Hilary of Poitiers on the Trinity: From De Fide to De Trinitate (review)

Beckwith's monograph is a redaction-critical study of Hilary's De Trinitate that attempts to clarify how the final form of this twelve-book treatise came to be. It is argued that Hilary composed De Trinitate after completing Books Two and Three (De Fide), and Books Four to Six (Adversus Arianos). The impetus for a further and more thorough refutation of Homoeanism was the Synod of Sirmium (357) and Hilary's increasing acquaintance with the theology of Basil of Ancyra. Revising the proposals of Borchardt (1966), Doignon (1971), and Meijering (1982) among others, Beckwith argues that originally Book One was not part of De Fide (72–73, 81, and Part III). It is certainly a fresh perspective and arguably the greatest contribution of this monograph to consider Book One as a theological/ methodological introduction to the whole treatise and to take the prefaces to Books Two to Six as editorial material indicating the author's intentions and theological emphases (74–93). However, even though the final form of Hilary's De Trinitate may be "confusing" (1, 216), this is what we now have and this is what we interpret. In addition, the repeated claim that the composition history of Hilary's De Trinitate is "the most under-studied issue in Hilary scholarship" (1, 71, 216) should be left sub judicio.

This monograph purports to be "a thorough reconsideration of a dissertation" (vii; University of Notre Dame, 2004), but the redundancy of material leaves it still a bit dissertationish. The curious full citation of sources many times after these have been first mentioned and the existence of virtually identical footnotes (e.g., 22f., n. 29, and 58 n. 13) is as "odd" as Hilary's own editorial "mistakes" (75f.). Beckwith's study consists of five parts: (1) Introduction, which includes a sort of crash-course on Hilary's life, (2) Part I: the historical and theological context of De Trinitate, which focuses on the post-Nicene synods and creedal statements (3) Part II: the composition history of De Trinitate, (4) Part III: the theological method proposed in Book One of De Trinitate, and (5) Conclusion.

Beckwith's historical narration of the post-Nicene period is well informed and nicely presented. Unfortunately, the recent works of S. Parvis and K. M. Spoerl on this subject matter do not show up in footnotes. Establishing the historical context of De Trinitate, Beckwith highlights Hilary's reaction to Photinus of Sirmium. Hilary's anti-adoptionism is certainly loud and clear in De Trinitate. Yet exactly why he has chosen adoptionism to be the designation for the theological errors of Photinus (and Marcellus of Ancyra) remains somewhat puzzling. (Beckwith has qualified Photinus's alleged adoptionism by adding the words "and monarchianism" [e.g., 120]; cf. Hilary, syn. 38–61). Then, wishing to emphasize the theological reasons for Hilary's exile, Beckwith acknowledges the political reasons basically only in a footnote (30f., n. 1). He chooses to believe the reasons Hilary provided for his own exile. True enough that the events at Béziers cannot "be reduced . . . to mere church politicking" (48), but neither can they be reduced to mere theological disagreements.

Beckwith does not seem to mind Hilary's rather unsophisticated understanding of authorial intention, which is a shaky guarantee for the correctness of meaning, because it may not always materialize. Furthermore, to be "free from preconceived ideas" and to "allow faith to guide us in our search" may not do the trick of giving us the intended meaning of the Scriptures (125). To affirm Hilary's "theory" of "objective" interpretation in Trin. 1.18 (189f.) might also be a bit credulous. Finally, I am not sure whether the occasional excursus to Lutheran theologians add much to the discussion (8 n. 8; 66 n. 41; 168 n. 42; 212 n. 7). There are too few of them to constitute a real analysis of the afterlife of De Trinitate...