[5] but they certainly would never have allowed any non-trinitarian changes or additions to Origen's work! These non-trinitarian statements that still remain, therefore, must be original. Certainly Origen did not teach a trinity (or binity) even though trinitarian scholars have "credited" him with formulating the trinity doctrine!
_________________________________
*
"RUFINUS ... (c. 345-410), monk, historian and translator .... He also studied for several years in Alexandria under Didymus the Blind [St. Didymus, a staunch Nicene trinitarian - p. 402], and was deeply influenced by his Origenism [Didymus tried to 'prove' that Origen had taught a trinity doctrine in his De Principiis - p. 1010] .... [Rufinus'] free translation of Origen's De Principiis, the only complete text now surviving, was intended to vindicate Origen's ['trinitarian'] orthodoxy, and involved Rufinus in bitter controversy with his former friend, St. Jerome, who criticized the tendentious character of his rendering." - p.1207, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Revised, 1990 printing, Oxford University Press.
"It is much to be regretted that the original Greek of the De Principiis has for the most part perished. We possess it chiefly in a Latin translation by Rufinus. And there can be no doubt that he often took great liberties with his author. So much was this felt to be the case, that [Roman Catholic "Saint"] Jerome [342-420 A.D.] undertook a new translation of the work; but only small portions of his version have reached our day. He strongly accuses Rufinus of unfaithfulness as an interpreter, while he also inveighs bitterly against Origen himself, as having departed from the Catholic Faith, specially in regard to the doctrine of the Trinity." - ANF, 4:233.
In other words, Rufinus did not translate literally, but, instead, intentionally changed (or 'corrected') De Principiis so as to make people believe that Origen had taught the trinity! And this is the text that has been used by trinitarians ever since to "prove" that Origen taught the trinity! Furthermore, the famed trinitarian St. Jerome (ca. 400 A.D.) who accused Rufinus of dishonestly mistranslating Origen's work noted with great bitterness that Origen DID NOT TEACH THE TRINITY!!!!
To illustrate Rufinus' corruption of Origen's original Greek text we have a few pages of Book IV of Origen's De Principiis still existing in the original Greek. Here are two passages of the Greek with Rufinus' Latin "translation" of them alongside as published in the trinitarian The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, pp. 362, 363, Eerdmans Publ.:
Origen's Original Greek:
"through the Word who was in the beginning with God, illuminated the ministers of truth, the prophets and apostles"
"the (doctrines) belonging to God and His only-begotten Son are necessarily laid down as primary"
.................................
Rufinus' Latin 'Translation':
"through the power of His only-begotten Word, who was in the beginning God with God, enlightened the ministers of truth, the prophets and apostles"
"Accordingly, it is of God, i.e. of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, that these men, filled with the Divine Spirit, chiefly treat"
...................................
Tertullian
(c. 160-220 A.D.)
Even though Tertullian (c. 160 - c. 220) is often "credited" with being the first to apply the term 'trinity' to the Christian God, he wrote (c. 200 A.D.):
Not only did he condemn the interpretation of divine nature by philosophy, but he shows his familiarity with another heretical use of the term 'trinity' (as applied to man) years before he is "credited" with first applying that same philosophically-derived term to God (and the divine nature)!
Trinitarian Boer (as do most trinitarians) wants us to believe that Origen's and Tertullian's doctrines of God and the Son of God were actually leading to trinitarianism. But is this true? What did Tertullian actually intend? What about Tertullian's "one nature (substantia in Latin) and two persons (persona in Latin)"? Did it really mean what later Church "scholars" wanted it to mean? Well, here is the admission of another highly-respected trinitarian scholar:
And the trinitarian, Catholic work Trinitas - A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity notes that, even though later writers used some of Tertullian's terminology (e.g., substantia) to describe the Trinity, it appears that Tertullian did not use them in that sense:
For example, even many trinitarian NT Greek language experts admit that since John used the neuter form of the word "one" at John 10:30, he intended the meaning of "one in will or purpose"! That this is true is proved by the same usage at John 17:11, 22 (see the study paper entitled ONE). Tertullian, when making the same point, tells us that John writes at Jn 10:30 -
Here we see Tertullian using "one" in "essence" (as did Origen above) to mean both individuals having the same will or purpose. And that will is the Father's which the Son obeys perfectly. They are "one" then in "essence" (will) only because one of them is completely, perfectly subordinate to the will of the other! But over 100 years later trinitarians began insisting that the renowned Tertullian and Origen had stated trinitarian truths by their uses of "substance/essence," etc.
Tertullian, too, like the other Ante-Nicene Fathers, taught that Prov. 8:22-30 relates the words of the Son of God, Christ (speaking as "Wisdom"):
And,
Of course the eternal, only true, Most High God had no beginning. (Rev. 3:14)
So we see that even though later trinitarians have "found" the beginnings of the "formulation [of the trinity doctrine]" in the writings of Irenaeus, Origen, and Tertullian, these ancient Christian writers had no such intention. They may have begun speculating about certain unscriptural elements from popular Greek philosophy. Their writings may have been "doctored" by an army of trinitarian copyists through the centuries. Their words may have been "redefined" by trinitarian interpreters through the centuries. And some of their ideas may have been translated into trinitarian-supporting ideas by modern trinitarian translators. But, amazingly, in spite of it all, their non-trinitarian knowledge of God still comes through clearly in their writing and bolsters the even more significant testimony of all the earliest Creeds: God is the Father alone!
But there are other Ante-Nicene Fathers whom Bowman and other trinitarians have appealed to for "trinitarian" support.
Clement of Alexandria
(c. 150-213 A.D.)
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 - c. 213), wrote, in a discussion of God:
"This discourse respecting God is most difficult to handle. For since the first principle of everything is difficult to find out, the absolutely first and oldest principle, which is the cause of all other things being and having been, is difficult to exhibit. .... No one can rightly express Him wholly. For on account of His greatness He is ranked as the All, and is the Father of the universe. Nor are any parts to be predicated of Him For the One is indivisible." - pp. 463-4, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers [ANF], Eerdmans Publishing, 1989.
Clement, as with most (if not all) of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, also believed and taught that Prov. 8:22-30 presented the words of the Son of God (speaking as "Wisdom") in his pre-human existence. He wrote:
Wisdom, which was the first of the creation of God. (Cf. Rev. 3:14) - ANF 2:465, 'The Stromata.'
And to make it perfectly clear, Clement writes:
To know God is, then, the first step of faith [see the early baptismal questions above] .... But the nature of the Son, which is nearest to Him who is alone the Almighty One, is most perfect ... which orders all things in accordance with the Father's will - ANF 2:524, 'The Stromata.'
The Ante-Nicene Fathers recognized the Scriptural use of the terms elohim and theos which could be understood as either "a god" or "God" and applied to both the Most High ("God") and to men and angels ("gods" - see the BOWGOD or 'God, gods' study). This is one of the areas where trinitarian translators may choose the meaning that best brings out their trinitarian interpretation in both scripture and the early writings. For example, when Clement writes: "I say, the Word of God became [a] man, that thou mayest learn from [a] man how man may become God {theos}" - ANF 2:174, 'Exhortation to the Heathen' - it is clear that the trinitarian translators of ANF have mistranslated "God" for "a god" (possibly because they don't wish to point out other, even more important, mistranslations when theos has been similarly applied to the Christ). But the very context of this writing tells us that Clement must mean "man may become a god {theos}" since he simply cannot become God!
Even the Encyclopedia Britannica has rendered this same statement by Clement as "a god": Clement of Alexandria taught that the object of Christ's incarnation and death "was to free man from sin ... and thus in the end elevate him to the position of a god." - p. 799, Vol. 5, Britannica., 14th ed. Hippolytus
(c. 160-235 A.D.)
Hippolytus, "the most important 3rd century theologian of the Roman Church" (p. 652, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, F. L. Cross, Oxford University Press, 1990 reprint) wrote:
The first and only (one God), both Creator and Lord of all, had nothing coeval {'of the same age or duration'} with Himself .... But He was One, alone in Himself. By an exercise of His will He created things that are, which antecedently had no existence, except that He willed to make them ....
Therefore this solitary and supreme Deity, by an exercise of reflection, brought forth the Logos {the Word, the Son of God} first ....{Prov. 8:22, 24, 25}
For simultaneously with His procession from His Progenitor, inasmuch as He is this Progenitor's first-born, He has, as a voice in Himself, the ideas conceived in the Father. And so it was, that when the Father ordered the world to come into existence, the Logos one by one completed each object of creation, thus pleasing God. .... God, who is the source of all authority, wished that the Logos might render assistance in accomplishing a production of this kind. - ANF, 5:150, 151, 'The Refutation of All Heresies'.
Such is the true doctrine in regard of the divine nature .... in order that you may hasten and by us may be taught who the true God is .... And by means of this knowledge you shall escape the approaching threat of the fire of judgment {2 Thess. 1:7-9} - ANF 5:152, 153, 'Refutation'.
There is a translation of another statement by Hippolytus on p. 153 of this work (The Ante-Nicene Fathers [ANF]) where this trinitarian translator has rendered: 'For Christ is the God above all...', which obviously contradicts the quoted portions above. The footnote admits an alternate translation of 'For Christ is He whom the God above all has ordered to wash away sin ...' - f.n. #7, ANF 5:153. (Bowman quotes this same trinitarian translation, but, of course, fails even to mention the significant footnote.)
We need to be aware that this trinitarian work (ANF), like so many others, consistently uses such trinitarian translations (but only very rarely, as above, admits the more likely alternate, non-trinitarian renderings). The same thing is the rule in most trinitarian Bible translations, too (cf. Ro 9:5, KJV vs. RSV). Another example is where Hippolytus states that the Logos is a god (which is the proper understanding of the Logos concept of that time - see the LOGOS study paper). - ANF 5:151
[6], 'Refutation'. And yet, when this term was used in other places for the Word (Logos), this trinitarian work translates "God" instead of "god" or "a god," thereby giving a trinitarian meaning where none was intended by Hippolytus.[7] This was also done in a few places where a man was clearly called "a god," but this translation renders "God" (5:153, for example). Here are some other early Christians (in addition to Hippolytus) who used "a god" or "god" even for men and angels - John 10:34; Clement of Alexandria (ANF, 2:206, 215, 271, 524, 528, & 574); the Christian writer of the Epistle to Diognetus (ANF, 1:29); Tertullian (ANF, 3:275); Origen (ANF, 10:323).
Equally trinitarian and highly respected The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church admits that we cannot honestly say that Hippolytus definitely taught that the Logos (the pre-existent Christ) was even a person before being born on earth. This, of course, would mean that Hippolytus certainly didn't consider him to be the always-existent, second Person of the orthodox trinity doctrine. This trinitarian publication also tells us that Hippolytus did not even consider the Holy Spirit as a person (let alone a person who is God!). So much for the trinity doctrine being taught by "the most important 3rd century theologian of the Roman Church"! - p. 652, F. L. Cross, Oxford University Press, 1990 reprint. - - Also see the PHIL study (f.n. #13).
http://www.ccel.org/w/wace/biodict/htm/iii.viii.xxxiv.htm -
"Hippolytus (2) Romanus. Though so celebrated in his lifetime, Hippolytus has been but obscurely known to the church of subsequent times. He was at the beginning of the 3rd cent. unquestionably the most learned member of the Roman church, and a man of very considerable literary activity .... A century after his death Eusebius evidently knew nothing of him beyond what he could infer from such works of his as had reached him. These works were soon superseded by those of other more able and learned writers. Scarcely one has come down to us without mutilation, and the authenticity of almost every work assigned to him has been disputed. Yet his celebrity survived, and various legends, not always carefully distinguished from the authentic history of the saint, arose. It has been disputed whether Hippolytus was a presbyter or a bishop; and if a bishop, of what see; whether he laboured in Italy or Arabia; whether he was orthodox or a schismatic; whether he was a martyr, and if so, by what death he died. At length the recovery of the work on heresies, now by general consent attributed to him, cleared away some obscurities in his personal history, though many questions can still receive only doubtful answers.
Theophilus
(c. 115-181 A.D.)
It is odd that Bowman did not refer to Theophilus also. Many trinitarians (most of whom should know better also) claim that Theophilus (2nd century A.D.) was the first to apply the term "trinity" to the "Godhead"! They have interpreted and translated a single passage from Theophilus' second letter to a non-Christian acquaintance (Theophilus to Autolycus, Book 2, Ch. 15) to read: "the three days which elapsed before the creation of the Luminaries are a type [symbol] of the Trinity...." - (Rendel Harris, The Origin of the Prologue to St. John).
Here is the passage as it is rendered in the trinitarian-translated, trinitarian-edited, and trinitarian-published The Ante-Nicene Fathers [ANF]:
CHAP. XV. - OF THE FOURTH DAY.
On the fourth day [of creation] the luminaries were made; .... For the sun is a type [symbol] of God, and the moon of man. .... In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types [symbols] of the trinity [triados], of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the Fourth [day] is the type [symbol] of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man. - p. 101, Vol. 2, Eerdmans.
The trinitarian translators and editors of this passage have translated this one-time-only use of triados ['triad'] by Theophilus as "Trinity" to make it appear that the actual Greek word for "triad" means "Trinity." But instead of this "trinity" being defined as "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit," we find that it is actually defined as "God [not 'the Father' or even 'God the Father'], the Word, and wisdom"! Of course "the Word" and "wisdom" are, in reality, both well-known titles of the Son,
[9] so this "Trinity" is, actually, two persons! Not only that, but one person only in this "trinity" is actually called God! The other person (in two different aspects) is not called God!
Furthermore, even today "triad" does not mean "trinity"! A triad is merely a group of three things (Webster's New World Dictionary, The World Publishing Co., 1973). It is no different from "tetrad": "a group or arrangement of four." So "triad" does not necessarily have the meaning of "three things which are all equally and completely one thing" (even though they may well be related in some sense)!
Notice the triad found at Rev. 1:4, 5:
Never mind (as in Theophilus' statement) that only one of them is God, and one other is apparently 7 different persons or things, and the third is the Son. Nevertheless, this is a heavenly triad (Trinity?): all three are united in the sense of being the heavenly agent appealed to by John as the provider of grace and peace! (Also see the triad which is united in the glory in which Jesus will return - Luke 9:26; cf. 1 Tim. 5:21.)
Theophilus was replying to some charges his non-Christian acquaintance had made. He replied in three separate letters. Part of his first reply concerned the "Nature of God" and "The Attributes of God" - Book I, Ch. 3, 4. And yet, during that detailed description of his concept of the Christian God, he never mentioned "three," "triad," etc. Instead God is the Father! Since Theophilus is actually defending his concept of the Christian God at that point, that is the place he would have mentioned "Trinity" or a clear description of such an understanding (IF he really had such an understanding)!
If Theophilus were truly dropping such a bombshell here (in a completely inappropriate place in his second communication with Autolycus: "The Fourth Day"), there certainly would have been explanations, justifications, repetitions, emphases of this new concept! The importance of such a knowledge of God, whether new or old, would have been clearly brought out in his first book concerning who the Christian God is, his nature, attributes, etc. (It is not even mentioned.) And it would be frequently referred to in subsequent writings. (Certainly as much as "Father," "Lord," "Most High," "Creator," etc.!) But he merely mentions it in passing, in this second book, in a context that actually indicates otherwise, and never again uses this incredibly important 'knowledge of God' by name ("triados") or by description! To claim to find the Trinity in this passage is ridiculous! It is proof of the desperation of many trinitarian scholars who are grasping at straws in an attempt to justify a false teaching.
Notice how Theophilus does explain his knowledge of God:
Theophilus is describing God - and pointing out that only God is unbegotten in every sense of the word. He has also pointed out that the Son IS begotten! The Son has gone through many changes, but God is unchangeable! Only the Father is ever described as Most High! The Son is not Most High! Only the Father is ever described as Almighty! These descriptions of God do not fit the Son in Theophilus' list of the attributes of the Christian God!
"God is uncreated, and the Father and Maker of all things" - p. 95.
Again God is the Father alone. On p. 103 Theophilus writes that if someone asks how God could walk in Paradise (Gen. 3:8), he would reply:
Obviously, like all other Christians of this time, Theophilus considered the Father alone to be God! And the Word/Power/Wisdom [the Son] who impersonates (
"the word is used in its original meaning, and with reference to an actor taking up a mask and personating a character" - ANF footnote) God is certainly not God!
A much more appropriate rendering of Theophilus' "Trinity" statement would be: "the three days which were before the luminaries are symbols representing the triad (the group of three) of (1) God, and (2) His Word, and (3) His wisdom. And the fourth [day] is the symbol representing man, who needs light, so that there may be [the tetrad? (group of four)] of (1) God, and (2) the Word, and (3) Wisdom, and (4) man."[10]
Simply because triados, the word for "group of three" or "triad" (not "trinity" or "tri-unity"), happened to be used in this one-time-only instance does not even remotely justify the conclusion that Theophilus was calling three (actually two) persons the only true God (particularly when one of them was already specifically called God and the others were not)!
Two of them were really alternate titles for one person (the Son) who had been created or begotten! We would be equally justified in concluding that Theophilus was proclaiming the Quadrinity when, in the very next breath (and parallel in context), he announced the four (or three) to be: God, the Word/wisdom, and man! This was in a parallel sense to what he had done with the previous three (or two) and likewise cannot honestly be considered some "four-in-one" absolute-equality Quadrinity any more than the parallel description of the "triad" can be considered a trinity!
This whole argument that Theophilus was the very first to call the "Godhead" a "Trinity" is so incredibly poor that it emphatically demonstrates the desperation of trinitarians who are unable to find true proof of a trinity!
* * * * *
So how much of the developing new "Knowledge" (speculation) concerning God and the Word found in modern translations of these ancient writers is really the work of the Ante-Nicene Fathers themselves and how much is the work of later trinitarian copyists, trinitarian translators, etc.?
Well, obviously, the trinitarians who handled, copied, and translated these works for over 1500 years would have made trinitarian changes much as they did in many still-existing manuscripts of Scripture itself. But one thing is certain, they would never have made anti-trinitarian changes in those manuscripts, translations, etc. Any objective student would be forced to admit that the numerous instances of anti-trinitarian statements concerning God and Christ must have come unchanged from the Ante-Nicene writers themselves.
We find, then, no clear, undisputed proof for a trinity-God in the Holy Scriptures. We find absolutely no honest evidence for a 'trinity-God' understanding in the Creeds of the first two centuries: God, instead, is clearly the Father only. And we find proofs of a non-trinitarian God understanding in the writings of the Christian writers of the first 200 years of Christianity:
The Father, alone, is God. It wasn't until the 4th century that a "Three-Persons-in-One-God" Doctrine began to be preached and urged upon a reluctant Church (see the HIST study paper).
- - - - - - - -
At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian ... It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages [from time of the Apostles to about 165 A.D.], as reflected in the NT and other early Christian writitngs. - Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Hastings (trinitarian).
The very first Christians to really discuss Jesus' relationship to God in their writings, according to Dr. Boer, were the Apologists.
Before the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) all theologians viewed the Son as in one way or another subordinate to the Father. - pp. 112-113, Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity (trinitarian), 1977; and p. 114, The History of Christianity (trinitarian), A Lion Handbook, Lion Publishing, 1990 revised ed.
Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, .... The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies .... It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons. - The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 1985, Micropedia, Vol. 11, p. 928. [11]
No comments:
Post a Comment