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.