist. The term more or less refers to what we call today, biblical Unitarians, but typically applies to Christians that held this view in the second, third, and 4th. Centuries here now is episode 528 dynamic monarchianism. The earliest Christology with Thomas Gaston. Hey there, I'm Sean Finnegan, the host of Restitutio. And today my guest is Doctor Thomas Gaston, who holds a pH. D in theology from the University of Oxford. Pretty obscure school. Nobody's ever heard of. Just kidding. He's a specialist. In historical Christology and early Christianity, and he is the author of Dynamic Monarchianism. The earliest Christology, and then you have a question mark in the subtitle there, published by Theophilus Press. The imprint of the Unitarian Christian Alliance. Doctor Gaston, welcome to rest studio. Thomas Gaston: Thanks, Sean. Nice to be here. Sean Finnegan: So I was thinking you could begin just by introducing yourself and telling us about your journey of faith and your interest in Christology. In particular, could you get us started there? Thomas Gaston: Sure. Yeah. So born into the Christophine community. So that's my background. I've been Christopher in most of my life, I was baptized at 16 into that community and have been part of that ever since and have been engaged as a lay speaker within that community. My interest in Christology, particularly from an academic perspective, I mean I. Did a bachelors in philosophy but as part of that I was able to take out one module of early Christianity from the Classics Department and that really got me interested in that sort of historical side of of Christianity. And then I went on to do. A masters at the University of Birmingham. Where I was able to explore a little bit further into the developments that were taking place in the 2nd and 3rd century, in particular in relation to the doctrine of Trinity, and that was for me able to bring an academic focus to the sort of things that was interesting to me from my Christian upbringing about the differences between. What we believe and what mainstream Christianity believes and in relation to doctor the Trinity and really sort of bring out some of the ideas about where this might be coming from. And then when I got to do my doctorate at Oxford, this was exactly what I was looking at. Was where does effectively, where does the doctrine of Trinity come from if it's not coming from the Bible? Is not coming from the apostles. Well, where did it come from? And exploring that, particularly in relation to the influence of Platonism on Christians in the 2nd and early 3rd century. So that's what I was doing academically. And then from that obviously created an interest. Having looked at it from the perspective of those Christians who were beginning to teach something like the Trinity. That really sparked interest in me and tried to understand well what was the other side like, you know, who were who are, who are the people who were not saying that, you know, who were saying the opposite in in that same period. Which then sort of sparked the research that led to the book. Sean Finnegan: So let's talk about the book a little bit. What are you hoping to accomplish with this book? Thomas Gaston: It's intended to be academically rigorous, so it's intended to be something that, you know, an academic historian in this period would read and at least take seriously in relation to the the arguments that it's presenting. So I hope at least that those people who are in sort of engaging it from that perspective see the detail and the care that's gone into. It and and. At least take the argument seriously, even if that's not quite where there are. But it's also intended, at least to be accessible to A to a more general reader, and to give people a bit of more perspective about this period. And my hope is that I came at this from a period in part just out of interest, my sort of historical interest is like what can we know about? People like this, I guess, you know Unitarians in this period, those who are they, you know, what can we actually know from our sources about them and how how widespread might this be as a phenomenon? But then obviously the book tries to do something else, which is tries to pin those different individuals together into a single narrative of us to like. Where might they be coming from and the the, you know, the subtitle of the book earliest Christology question Mark is about where they're actually like the overarching narrative that joins these people together is that. Actually they were. Representing A tradition that has existed within Christianity all the way back to the earliest apostles. So hopefully that narrative is convincing to people and actually sort of gives a different story than maybe the one that we sometimes hear from mainstream Christian Christianity in terms of like. The doctrine of the Trinity, being early and Apostolic. Sean Finnegan: Let's talk about Orthodoxy for a moment. In your book, early on, you wrote that you don't like the terms Proto Orthodox or incipient orthodoxy. Why not? What's the problem? In there. Thomas Gaston: Yeah, it's a really good point. So it's it's a really challenging word and it's a really challenging problem when you're dealing with this from a historical perspective about trying not to project modern categories on historical figures. So even if we assume that we. Know what we mean by Orthodoxy now in the modern setting? As opposed to heresy, for example, or as opposed to sort of non mainstream views. Applying those historical figures might be taken to apply it imply at least, that there was an established orthodoxy at that period, or that the doctrinal position of these characters were similar to modern orthodoxy. The problem I have with Proto Orthodoxy is a term I understand why people use it, because it's sort of. Is indicative of those people who are beginning to think of, along the lines of what would later become Orthodoxy. But it implies a sort of. Directionality and maybe even a sort of inevitability about the direction of travel in terms of the development of those ideas in. Period and that can be misleading. So if you think. About someone like Justin Martin, who I talk quite a lot about in the book, who is a Christian in the mid to late 2nd century. He is developing ideas that I guess one might describe as Proto Orthodox in the sense that he has a sort of triad of Father, son and spirit. So he's pointing in the direction of what would become the Trinity, but he is not strictly speaking, a Trinitarian himself in terms of that Orthodox terms, and it's far from obvious that his views should have become the mainstream. They do in fact become mainstream because in part because he gets the support of the church in Rome and other influential figures in Christianity that period. But it's entirely plausible that something else might have happened and gone a different way. So cautious as that sort of of that idea of assuming that these ideas. Inevitable in any sense. Sean Finnegan: Yeah. Or that he was in some sense half. You know he I'm sure he thought his views were mature and well established. He he he probably wouldn't have said. Oh, I'm gesturing at some other greater understanding that I don't quite know what to call yet. You know he. Thomas Gaston: Oh yeah, not at all. Sean Finnegan: Would just, yeah. Thomas Gaston: Yeah, yeah, no, he would, he would have strenuously argued that he was right. Absolutely. Sean Finnegan: Right, right. And if you? Did have someone with Justin Martyr's Christology today? Thomas Gaston: OK. Sean Finnegan: Almost all mainstream Trinitarian Christians would recognize that person as not proto Orthodox. They would recognize that person as heretical. Thomas Gaston: Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah, he's not. Sean Finnegan: So that's problematic. It's not. His view is not really compatible with the Trinity from an evolutionary point of view. You could say Oh well, this is one step. Along the way of development. Yeah, I can see what you what you're saying. Even just this word, Orthodox is very problematic for me because it it means right opinion or straight opinion, right? So of course I think. I'm Orthodox and and you think you're Orthodox. Everyone thinks they're orthodox, right? So like I'm. I'm a little loath to take that term and apply it to someone whose beliefs I think are incorrect, but whatever, we don't always get to pick how scholars. Right. Thomas Gaston: Exactly. That's right. Yeah, yeah. Sean Finnegan: So let's talk about dynamic Monarchianism's, who in the world are dynamic monarchianism? Why is? It that people. Even who hold to Unitarian views today. Have never even heard of this term as well as like, why you? Why you chose that for the title of your book? Thomas Gaston: Yeah. Yeah, it's a really good point. So it's probably worth. Emphasizing that you know dynamic Monarchianism is a modern term, and when I say modern I mean sort of, you know, 18th, 19th century, I don't mean you know, but it wasn't a term that people in the second or third century would have referred to themselves as. And in one sense, it's sort of a, it's a made-up category in the sense that there was no one single body or, you know community that the people that this term represents, there's there's no sort of Church of dynamic monarchianism or anything and and people wouldn't have recognized that as a thing in that. Period. I picked the term because it is a recognized term because it's, you know, it's something that is known within scholarship. But I intentionally tried to give a little bit more definition as to the sort of people that I was interested in and attempting to cover in, in the book. So just to talk about the term itself, so monarchy and. Refers to this idea of 1 ruler, I suppose, but it's it's about those Christians who had a view of God where effectively there was just one person at the top. And then scholars would would have distinguished two different types of monarchy in in this period, the dynamic monarchies and the modal monarchianism. Modal monarchy and to sort of maintain this one ruler perspective within God by effectively subsuming son and spirit under the father by effectively making them three different roles of the same person. So they sort of deviate from what would become the the Trinity in that way, whereas the dynamic monarchianism. This word dynamic is referring to power, and it's the idea that from the perspective of the scholars who coined this term, this idea that Jesus. Is a man who is given power at his baptism at the Holy Spirit, and that's how he becomes special. Whilst you know and the Monacan part is referring to the idea that the father is is overruled and the son never something sort of ascends to that same level of equality. With the father. So there's a bit of. A convoluted term I was trying to pull out those specifically those people in this period who did not believe in the pre existence of Jesus. But who were? Running use that awful term orthodoxy again, but were otherwise sort of recognized the sort of mainstream Orthodox Christians. So these weren't people who were, you know, making up their own scriptures or inventing their own profits or anything like this. These were people who, you know, accepted the core tenants of of Christianity as per other Christians of this period. But for them, Jesus didn't pre exist before his birth. In a in a personal sense. Sean Finnegan: Would you say that? Today we essentially use the term biblical Unitarian to refer to dynamic monarchianism. Or would you want to point out some sort of distinction there? Thomas Gaston: It's a great point and it sort of struggles around that term. Unitarianism. And, you know, I think a sort of illustrative of sort of the struggles that we come to with sort of picking correct names for things. And, you know the terms we want to use and maybe. You know, slapping biblical in the front of Unitarianism to try and distinguish it from other sort of, you know, ways around it, Unitarianism, I think, illustrates that same problem. I think, broadly, this we're talking about the same sorts of of of people in relation to their Christology. One of the things the book doesn't do. Too much of is trying to describe the other theological positions of the individuals that we're describing, so I'm primarily trying to pick them out in relation to their Christology does not mean to say that we wouldn't have had disagreements about other things. Although you know this is the main thing that we they are known for in history so. Who knows how much we can say about their other theological positions, but yes. Sean Finnegan: So much of the development that eventually made dynamic monarchianism look strange to later Christians had to do with the prologue of the Gospel of John. I was wondering, because you you do cover this briefly in part one. I wonder if you could just tell. Us what do you think John's original audience thought John was saying? In the prologue of the gospel. Thomas Gaston: Yeah. Yeah. So I mean I what I find interesting like having looked at the Gospel of John from a historical perspective and from a sort of academic perspective is. I think we as a modern audience, think that this passage is difficult or confusing, and I'm not entirely sure that John's original audience would have found it difficult or confusing. I think they probably would have. Got what he was trying to say. What's important for at least one of the sort of context for the Gospel of John is the wisdom literature of the intertestamental period, and even within the scriptures, in the proverbs we meet this character of wisdom, who is there at creation with God, and it's, you know. And is this sort of extended metaphor for wisdom within that book of proverbs sort of advocating wisdom to the readers? Because that's the mode by which God created the world. And that figure of wisdom occurs in texts or in the testamental period, like the wisdom of Solomon, the wisdom of Ben Sirak. So this was a known sort of literary device. Throughout this period. Wisdom is there at Creation. Wisdom is embodied in the law in, in the prophets. So this idea. Of a personified figure who is there. At creation and helping God create and then is dwelling with God's people in the Tabernacle in law. You know, as a mode of revelation for God, this was, you know, just standard fair for Jews of the 1st century. The the thing that makes John's prologue different from what. Due to this period, would expecting is when in verse 14, John says that the word became. Flesh and dwelt in. Among us. Because up till now I don't think the wisdom literature has ever sort of seen wisdom as embodied in a single person. But what John is doing here is, is absolutely trying to sort of continue that narrative onwards of saying. And here is like the embodiment of that same wisdom principle that was there in the way back in proverbs and and throughout God's revelation in the Old Testament here it it is now embodied in a single person. Whilst John's prologue seemed abstract to us, it's actually just the same theme that he runs with throughout the rest of his gospel, which is the manifestation of God through a single. Individual like so when Philip says later in the gospel, you know, to Jesus, show us the father and Jesus like, well, haven't you been with me this so long? You know, you don't need me to show your father cause you I've been with you effectively and it's that same concept expressed in different words of you. Know Jesus man. Tests God that language of the logos in John's prologue is doing exactly that same thing of trying to convey this concept of the way that God manifested himself through the man Jesus Christ. Sean Finnegan: Very good. So let's switch to numenius because you bring him into the discussion and. Probably most of my audience will not be familiar with this philosophy. So who was he and why did? Why in the world did you begin your treatment of logos theologians with? A non Christian. Thomas Gaston: So this I mean this is this is. Where it gets really. Fascinating. So you mean is Amir is a second century Platonist, who'd be classified as a middle Platonist by historians of this period? So between the sort of classical, the old Academy of Platonism, and then the Neoplatonist from Platinus onwards in the 3rd century we get this. Sort of. Period. That's classified as the middle Platonist period, which is basically this jumble of different figures that we know from history that don't really seem to be particularly coherent or joined up in any particular way. But all Platonists, in the broadest sense of the word, but are interesting. Because firstly, because they are beginning to put together thoughts and ideas that will become Neoplatonism, but also because they are contemporary with these really important developments that are happening within Christianity in this period and you menius is significant because he is contemporary, both chronologically and geographically with Justin Martin. So Justin, Marta originates from Syria, which is where Numenius is from. So it's entirely plausible that they knew each other that Justin learned from new medias, or at least you know that they were contemporaries and and and had had had discussed. They are also contemporary in terms of, like in terms of time periods, so there's nothing, no obstacle to the idea that you meanies would have known Justin or vice versa. What's interesting about new Menius in relation to what's happening in Christianity in this period and where Justin thought will go is that numenius is developing this. Effectively, a triad of what he calls three gods, and for him there is the first God, the one is. So transcendent that he cannot interact directly with the world, and so there needs to be these other intermediating principles to interact with the world, particularly in relation to the knowledge of. God and it's this second God whom you menius will often call the nouse the mind that communicate that. Sort of this this intermediary between the first God and the world, and it's particularly in relation to the knowledge of God now for Justin. This is important because it's answering for Justin what he is a really significant problem that he perceives in. What we would now call. A pistola tical problem like how do you have knowledge of God? This is a problem for the plainness, and this is, you know, Justin says. This is the reason why he stops being a plainness and starts being a Christian. Because he says this is unsurmountable problem of how do you get knowledge of God? Not for some Platonists. The reason why you could have a knowledge of God was to do with the transmigration of the soul. The idea that your soul was immortal and that you know it had existed prior to your birth and and and had been incarnated in you when you were born. And so from many plains. They're like, well this idea, the fact that you kind of got this part of you. That pre existed your birth gives you this. Sort of like means you're sort of Co natural. With the device and so you can somehow get a knowledge of God that way. And for Justin that's not going to work because Justin comes to reject the idea of this sort of eternal soul. Instead, he's gonna come up with this other idea as to how we get knowledge of God. And part of that is revelation. The revelation he sees in the scriptures. But. For a second thing that Justin wants. To do, is he? Doesn't want to say that, only those. People who know. Know the scriptures can have knowledge of God, so he's got to come up with his other idea and that is the idea of the logos. The idea of a form of knowledge, reason, human. You know your human reason, your, your, your rational faculty that is incipient within all human beings and that can be used to access. The divine. And here he's picking up on themes from numenius about the the way that the knowledge of God is seeded within mankind. Well, the change that Justin introduces, and this picks back into what we were just talking about, the John's gospel. Even though John is using this sort of extended metaphor or wisdom to talk about the manifestation of God in in Jesus because. He uses that. Word logos which has, you know resonances of reason, rationality. For him, for for Justin. He can pick up on that word and say, OK, this is similar to what I'm seeing over here in numenius in relation to how human beings can sort of have knowledge of God. So for Justin then this, you know, the the sun, the second principle, this second place underneath the transcendent. Other can be that mechanism by which human beings can reach knowledge of God through the seeding of the logos into mankind. So yeah, that's why again, how do you mean this becomes really important in relation to like the development of the logos. Sean Finnegan: It kind of reminded me of an experience I had. I took a class on historical theology at Boston University and my professor, his first assignment to us was. To read Platinus's enneads for like two or three of our first class assignments were and. He likened it to being slapped in the face with a dead fish, which I strongly agree with that not because of how strong platinus expresses himself, but because of how obscure he is to a modern reader. Reading the Neoplatonic world and you know it's interesting because he had us reading a lot of these similar ideas that you find in numenius of emanations and you have the one, the monad, the monarch. If we could put it that way since. We're talking about dynamic monarchianism. And then you have the news and then you have the world's soul and whatnot. Basically, my professors point in doing that was to sort of sensitize us to the thought structures that we're basically in the water in the time of especially origin of Alexandria because, you know, platinus and origin. Likely to have the same teacher Ammonius, Saccus and so. Forth, but you're moving. The ball backwards here about a century, I think to the 2nd century where Numenius is saying a lot of these similar kinds and he talks about Russia, you know he has. This triad and he has, you know. A lot to do with. Those Justin picks these ideas up, it's just sort of like the intellectual concepts available and whether he got it from numenius or not. I don't know if. You can really. Prove that, but you can use numenius as sort of an indication of what ideas were current in that world in that place. During that time, whether he picks it up from minus or not probably doesn't matter. Right. Thomas Gaston: No, not not at all. Not at the end of the day, you're right, the the point is that these ideas are in the air, you know, in terms of like the system and the that they're using, but also the sort of language and the analogies that are being used by Justin Numinus. There's enough similarity there that. Lead us to sort of think that, you know, even if Justin doesn't know, you mean us directly, he knows the same idea as he's knows the same thoughts. So he's getting. From somewhere, right. He's getting it from that same world. Sean Finnegan: There's a profound. Anxiety among ancient Christian thinkers and other kinds of thinkers, especially the Gnostics, over the issue of eminence and transcendence, and how in the world can God be the creator, and this is not a problem that any of us struggle with today. If you look at. The early Gnostics secret apocryphon of John, or if you look at what survives of Valentinus or of Justin. You know David Brockie wrote a. Great book about this. You you see. You see, they're. All kind of doing the same thing. They're all kind of answering the question. Well, how in the world can we get God to create when we know God can't do anything because we're good, plainness and plainness know that a change is thereby an an introduction of an imperfection. Yeah. So they're they're all like struggling with this and this logos concept is just like right there as a as a ready made answer. And then just numinus wouldn't have done this, but Justin is the guy that makes a Christological connection to the logos. How does that develop as we move forward through Athenagoras and and your annaeus and origin and so forth? Thomas Gaston: For Justin, he's he's seems to be the first one. Who's made this connection between? The logos in John's gospel and that same sort of rational principle that the plane this we're talking about. And so he it essentially makes this logos into a into a person in a more powerful sense that maybe maybe the lateness would have done. And he obviously brings that into Jesus. Now obviously then has Christological significance. Because now this logos is a pre existent person and he's becoming now the second God. There's a couple of sort of then debates that have to take place or some things that need to be ironed out I suppose. Or this thought, which is if the logos is an emanation from God. Does that mean that he is created? You know, does he have a beginning in time and is he therefore created or and therefore not eternal? Secondly, then what does it mean for God to sort of emanate his rational faculty? His reason out from himself, and so there's a couple of different ways that people will go on this in relation to whether or not they want to say that the logos is eternal or not, whether that sort of moment of emanation. It's a beginning in time or not a creation or not. And then to what extent they want to say that the logos is God's rational faculty, that sort of exists within God, there's emanated out of God. And to what extent they want to say that this, this logos is a separate person and they're not. That, to be fair, entire, always, entirely clear. I think Athenagoras is probably as a. Loss of is probably the most clear in relation to where he wants to take this, whereas, for example, where analyst. Who is not a philosopher? He is a theologian, is very equivocal and ambiguous as he, you know, he doesn't want to say. The sun had a beginning, but he also doesn't want to say anything concrete. In relation to what he thinks the origin of the logos. Sean Finnegan: Is. Yeah, there's that famous passage in against Heresies where he says, you know, simpians to to say anything about the generation of the logos because he probably my guess is he's been fighting with all these Gnostics and he knows like. Basically anything you say about it, you're. Gonna get into trouble. So he just like piously says Ohh it's a mystery. And who knows right. Thomas Gaston: Everyone is fascinated because he like he. As I said he he knows what he's against. He's against mysticism and he doesn't want to push the logos in a direction that sounds too much like the sort of eons and the all the sort of different intermediaries the Gnostics were coming up with. He wants to avoid that. He is trying to maintain the same level of. For the for the logos that Justin did the same sort of significant, so he ends up very ambiguous in relation to what what he's actually saying, but he is nevertheless, you know, everyone is incredibly influential on like the Drummond thought that period particularly in his book against Heresies. Is quite clear in terms of trying to establish Orthodoxy in this period by effectively saying all you know, identify. All the people. He's he's against. So there's a couple of things that, you know, happen as well in this period, which is in relation to the logos, it's really sort of sort of origin who begins to sort of solidify some of this. Thinking out in relation to the logos and trying to workout, I guess like the risk of introducing the logos as this second principle under the father is that you end up with the second God and you. Justin calls him another God. He calls him a second God, and even even origin will do that. The origin also wants to say, you know, but there is also only one God because after all, he's a Christian and he's a monotheist. And trying to reconcile that problem as to like, how can this logos be a second God and yet maintain only one God? Are gonna is gonna be a problem. That's gonna sort of. They're gonna wrestle with. For a while. But this is where we're beginning to see sort of, I guess, like the trajectory of the Trinity moving away from this hierarchical pattern that Justin has of Father than the son. Then the spirit, much like the middle plate. And moving towards this sort. Of Co equal Trinity of a later period trying to move away from you know exactly that problem of of more than what God. Sean Finnegan: And there's a lot of detail on that in in the book. If people want to know more about it, as far as the dynamic monarchianism though, which we kind of got away from them bit in this conversation, let me ask you a question that I'm curious to hear your answer if it is answerable and that is who was the first dynamic monarchia. Thomas Gaston: Sorry that that. Is a difficult question, so I guess it. It depends how you define your terms, isn't it? And so the I mean the earliest one that we traditionally identify as being a dynamic monarchy is is the theodotus of Byzantium in the middle to late 2nd century. But we know about him and he's called out as such specifically because he is excommunicated. His beliefs, he's called out for them and and regard as a heretic afterwards. So in that sense he is the first in the sense of the first person to formally be excommunicated for. Denying the pre existence of Jesus. But obviously the case I'm going to. Make in. The book is that actually dynamic Monarchianism was part of the mainstream up until that point. And so in one sense, it's sort of a false question. You know, this, who is the first dynamic monarchianism. Maybe it was Jesus, right? Maybe Jesus. Was the first dynamic monarchy. Sean Finnegan: Yeah, it's it's a totally loaded question. Totally unfair, which is why it was fun to ask, but. Was weren't the authors of the Gospels dynamic monarchianism you know you could you could make. That case as well. Or maybe the apostle Paul. Certainly Jesus all fair game. But within church history itself, Theodotus is is where the the topic really shows up big on the radar. But you do talk about some of these Jewish Christian. Groups too, and they would presumably predate you notice, right? The whole question of Ebionites, other Ebionites and Nazarenes is. Very difficult because our sources are confusing and conflicted, but I wonder if you could just say a couple of words or maybe put out a hypothesis on, you know, what you think about the Jewish Christians in the late 1st, early 2nd century. Thomas Gaston: Yeah, absolutely. So I guess like, let's put a couple of markers down historically. So we obviously we know that the earliest Christians would have been Jewish Christians, that's where where Christianity comes from. And we know from AXI apostles that they are called. The Christians are called Nazarenes very early. And so you've kind of got that within the sort of first half of the 1st century and then way in the sort of late 2nd century everyday calls the Knights who identifies as being. Jewish Christians, he calls them out as heresy, heretics in part because they insist on keeping the law of Moses. And also because they have have a a view of Jesus that he is the son of Mary and Joseph. So the Ebionites in general by that description would therefore have denied the pre existence of God. Just I slightly move away from them in the book because of that, sort of because they, at least according to arenas to neither virgin birth and I'm sort of trying to distinguish them from the dynamic monarchianism as I'm trying to sort of identify this group who would have accepted sort of all of the sort of mainstream Christian. Books and not, you know, pick their own scriptures or whatever else, but trying to sort of join the dots between those two things. The earliest Jewish Christians that we find in, you know, Jerusalem and the. Actual apostles and then these. Ebonics is a tricky job. The other bits and pieces that we know about from the history, we sort. Of know of. Origin, who refers to this sort of. Group of. Other Ebionites you know seems to be the 2nd. Group and then we know from Jerome he refers. To these sort of Nazarenes. And there seems to be a. Confusion amongst these writers. As to Izzy Benites, just what people call Jewish Christians in general. Or are there sort of multiple groups of Jewish Christians, and if so, do they sort? Of have these have these different names? But the the conclusion. That I sort of pushed towards in the book. I argue on the. Basis of the evolution of the Gospels. So we know. By the 4th century, there is a gospel known as the Gospel of the Ebionites seems to be based upon the canonical gospels, but you know, has been edited to remove the virgin birth story, the infancy narratives. So we know that thing exists. We also know from this period that there was a gospel circulating in Hebrew as well. A lot of this is conjecture, but it's at least plausible that this was a very, very early and there's at least a case to be made that maybe this Hebrew gospel was the earliest gospel when sort of predates. Matthew, Mark and Luke, there is a tradition very early on about Matthew's gospel, for example, that Matthew's gospel was originally written in Hebrew. People who know about Greek will tell you that the canonical gospel that ascribed to Matthew in our New Testament. Probably isn't. It probably didn't have a Hebrew original. It's not that sort of Greek. And again, I'm depending on other people to tell me such things. So that raises the question then. Well, if if there was a gospel that was ascribed to Matthew written in Hebrew, well, could it be this, this Hebrew gospel that was circulating on? So if you've kind. Of got this this. History of Gospels where you've got an early Hebrew gospel and then much much later, you've got a gospel of the Benites that seems to be dependent on the canonical gospels and heavily edited. That seems to suggest that sort of development of that gospel seems to suggest the development. Of a community that starts quite firmly within that sort of community of the early Christians and then deviates away. And you could at least. Plausibly hypothesized about a group of Christians who, faced with that controversy, we find in acts about like whether or not the Gentiles can be incorporated into the Christian community or not. You can well imagine that there was a a rump of that community that just said no, we're not having it. We're gonna stick to the law. We're gonna stick to circumcision. We're gonna be, you know, we're gonna be those, you know, be Christians who stick to the law as well. And so it's at least plausible. That's where the Ebionites are coming from. They're sort of this rump of people who never really gave up, gave up on the law of Moses, never really gave up on circumcision. Wanted to. You down that road and maybe for some of them then. Actually, even things like the virgin birth were too difficult and so they had to sort of amend their views and amend the scriptures that they were using precisely to sort of continue to fit into that theological framework. Whereas the majority of Jewish Christians are those who are sort of ethnic Jewish, but. Became Christians were actually more within, let's call the mainstream of Christianity. In this period and maybe they were the ones who answered to this term Nazarene, as Jerome uses it. So I think you've kind of got that spectrum of opinion, I think within the Jewish Christian community within this period where the sort of Ebonics as erroneous knows them as sort of about that extreme. End in relation to their theological perspectives. Sean Finnegan: Yeah, and Irenaeus is predisposed to pick the clearest example of the most extreme view of any particular group that he's exposing as heretical because it makes his case, you know, he's not going to pick some milder form. That is, is roughly compatible. He's going to fixate on the the extremes. So you talk about the the Jewish Christians, you talk about Theodotus, you talk about barilius of Bostra, artiman, polo Samosata, you know, kind of like the the leading advocates or representatives. Of the dynamic monarchianism, of course, we don't have time to go through each of those in this conversation, but I just wonder if you could give me a sort of an overall picture. Like if if you didn't have the burden. Of scholarly restraint summarize how you see the whole thing developing one way or the other during the period. How would you put it together in? In sort of a. Brief way. Thomas Gaston: Yeah, that's really helpful. Let's put it this way. I mean, so, so I guess the standard narrative about the dynamic monarchies is that they are. Heretics, as a sort of. Proto orthodox. Let's use that term again. Mainstream of, you know, Trinitarian thought and these guys are just deviating from it. I suppose that's that's a plausible scenario. A different scenario is that they are all part of one church, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that. So the the the narrative that I try and. Argue for is the idea that actually. These are all. Calling on the same tradition that exists within the church and and and. Broadly what I think. Has happened and you say. Let's throw off the the shackles of. Of academic restraint, what I what I think happened? Is that what we now classify as dynamic monarchianism as though it's sort of this, this separate thing was just one of the traditions that existed within the mainstream right up until, you know, the the late 2nd century when Theodotus is is first excommunicated. So I think that broadly there will have been Christians. Who held these views? Within churches throughout Christendom in the late 1st and early 2nd century, and I think that broadly the reason why we see these figures like Phyllis and Paul and and Theodosis is not because they're coming up with something new, but because they are repeating something old, they are broadly repeating what they. Whole to be true and they're coming up against. Something that is. New, which is the logos and the theories of Justin Martyr and then his successors. They are pushing that same doctrine on the churches and that's where we come into conflict. Theodotus, who is originally from Byzantium, comes to Rome. He's teaching what he. Always thought to be true in relation to the nature of Jesus, and then eventually comes into conflict with other Christians in Rome who are now teaching these logos. Ideas of Justin and others and ultimately Theodotus loses out and has to form his own church because he's no longer welcome within the Church of Rome. And we've seen these same. Disputes and battles happening at different points at different churches from the late 2nd century onwards until the point at which a single orthodoxy. And emerge, which ultimately closes out the option for dynamic monarchies to exist within mainstream Christianity. Sean Finnegan: I wonder if you would agree with this analogy. Imagine the scenario where a tick a fixes itself to a human body, bites someone and injects Lyme disease into that person, right? So for a while that person has, you know, a healthy body but an invader. From middle Platonism, so to speak, comes in and injects this foreign substance into the the body. Over time the body will suck. Come or overcome one or the other. This infusion. So it seems like what you're saying is that. For a while within the. Body of Christ there were both or I mean, let's be honest, we're much more than just two christologies around, especially in the 2nd century. So there's all these different ideas. Around and like eventually one does win out over the others. And of course the story of how that happened is really more of a 4th century story because even. Even as late as then, there's there's lots of people that are really uncomfortable saying that the sun is eternal or saying that he is Co equal with the father, but eventually the outside invader wins and the the body of Christ is, in a sense crippled with this. This condition. So that's kind of a morbid analogy, but. I'm trying to put. Together, what you're saying into? Kind of a recognizable illustration. Thomas Gaston: Yeah, yeah, absolutely, yeah. Sean Finnegan: So we've been. Talking about part one of your book. Just give the audience A teaser for parts two and three. You know what can they expect to see in there? Thomas Gaston: Yeah. Yeah, so absolutely. So part one is about trying to pull together everything that we can know about those who are explicitly identified in our sources as what we now call dynamic monarchianism. But what I try to do in Part 2 is project backwards from these people in the 3rd and 2nd centuries to try and. Think about what can we know about dynamic monarchianism. In the early 2nd century and late 1st century, in this period where maybe they wouldn't have been called out specific, they would have been called out as heretics because they weren't regarded as heresy in that period. Now what can we know about this period? Sort of how can we demonstrate? From our sources that this Christology existed within the church and Preexisted the sort of low cost theories of of Justin. So that's what Part 2 is about and then part three is to try and bring that all the way back to. What primitive prosody? So you know the teaching of the apostles. And tries to answer that sort of question that I put in the front on the cover, which is, you know, is this the earliest Christology? And so I tried to argue about firstly like do we see pre existence in the earliest teachings of the Apostles? Do we see a form of adoptionism in relation to the Christology of the earliest apostles and then how early? Belief in the virgin birth in in Christianity, and from that, you know, trying to sort of make the case that actually dynamic. Anarchism goes all. The way back right to to the earliest apostles. Sean Finnegan: Very good. So if people want to learn more about this, they can get the book. I've got it here. This is the second edition published by Theophilus Press. They did a nice job with this. Have you have? You gotten a paper copy yet? Thomas Gaston: Oh no, I'm still waiting. Sean Finnegan: You're still. Yeah. It probably takes a while to get to get over the pond, as they say. But yeah, if you want to pick that up that you can get it at Amazon or a number of other booksellers. If people want to follow you. Doctor Gaston, where would they go? Do you have a website or a social media or anything like that? Thomas Gaston: Yeah. So if. You, Thomas hyphen gaston.com to my website and you'll find all the various things that I've written over the years linked. Sean Finnegan: And you're and. Thomas Gaston: Out there. Sean Finnegan: You're a bit omnivorous, too. You're not staying in the lane of just like early Christian history, right? Thomas Gaston: Not at all. Not at all. So I'm. I appreciate that. Sean Finnegan: What? What else? What else have you done? Thomas Gaston: Sort of a variety of interests. I mean, I've written so my book, historical issues in the book of Daniel, which came out quite a while ago, but it was completely different in the sense of it's related to the Old Testament, obviously. And it's relating to sort of questions of history in relation to what can we know about Daniel in that period, but then also from a sort of from a completely different angle. I've also, you know. The work in publishing I've written quite a lot about peer review and publication ethics as well, so. For any of your listeners who are interested in that, they'll find articles on that. Sean Finnegan: As well. Very good. Well, thanks so much for talking with me. Thomas Gaston: Today, no worries. Sean Finnegan: Well, that brings this interview to an end. What did you think? Come on over to restitutio.org and find Episode 528 dynamic monarchianism with Thomas Gaston and leave your feedback there. Someone named Dale S commented in on on the Restorationist Manifesto post. I put up a while back. It's actually on the homepage of rest studio. Org if you want to check that out. He writes. I share your concern with what exactly the Bible, particularly the New Testament, consists of. I agree with this idea of returning to original Christianity, and I am fully on board with RESTORATIONISM in the sense described in this manifesto. However, I wonder how we should determine who the true. Original Christians were IE. What sources should we use? As you explained many books we consider Canonical were decided by the same church whose decisions we are skeptical of. Why, for example, should we use revelation and not the letters of Ignatius? I'm not saying we shouldn't, of course, but I want to understand what sources we consider biblical and trustworthy and authoritative. I do not automatically accept the concept of biblical inspiration or inerrancy simply because there is so much that we don't consider canonical. That's not to say there is not inspired or an error scripture, but I think we cannot simply assume the Bible assembled by the church is completely inspired without reasoning. Now, Dale was responding to somebody else, but I suppose it's my prerogative to respond to Dale as well. He is asking questions about restorationism and really, this is a tricky question and it's something that separates, I think, restorationists from critical historians. A critical historian is going to set an arbitrary year, usually based on the document he or she is studying. To figure out what the Christians believe that that time and the critical historian also will not do doctrinal synthesis, it's it's just not acceptable for their presuppositions to say that there might actually be a God inspiring or working behind the scenes to have multiple people produce. Ideas that are in some sense cohesive. They always atomized as just part of their methodology, but the Restorationist doesn't do that. The Restorationist says all right. How do I restore authentic Christianity? When are we going back? And really, I don't think the there is a specific number a specific date to go back to, but I would say that there is a specific target to go back to and that is the target of the completion of the New Testament itself that once the New Testament is complete, we can go to those sources, the 27. Books of the New Testament read them historically within their own context, and then evaluate our doctrines and practices today in light of what it says there. And that's essentially the goal of restorationism. And I'm certainly not the inventor of restorationism, even though my podcast is the word for restoration in Latin restitutio. But this is something that's been going on for years. You know, to a large degree. Martin Luther was doing this 500 years ago. The Ana Baptist did it. The Churches of Christ movement. Did it in the 1800s and and going forward under the leadership of Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone. And a lot of Christian groups have done this in the 20th and now 21st centuries as well. So this is something that appeals to a lot of us where we say, look, traditions have developed and they are questionable because they're having us believe or live in ways that. Seemed to go against what the New Testament teaches, what the scriptures. Portray. So that's what Restorationism is and I would suggest going back to the New Testament itself. Now, of course, Dale brings up two major, major issues when it comes to Scripture and specifically the New Testament. And that is the issue of Canon and inspiration. And these are two subjects that I wasn't able to get into. In my how we got the Bible class which you if you haven't checked it out that's available on YouTube as well as on this podcast you can scroll back to episode 330 to get part one of that series and there's actually 24 parts within sort of three additional. Episodes more focusing on Unitarian Bible translations. And you can see what I deal with. There is the text itself, the transmission of the text, and the translation of the text. So I did not get into the subject of inspiration or Canon. So these are two areas that I'd love to get into in the future. I don't really know when that would be at this point. And I would love to see if you guys have any resources, books or YouTube videos or other podcasts or. Articles go ahead and post some on restitutio.org for this episode 528 so that I can I can take a look at them, but essentially the idea is that God did in some sense inspire scripture so that what Scripture turned out to be is what he wanted it to be as far as the mechanism goes, I think we're going to have some real difficulty. Defining that with any kind of precision, but then on the subject of Canon, we do not want to say ohh the church has the authority to decide whether or not a writing is scripture or not. That's obviously the Catholic position on Canon. As Protestants, we instead formulate it this way. We say the church detected the inspiration of God in Scripture and doesn't have the authority to decide if something's inspired or not, but simply has the responsibility. To detect inspiration when it is there in a particular writing and the process by which that is done is by looking at whether or not an apostle wrote something, whether or not it was widely used in the churches, and whether or not it agreed with what was. Two ways understood to be canonical scripture, namely the four Gospels and most of Paul's writings. So that's sort of what some rough thoughts on it. But obviously there's a lot more to say, moving on then to Glenn, who commented in on last week's episode, should Christians celebrate Christmas? And he writes one thing I used to struggle with perhaps still do is the thought that there was an instance in the Bible where I think it was while Moses was up on the mountain and the people decided to make a golden calf, but argued they were still worshipping God. As it says in verse 5, when Aaron saw this, he built the altar in front of the cafe and announced tomorrow there will be a festival 2 the Lord. To which God's response was rejection of that worship as it was not in accordance with what he had prescribed. I don't really understand the word Lord here was their Lord, or were they claiming that they were worshipping the real Lord by worshipping this calf? Regardless, they appear to be claiming to worship in ways he had not instituted. I was concerned that this whole episode meant as people we can convince ourselves that what we are doing is for the glory of God, but we can be kidding ourselves, lying even and offending God. If we come to him in ways that he did not decree as acceptable, he will not accept it. In fact, he will be angered by it, as in verse 10, it says. Now leave me alone so that my anger, so forth, so many of the traditions of Christians, seem to be about treating ourselves. Eating, drinking presents, catching up with friends and family, talking while we are doing these things. Do we really think about him much? How can we? Is not a more real worship God centered in what we do. Praying, praising, singing, psalms, being thankful those actions. What has huge socializing really to do with remembering what God has done for us in Jesus? If we do these things in love, then perhaps in a roundabout way we are spending love and good will, but I hope whatever we do, it is what God finds acceptable true recognition of him, and not that we just wanted to keep doing the things that feel nice. For us and argue that it is for the glory of God, when in truth it's more about us. I try to take various times out during the day to think about what happened for us, but I'm not sure. A lot of people make that opportunity, especially if they are the preparers of large family meals. OK, so a lot of thoughts there, Glenn. Wow. So on the first point about the golden calf, indeed the Israelites did declare that there would be a festival to Yahweh, to the God of Israel the next day, and that was associated with worshipping a golden baby cow. And of course, God was very displeased with that, and Moses came down and beat up the statue and grounded to powder and poured it in the drinking supply and made the people consume it. Is that analogous to what Christians are doing on Christmas? I suppose if there are some Christians and I've never heard of this, but if they're, if they kind of set the tree up. As an idol and what circle around it and recognize it as in some way mediating God's presence in the room. Then you would have an analogy to this. You have a sense of active idolatry, but as Doctor Dale Tuggy pointed out. In the episode last week, this is not. At all. How? Pretty much any Christians, at least that I've ever heard of, treat the Christmas tree. They just treat it as a decoration, a place to put the presents, and they don't bow to it. They don't dress it, they don't put it to bed at night. They don't speak to it, hoping that God will hear them because they're speaking to the tree or anything like that. It's just a decoration and it's a matter of conscience. If you don't want to have a tree, don't have a tree. I didn't have a tree. For many years in my. Marriage ended up getting a tree later on, and now we quite enjoy the decoration in the house for a month or so, and then we get rid of it and you can do whatever you like in that situation. This is not at all commanded in Scripture, it's just an optional cultural participation that you may or may not do. Because of your preferences, you know what about New Year's? Do you celebrate New Year's? What do you do on New Year's? Do you stay up till midnight? Is that the only day of the year you stay up till midnight? It didn't. The pagans do that. What about going to fireworks on July 4th? Is isn't that a display in the heavens of the glory of a rebellion against a sovereign Christian nation? What about Saint Patrick's Day? Didn't Saint Patrick teach the Trinity? What about Valentine's Day? Isn't that a Catholic St. or Earth Day? You. Know, I mean, look. You gotta figure out each one of the different days and holidays that you want to celebrate or not celebrate none of this. Is in the Bible. None of us should condemn Christians for not celebrating any of these things or condemn Christians for celebrating them unless they're celebrating them in a sinful way. And other than that, it's just a matter of conscience. It's a matter of culture. It's a matter of do you put your shoes on both socks on 1st and then your shoes, or you put socks, shoes, sock, shoe. Did the pagans do it? That way there are many neutral actions in life. You know drinking coffee is that is that a sinful act action or righteous action? I might argue as a righteous action. That's because I'm a big fan of coffee. But. These these are. Neutral things and most of life is like that, just like having family over family. Can be difficult. Family can be a real challenge to your self-control in some situations and in other situations. Family can be a wonderful blessing and just a time of joyous. Eating together and talking with each other and each person's got to figure that out. You know, some people have family members that are so toxic that it's nearly impossible to sit with that person and not sin. OK, well, then you have to recognize your weakness here and limit yourself in those kinds of situations. And I hope that we as Christians who are seeking not only to recover authentic Christianity, but live out our faith authentically in this. Age that we would be seeking to bring Christianity into our families and to exhibit the sort of wholeness that will be endemic in the Kingdom of God. Interestingly enough, Jesus portrays the Kingdom of God as lots of eating and drinking and sitting around tables and socializing. So I don't think these actions are in any way. Inherently sinful or in some way questionable, I think that God made us to be social creatures and gave us each other as a community of faith, and I think it is a great. Using when it comes to preparing large family meals, I get your point there, Glenn. That is a real burden. That is a real burden. If especially it falls on just one person and even worse. So if it falls on someone who doesn't even really enjoy doing it or want to do it. OK, so yes, all those logistics. Need to be worked. Some people go out, they go to a Chinese restaurant on a holiday because nobody wants to cook other people. Everybody brings a potluck to the meal. Other people, they have a family member that just loves cooking and they it's their. It's their great joy to serve a group of people, a large group of people instead of just one or two. So look, people just work it out however they want to work it out and I think this is just a matter of conscience. It really has little to do with your Christianity. The only Christian aspect really of Christmas. Is if you're doing it to celebrate the birth of Christ, which I think is cool to do what we did in my family is, I read one of the birth narratives from the Gospels and then we prayed, and then we opened our presence and and that was really simply it. It was a way to sort of bridge the divide between the act of opening. Presence and the birth of Christ and some people don't even do that. They just celebrate Christmas in a purely secular sense, and I wouldn't condemn them for that. You know, I think if you celebrate Christmas in a Pagan, idolatrous or drunk. In or some other simple way, then yeah, you should definitely not do it. So I've rambled on long enough about that. If you haven't yet checked it out, take a look at last week's episode should Christians celebrate Christmas, feel free to come on the site and give your thoughts there. Well, that's it for this week. If you'd like to support us, you can do that at restitutio.org. We'll catch you next week. And remember, the truth has nothing to fear.