Trinitarian Interpolations

[MrMacSon]

And as to his speaking of a third, he [Plato] did this because he read, as we said above, that which was spoken by Moses, that the Spirit of God moved over the waters. For he [Plato] gives the second place to the Logos which is with God, who he said was placed crosswise in the universe; and the third place to the Spirit who was said to be borne upon the water, saying, And the third around the third.

Note

1. Justin is " putting words in Plato's 'mouth' " there
2. Previously:

   
   Justin Apology 13
   
   Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose...and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness...that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which...we pray you to give heed.
   .

   "the prophetic Spirit" might be noteworthy ...
   
   as might well be "the mystery that is herein" ...

For posterity:

There is something I read recently, forgetting the reference, but I found it very interesting.

Some ancient Christians identified the "Beginning" in the first words of Genesis, "in the beginning," with the Son.

Accordingly, they interpreted the first two verses of the Bible as referring to God (= the Father), the Beginning (= the Son), and the Spirit. Or, to use the terminology that MrMacSon pointed out: God, and His Word, and His Wisdom.

1 In the beginning [= Word], God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God [= Wisdom] was hovering over the waters.

And so we frequently find discussions of the "power" (dunamis) of God, specifying Word and Wisdom as each a "power" of God. As such, in this understanding, "God" applies to the unbegotten God alone. Everything else is dependent, a creation, the flourishing of God. The term "Thalia" (used by Arius) is a word that describes an abundance, like a banquet where everything is provided abundantly for all to enjoy. The person who throws the banquet asks for nothing, requires nothing, offers everything. There is a rich theological tradition here that Arius was steeped in and drawing on. This tradition was no doubt informed in some way by philosophy, as we see in some of the quotes provided in this thread.

I say this to reinforce that there was a development of the idea of a triad or trinity. "Word" and "Wisdom" are deliberate terms. It's no accident, they have meaning and fit into a definite theological scheme. Not every reference to a trinity had the same meaning.
.

[Stuart]

As a result, I favor a later date for Celsus and the early layers of Irenaeus into the first parts of the 3rd century,

No. Celsus mentions the Bar Kochba revolt as if it recently happened.

So does Justin's pseudo dialogue. That merely gives us a terminus.

And what is recent? I would think 5 years, maybe 10 years, no more. After that it's on to the new crisis. Consider if we talk about that recent Desert Storm campaign we just recently ended (it was 1990-91) today. Hell, nobody under 30 was even alive then. Back in those days society skewed one heck of a lot younger than today. It's why I think it's an artificial element, for the very purpose of back dating!

[Leucius Charinus]

The Christian trinity in 4th century political history (as opposed to theological history) comes from Plato but through Plotinus. The question is whether Plato's initial incorporation into Christianity was through Middle Platonism (in the 2nd/3rd century) or through Neo-Platonism in the 4th century. And the extent of influence of which form of Platonism in whatever time period applicable.

• I'd contend that Plato wasn't incorporated into Christianity but that a more likely conceptualisation of the two would be that Christianity arose out of Platonism ....

It is probably more accurate (IMO) to talk about Platonism being incorporated into Christian philosophy than into Christianity and that Christian philosophy arose out of Platonism.

This discussion highlights how ancient sources were sometimes interpolated and/or forged, and/or corrupted.

• No, it doesn't.

I was referring to "when Origen said one thing, Rufinus made him say the opposite" How do you read this if not as example of how Rufinus has corrupted Origen?

And so we see that Rufinus has deliberately suppressed the subordinationism in Origen's text, as he said he would in the preface:

Wherever, therefore, I have found in his books anything contrary to the reverent statements made by him about the Trinity in other places, I have either omitted it as a corrupt and interpolated passage, or reproduced it in a form that agrees with the doctrine which I have often found him affirming elsewhere.

And thus when Origen said one thing, Rufinus made him say the opposite:

(5) Surely You're Joking, Mr. Origen

On First Principles 1.3 (Greek Fragment 9) The God and Father, who holds the universe together, is superior to every being that exists, for he imparts to each one from his own existence that which each one is; the Son, being less than the Father, is superior to rational creatures alone (for he is second to the Father); the Holy Spirit is still less, and dwells within the saints alone. So that in this way the power of the Father is greater than that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and that of the Son is more than that of the Holy Spirit, and in turn the power of the Holy Spirit exceeds that of every other holy being.

On First Principles 1.3.7 (Rufinus' Latin translated in ANF) Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification . . .

from: https://restitutio.org/2019/04/12/the-t ... ore-nicea/

[andrewcriddle]

Apparently Raymond Brown and Rudolf Bultmann suspect an interpolation here, first quoted in Irenaeus, Tertullian, and (apparently) the Didache. This is the most important proof-text in the early formulation of the Trinity by Tertullian, and it continued to be the linchpin of baptismal practice.

(3) The Back-Dated Baptismal Formula of Matthew 28:19

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/kermitzar ... thew-2819/

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, [20] teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, [20] teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age

I don't think that Eusebius had a different text of Matthew 28:19. He probably tended to avoid quoting the trinitarian formula used in baptism as part of the disciplina arcani See Zwemer

[Peter Kirby]

Thanks, Andrew! Moving on from the subject of the text of Matthew and of Eusebius...

That source refers to a Trinitarian formula in Clement of Rome, which I thought quite strange. I don't find anything so much as a Trinitarian formula in First Clement. But I do consider that there is language that may be taken to be Trinitarian, interpreted strongly. And such language may naturally come forth from a Trinitarian, viewing the writers of the past as being also Trinitarian, or just slipping into customary habits of speech. Imagine the common scene where one person is reading, the other writing, to copy a text. It takes only a momentary lapse into customary expression or praise to add a few words. In my view, the editors of First Clement were particularly loose and expansive, even beyond what is known to be found in most texts. (But not without parallel, if looking for example at the letters of Ignatius.)

The passage is taking the scripture that God lives and adding that the Lord Jesus Christ lives. That's the passage. That's the story. The phrase about the Holy Spirit is extraneous and tacked on, interrupting the logic of the passage about how the Lord Jesus Christ also lives. Does it make sense to add that the Holy Spirit [lives]? There's not even a verb for the Holy Spirit or any discussion of how the Holy Spirit lives. The discussion following has parallel references to God ("ordinances and commands given by God ") and Jesus Christ ("reckoned and counted in the number of them that are saved by Jesus Christ"). But the Holy Spirit? It's just kind of there, because of course the two implies the three.

So I'm now seeing at least the plausibility of two interpolations in this passage of First Clement 58:

(6) Trinitarian Math: God + Jesus = God + Jesus + Holy Spirit

Accept this our advice, and it will not be repented of by you. For as God liveth, and as the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, the confidence and hope of the elect, he who observeth in humility with earnest obedience, and repining not, the ordinances and commands given by God, he shall be reckoned and counted in the number of them that are saved by Jesus Christ.

Accept this our advice, and it will not be repented of by you. For as God liveth, and as the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit, the confidence and hope of the elect, he who observeth in humility with earnest obedience, and repining not, the ordinances and commands given by God, he shall be reckoned and counted in the number of them that are saved by Jesus Christ, through whom is there to him glory, world without end. Amen.

[Peter Kirby]

There is something I read recently, forgetting the reference, but I found it very interesting.

Some ancient Christians identified the "Beginning" in the first words of Genesis, "in the beginning," with the Son.

Accordingly, they interpreted the first two verses of the Bible as referring to God (= the Father), the Beginning (= the Son), and the Spirit. Or, to use the terminology that MrMacSon pointed out: God, and His Word, and His Wisdom.

1 In the beginning [= Word], God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God [= Wisdom] was hovering over the waters.

Here's an explicit example from Ambrose in the late fourth century (given as Exam. I 4, 15; p. 13, 4-20 Sch.):

from: "In the Beginning: Some Observations on the Patristic Interpretation of Genesis 1: 1"
J. C. M. Van Winden
Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Jun., 1963), pp. 105-121

The general content of this passage is as follows: "The Gospel teaches that there is still another "beginning", viz., Christ. He is the beginning, first, on account of His divinity (secundum divinitatem). In this "beginning", that is, in Christ, God created heaven and earth; this is confirmed by several Scripture texts. In one of these texts Christ is said to be "the firstborn of all creatures". Не can be said this for two reasons; in the first place, since He is earlier than all other beings, and, secondly, since He is holy, just as Israel was called "firstborn" because of its holiness. Because of His holiness Christ can also be called "the first" or the "beginning" in so far He assumed a body (et secundum corporis susceptionem 24), for He is without sin and vanity."

A key phrase from Ambrose here is:

"in hoc ergo principio, id est in christo fecit deus caelum et terram"

in the beginning, that is, in Christ, God made heaven and earth

This is also found in the homily on Genesis attributed to Origen, a text drawing on Genesis 1:1, 1 Timothy 4:10, Colossians 1:15, and John 1:1 for the interpretation:

»In principio fecit Deus caelum et terram«. Quod est omnium principium nisi Dominus noster et »Saluator omnium« Iesus Christus »primogenitus omnis creaturae«? In hoc ergo principio, hoc est in uerbo suo, ›Deus caelum et terram fecit‹, sicut et euangelista Iohannes in initio euangelii sui ait dicens: »in principio erat uerbum...

"In the beginning God made heaven and earth." What is the beginning of all but our Lord and "Savior of all" Jesus Christ "the firstborn of all creation"? In this beginning, then, it is in his word that God made heaven and earth, as the evangelist John says at the beginning of his gospel, saying: "In the beginning was the word..."

These are some examples of interpreting "the beginning" of Genesis 1:1 as a reference to the Son.

[Steven Avery]

I don't think that Eusebius had a different text of Matthew 28:19. He probably tended to avoid quoting the trinitarian formula used in baptism as part of the disciplina arcani See Zwemer

Thanks, Andrew.
The disciplina arcani theory for Eusebius had some historical difficulties here. (Conybeare pointed out that the places where Eusebius used the long and shorter texts did not lin up with the theory.)

And I have a page on the disciplina arcani and believe it works better on Acts 8:37 and the heavenly witnesses, and maybe the Matthew doxology, as a contributing element in the text dropping.

Matthew 28:19 (AV)
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost:

Pure Bible Forum
disciplina arcana
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.ph ... cani.1004/

The last post on the page points here .

When you look at the Anonymous Treatise on Rebaptism, in the 3rd century, it is clear that the author knows and supports the traditional long text of Matthew 28:19. He also supports interpreting it as baptizing in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

This, along with many other Ante-Nicene references, reduces the Eusebius mixed usage to a textual quirk of little significance.

[perseusomega9]

That's really impressive for the *checks notes* 3rd century

[andrewcriddle]

I don't think that Eusebius had a different text of Matthew 28:19. He probably tended to avoid quoting the trinitarian formula used in baptism as part of the disciplina arcani See Zwemer

Thanks, Andrew.
The disciplina arcani theory for Eusebius had some historical difficulties here. (Conybeare pointed out that the places where Eusebius used the long and shorter texts did not lin up with the theory.)

It depends to some extent whether one is thinking of a strict rule about what can be said to non-Christians, (such as we find in Cyril of Jerusalem), or a more informal sensibility that avoids unnecessary use of sacred liturgical formulae.

Andrew Criddle

[perseusomega9]

Apparently Raymond Brown and Rudolf Bultmann suspect an interpolation here, first quoted in Irenaeus, Tertullian, and (apparently) the Didache. This is the most important proof-text in the early formulation of the Trinity by Tertullian, and it continued to be the linchpin of baptismal practice.

(3) The Back-Dated Baptismal Formula of Matthew 28:19

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/kermitzar ... thew-2819/

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, [20] teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, [20] teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age

I don't think that Eusebius had a different text of Matthew 28:19. He probably tended to avoid quoting the trinitarian formula used in baptism as part of the disciplina arcani See Zwemer

The KS IC XS and G-d the Father Thrice/Tri Great?