Trinitarian Interpolations

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Trinitarian Interpolations

Post by Peter Kirby »

Peter Kirby wrote: Tue May 09, 2023 6:37 pm
Leucius Charinus wrote: Tue May 09, 2023 6:20 pm What actually happened between 325-381 CE must IMHO be subject to debate. Including the generally accepted proposition that Arius stood in agreement with the majority of the church leadership.
What would you like to debate?

I have most certainly not presented what I'm saying as a mere "generally accepted proposition."
I need to add here (easily missed on a first reading, including by me) that these are different propositions:

(1) Arius stood in agreement [possibly implied: on everything] with the majority of the church leadership.

(2) Although he (like anyone) had his own particularities, Arius stood in agreement with the majority of the church leadership in the Eastern part of the Roman Empire, pre-325, when he spoke of the unbegotten God and first-begotten Son.

I've argued for (2). I can elaborate on what I mean by that common agreement (and by the "particularities").

Starting with the particularities: Arius at one point said the Son was created from nothing. This was the most controversial idea he had. It still found some support, but it was controversial enough that Arius himself was willing to drop it as a point of contention, as shown by contrasting his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia with his more conciliatory letter to Alexander of Alexandria.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Trinitarian Interpolations

Post by Secret Alias »

Arius sat on the throne of St Mark in the Boucolia in eastern Alexandria, near modern Chatby Beach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shatby. He was certainly not a "heretic" as St Mark was orthodoxy in Egypt.

Image

At Chatby 2 we have traced a variety of submerged ancient remains, most foundations
of buildings, paved areas, some architectural elements as well as a few stone anchors. The
fact that in the early Christian times there was a large complex of buildings that included
the assumed Martyrium of Evangelist Mark13 is attested by two proto-Christian capitals
(Figures 14, 15), some columelae as well as a most interesting nearly complete “Sygma
table” made of red granite.
During our 5th campaign of November 2000 and the 6th of June 2001 two trenches
were opened on the sandy beach, west of the Chatby Casino and a large quantity of pottery
sherds were found, all dating to the early Byzantine period. The church built on the alleged
martyrium of evangelist Mark is represented on the earliest view we have of Alexandria,
the Codex Urbinate 277 that dates to 1472 (Figure 16) as well as on the plan of Simacas
dating to 1605

https://www.ancientportsantiques.com/wp ... as2018.pdf
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Pr ... frontcover
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Trinitarian Interpolations

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Peter Kirby wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 7:38 pm Origen in Against Celsus, extant in Greek, held to a form of subordinationism:

Against Celsus 8.15
For we who say that the visible world is under the government to Him who created all things, do thereby declare that the Son is not mightier than the Father, but inferior to Him. And this belief we ground on the saying of Jesus Himself, “The Father who sent Me is greater than I.” And none of us is so insane as to affirm that the Son of man is Lord over God. But when we regard the Saviour as God the Word, and Wisdom, and Righteousness, and Truth, we certainly do say that He has dominion over all things which have been subjected to Him in this capacity, but not that His dominion extends over the God and Father who is Ruler over all.

Origen is a key figure in many respects. At p.111 of his book "The Essence of the Gnostics" (2004), Bernard Simon quotes"
"The most important fact in the history of Christian Doctrine was that
the father of Christian Theology, Origen, was a Platonic philosopher at
the school of Alexandria. He built into Christian Doctrine the whole
cosmic drama of the soul, which he took from Plato."

--- Harvard Theological Review (1959)
IMO we must be mindful of a number of things concerning Origen:

1) Most academics refer to his as a Platonist.

2) Some academics disambiguate two separate Origens in the 3rd century. One of these was a Christian whereas the second was a Platonist.

3) In the 4th and 5th centuries there was an "Origenist controversy" over the books of Origen. One instance of this featured a church or monastic leader throwing a book written by Origen into the Nile river rather than having the controversy erupt.

These issues caution against any simplistic and authoritative pronouncement over what books Origen actually wrote. Or in some cases which Origen wrote which books.

This example of Rufinus reinforces the need to be extremely cautious when assessing the integrity of our literary sources from antiquity. Thanks for the table and highlighting the salient points.
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/
This is a very good example of how the orthodox Rufinus dealt with the books he was translating and the question of his integrity in the preservation of literary material.

I'd like to add to this example some background to the political history of the epoch in which Rufinus (and indeed the entire Christian orthodoxy) found themselves towards the end of the 4th century.

The following is from the description of a 2008 books "AD 381: Heretics, Pagans and the Christian State" by Charles Freeman:

Description:

'We authorise followers of this law to assume the title of orthodox Christians; but as for the others since, in our judgement, they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious names of heretics.' - Emperor Theodosius. In AD 381, Theodosius, emperor of the eastern Roman empire, issued a decree in which all his subjects were required to subscribe to a belief in the Trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This edict defined Christian orthodoxy and brought to an end a lively and wide-ranging debate about the nature of the Godhead; all other interpretations were now declared heretical.

Moreover, for the first time in a thousand years of Greco-Roman civilization free thought was unambiguously suppressed. Not since the attempt of the pharaoh Akhenaten to impose his god Aten on his Egyptian subjects in the fourteenth century BC had there been such a wide sweeping program of religious coercion. Yet surprisingly this political revolution, intended to bring inner cohesion to an empire under threat from the outside, has been airbrushed from the historical record. Instead, it has been claimed that the Christian Church had reached a consensus on the Trinity which was promulgated at the Council of Constantinople in AD 381.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/AD-381-Heretic ... 1845950062

The object in citing this is that this epoch was one which saw the emergence of an extremely strong top-down Christian orthodoxy. The OP opens a discussion on interpolations (and indeed) forgeries (or if you prefer, misrepresentations) attributable to Rufinus.

This was the political environment in which Rufinus (and other Christian elites) found themselves. They were in all likelihood at least partially motivated to "bend the truth" towards its support of the dominance of the Trinity as a political formula. This involved making changes to the literature of past ages.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Trinitarian Interpolations

Post by Peter Kirby »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Tue May 09, 2023 10:19 pm IMO we must be mindful of a number of things concerning Origen:

1) Most academics refer to his as a Platonist.

2) Some academics disambiguate two separate Origens in the 3rd century. One of these was a Christian whereas the second was a Platonist.

3) In the 4th and 5th centuries there was an "Origenist controversy" over the books of Origen. One instance of this featured a church or monastic leader throwing a book written by Origen into the Nile river rather than having the controversy erupt.

These issues caution against any simplistic and authoritative pronouncement over what books Origen actually wrote. Or in some cases which Origen wrote which books.

This example of Rufinus reinforces the need to be extremely cautious when assessing the integrity of our literary sources from antiquity. Thanks for the table and highlighting the salient points.
I agree with all of this.

If I ever get to my part B (225-275), then I can maybe say something more seriously about Origen.
Leucius Charinus wrote: Tue May 09, 2023 10:19 pmThis is a very good example of how the orthodox Rufinus dealt with the books he was translating and the question of his integrity in the preservation of literary material.
Leucius Charinus wrote: Tue May 09, 2023 10:19 pmI'd like to add to this example some background to the political history of the epoch in which Rufinus (and indeed the entire Christian orthodoxy) found themselves towards the end of the 4th century.

The object in citing this is that this epoch was one which saw the emergence of an extremely strong top-down Christian orthodoxy. The OP opens a discussion on interpolations (and indeed) forgeries (or if you prefer, misrepresentations) attributable to Rufinus.

This was the political environment in which Rufinus (and other Christian elites) found themselves. They were in all likelihood at least partially motivated to "bend the truth" towards its support of the dominance of the Trinity as a political formula. This involved making changes to the literature of past ages.
If I am not taking very seriously and very critically the potential for and reality of forgeries and interpolations, then I'm wasting my time. This is the one thing that I am taking into consideration always, precisely because (as I'm sure you agree) it was a reality, and it can shed new light on new configurations of understanding the times.

The only thing I morally cannot do is to wave away texts without reading them and struggling to understand the particular circumstances that produced them, so as to critically evaluate the situation in which they were produced, whether they were entirely forged, largely interpolated, interpolated in parts, or otherwise. Not because that's expected or imposed on me by some canons of academic investigation (although it certainly is, of course). My own curiosity and integrity demand nothing less. If I don't do this also, then I'm wasting my time.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Trinitarian Interpolations

Post by Leucius Charinus »

I'd be inclined to argue that the orthodox Christian Trinitarian doctrine evolved over the course of the 4th century and its beginnings can be traced to the philosophical controversy that arose with the Arian controversy and the reported arguments from the Nicene council.
No. You only think that because you're mentally ill. Read Celsus's section on Christian borrowing from Plato. Celsus lived in the second century. Origen lived in the third century. The trinity comes from Plato and Plato's incorporation into Christianity at least by the second century ... or in your language the period where Christianity did not exist.
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.

This discussion highlights how ancient sources were sometimes interpolated and/or forged, and/or corrupted. As a result an independent researcher would have to be mentally ill if they were to treat these sources at face value.

These ecclesiastical sources were not provenanced through a "time capsule" like the NHL. These sources were hand-preserved within a community of elite church professionals for a long time. Do you acknowledge the difference? Do you have the term "historical integrity" in your dictionary?
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Trinitarian Interpolations

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Peter Kirby wrote: Tue May 09, 2023 5:37 pm
MrMacSon wrote: Tue May 09, 2023 5:26 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Tue May 09, 2023 4:57 pm Thanks, MrMacSon. It's interesting that this reference includes a fourth, man.
  • Yes, indeed. And no mention of the Father, Son and the [Holy] Spirit.
Secret Alias wrote: Tue May 09, 2023 5:05 pm And as to his speaking of a third, he 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 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.
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.
All these are interesting comments. Some of these are augmented in further sections of ARIUS: Heresy & Tradition by Rowan Williams.

FWIW here are my notes:

ANALOGY and PARTICIPATION

p.227

Arius is tempting a bold and delicate task, simultaneously
stressing the total disjunction between monad and dyad, in
strongly Neoplatonist and Neopythagorean style, and asserting
real knowledge of the monad as a gracious will.

He is walking exactly the same tightrope as the Cappodocians
later in the century. [75]"


Conclusion

p.230


"In so far as we can catch a glimpse of Arius; metaphysics
and cosmology, it is of a markedly different kind from the
philosophical assumptions of Eusebius of Caesarea or, for
that matter, Athanasius himself in his apologetic works.

....[...]...

"In his insistence on the utter independence and separateness
of the source of all, he unquestionably stands closer to
Plotinus and his successors.

"... It is tempting to think that Anatolius of Laodicaea is
the 'missing link' connecting Arius with the Neoplatonic world."



p.231

"If the analysis in the foregoing pages is accurate,
what finally sets him [Arius] apart as a theologian
is the attempt to incorporate such a metaphysic within
an account of God's creating and revealing work
drawn largely from Scripture and retaining
a strong personalist element in its view of God.

Post-Plotinian cosmology and logic are what make Arius a 'heresiarch'"




(3.4) Anatolius of Laodicea the Christian, (c.210 - 283 CE)
(3.4) Anatolius of Laodicea the Neoplatonist and teacher of Iamblichus, (c.210 - 283 CE)

"The suggestion that Anatolius, Iamblichus' teacher, is to identified
with the Christian Bishop Anatolius of Laodicaea ... is a conjecture
regarded very skeptically indeed by several well qualified judges.

p.262 Rowan Williams, "Arius: Heresy & Tradition" (Revised Ed 2002)

http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/ARIUS ... dition.htm

User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Trinitarian Interpolations

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Peter Kirby wrote: Tue May 09, 2023 6:59 pm Adding here that the question is a real one, and that we don't have to "debate" it just now... I could just take some pointers on what you'd like to have investigated further...
That's what I should have said instead of "debate".
I see your Philip of Side reference and will include it.

I also see the fifth Ennead of Plotinus reference.

I'm not sure why you quote secondary sources and highlight bold sentences in them to communicate your ideas. Ad fontes and all that.

Regardless, I will look up Charles Kannengeisser's arguments here.
I bolded and highlighted this secondary source as what I would refer to an an extremely succinct summary of Arius by an academic who has studied him in much detail and a great deal of depth of research.

Thanks for that. It is notable that Rowan Williams defers to Kannengeisser. I have not yet looked up Kannengeisser's arguments. I'd be interested to find these - preferably somewhere online.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Trinitarian Interpolations

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Arius sat on the throne of St Mark in the Boucolia in eastern Alexandria, near modern Chatby Beach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shatby. He was certainly not a "heretic" as St Mark was orthodoxy in Egypt.
So Arius of Alexandria was "certainly not a heretic"? Where do you learn your history? From the throne of St. Mark? That's not political history. Its called ecclesiastical dogma for which historical evidence is absent.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Trinitarian Interpolations

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Peter Kirby wrote: Tue May 09, 2023 10:33 pm If I am not taking very seriously and very critically the potential for and reality of forgeries and interpolations, then I'm wasting my time. This is the one thing that I am taking into consideration always, precisely because (as I'm sure you agree) it was a reality, and it can shed new light on new configurations of understanding the times.

The only thing I morally cannot do is to wave away texts without reading them and struggling to understand the particular circumstances that produced them, so as to critically evaluate the situation in which they were produced, whether they were entirely forged, largely interpolated, interpolated in parts, or otherwise. Not because that's expected or imposed on me by some canons of academic investigation (although it certainly is, of course). My own curiosity and integrity demand nothing less. If I don't do this also, then I'm wasting my time.
I agree with all the above. New light is always welcomed. Reading all texts is essential for sure but once they have been read there comes a time in marshalling them together in some meaningful way in order to be able to explain - or revise - the history of an epoch.

The emergence of the Trinity and the identification of interpolations (essentially into history) is a good example study.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Trinitarian Interpolations

Post by MrMacSon »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Tue May 09, 2023 10:36 pm 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 (and, to a certain and variable extent, out of Judaism)

Leucius Charinus wrote: Tue May 09, 2023 10:36 pm This discussion highlights how ancient sources were sometimes interpolated and/or forged, and/or corrupted.
  • No, it doesn't.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Tue May 09, 2023 11:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply