Trinitarian Interpolations

[Peter Kirby]

I'd like to start collecting here whatever could be considered a "Trinitarian" interpolation, clarifying or correcting or expanding on earlier unitarian, binitarian, or subordinationist views [the views that God is one, that God is two, that God properly refers to the Father, or that the Son is not equal to the Father in some respect ... all of which are various different non-Trinitarian positions] or just passages that are more ambiguous originally.

(1) The Famous Johannine Comma

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma

For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood, and these three agree in one.

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood, and these three agree in one.

(2) The Non-Origen-al Comma of Rufinus

https://trinities.org/blog/rufinuss-cor ... es-part-1/

And when we speak of the needs of souls, who cannot otherwise reach perfection except through the rich and wise truth about God, we attach of necessity pre-eminent importance to the doctrines concerning God and His only begotten Son; of what nature the Son is, and in what manner he can be the Son of God…

For in no other way can the soul reach the perfection of knowledge except by being inspired with the truth of the divine wisdom. Therefore, it is chiefly the doctrine about God, that is, about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which is indicated by those men who were filled with the divine Spirit. Then too the mysteries relating to the Son of God… (Origen, On First Principles, trans. Butterworth, p. 283, emphases added)

Anything else? Suspicions can be listed. Any time period and any text is of interest.

[Peter Kirby]

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

[Peter Kirby]

It can be hard to tell at a glance whether to say that the text is of the era of Tertullian, or just an interpolation is. The Didache was later expanded into other texts, and Matthew was a familiar text, so the interpolation could naturally creep in here. The formula is unnecessary to the flow, which talks of baptizing in living water.

How can someone not have either cold or the less preferable warm water, yet still have water? Theoretically referring to medium temperature, but perhaps just a clumsy addition, which came before the later in time (earlier in position) parallel interpolation.

(4) The Case of the Thrice Luke-Warm Shower in Didache 7

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

[Peter Kirby]

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.

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/

[Secret Alias]

There are many in the longest Ignatian epistles (from memory)

[Leucius Charinus]

I'd like to start collecting here whatever could be considered a "Trinitarian" interpolation, clarifying or correcting or expanding on earlier unitarian, binitarian, or subordinationist views [the views that God is one, that God is two, that God properly refers to the Father, or that the Son is not equal to the Father in some respect ... all of which are various different non-Trinitarian positions] or just passages that are more ambiguous originally.

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.

I'd argue that the Nicene epoch philosophers (chiefly Platonists) pointed out that there was a complete omission in the NT canonical literature of any description of the divine essence. The only essence οὐσία described in the NT is the material essence of property, inheritance and church money. One of the key element of (Arian) controversy was about defining the divine essence of Jesus. The definitions involved philosophical arguments. During the Nicene epoch there was a strong representation of Platonist philosophers.

Was this divine essence of Jesus the same as, or similar to, the divine essence of "god". Was it "homoousion" (lit. 'same in being, same in essence', from ὁμός, homós, "same" and οὐσία, ousía, "being" or "essence")? Or rather was it "homoiousios" (hómoios, "similar" and οὐσία, ousía, "essence, being")? Constantine chided the argument and decided it should be the same. And that was where it remained.

However the mainstream Christian paradigm has been to view this comparison (whether same or similar essence) as the comparison between the divine essence of Jesus and the divine essence of the "god" who is featured in the LXX and in the NT as the father of Jesus.

I'd offer an alternative scenario in that this comparison was that between the divine essence of Jesus and the divine essence of the "god" as found in the books of Plato. That is the "One" - of the Platonists. There is some reasonable evidence which may support this contention. If anyone is interested it can be presented and discussed. This includes the Phillip of Side fragments on the Nicene Council.

Philip of Side, 5th century
Fr. 5.6
[Supporters of Arius at the Council of Nicaea]
Anonymous Ecclesiastical History 2.12.8-10 [p. 47, lines 5-19 Hansen][160]

(8) When these things were expressed by them
or rather, through them, by the Holy Spirit
those who endorsed Arius' impiety
were wearing themselves out with murmuring

(these were the circles of Eusebius of Nicomedia
and Theognis of Nicaea, whom I have already pointed out earlier),

and yet they were looking with favor on the "hirelings" of Arius,
certain philosophers who were indeed very good with words;
Arius had hired them as supporters of his own wickedness,
and arrived with them at that holy and ecumenical council.

(9) For there were present very many philosophers;
and having put their hopes in them, as I have said just now,
the enemies of the truth were reasonably caught,
along with the one who actually taught them their blasphemy.

The Holy Scripture was fulfilled in him and in them, which says,
"Cursed is everyone who has his hope in a mortal man,
and whose heart has departed from the Lord."[161]

(10) For truly, the blasphemous heart of the fighter against God, Arius,
and of those who shared in his impiety, departed from the Lord
they dared to say that the Son of God, the creator of the universe
and the craftsman of both visible and invisible created natures,
is something created and something made.

https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/phil ... gments.htm

Basically I am arguing that it is reasonable to therefore surmise that this controversy eventually lead to the formation of the Christian trinity. At its foundation is the Platonic "trinity" espoused in the Enneads by Plotinus as "the One Spirit Soul". At the end of the 4th century Augustine finds that "only a few words and phrases" need to be changed to bring Platonism into complete accord with Christianity.

[Secret Alias]

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.

[Peter Kirby]

I'd like to start collecting here whatever could be considered a "Trinitarian" interpolation, clarifying or correcting or expanding on earlier unitarian, binitarian, or subordinationist views [the views that God is one, that God is two, that God properly refers to the Father, or that the Son is not equal to the Father in some respect ... all of which are various different non-Trinitarian positions] or just passages that are more ambiguous originally.

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.

There's some truth to this. I am in the slow process of trying to uncover how things unfolded.

The word "Arian" seems anachronistic when projected back before 325, as that is one of the few things I've found so far. 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 when he spoke of the unbegotten God and first-begotten Son.

I certainly would not dispute the influence of some kind of Platonic philosophy here, yet some kind of philosophical influence (which may sometimes be Platonic) may be seen on all sides of the so-called Arian controversy, although I haven't gotten that far yet.

[Stuart]

Trinitarianism is a derived compromise theology to harmonize multiple schools (sects) and gospel texts. Since I think the gospels mostly, except the last (small) layers which are the subject here, came together in the basic forms we see in the last quarter of the 2nd century. Trinitarianism and those layers had to be later, either coming at the end of the 2nd century or in the first third of the 3rd century. I'm running the assumption that the consolidation of schools/sects into a somewhat unified church and the development of a comprehensive doctrine that could cover most of their teachings took more than a few years to hash out and be agreed enough that a prominent church leader could espouse this new doctrine. It had to absorb Adoptionist, Possessionist, and to some extent Patripassionist sects under one creed compatible with the emerging proto-Orthodoxy.

As a result, I favor a later date for Celsus and the early layers of Irenaeus into the first parts of the 3rd century, figuring the Patristic reports of their composition dates are off, effectively back dating them like they back date everything some fifty to one hundred plus years. I'm not convinced its deliberate, so much as passing down lore they heard, and simply accepting it. Pseudo-biographical material is the most unreliable, often thinly disguised common tropes mixed with some legend about the assigned author to fill in a complete lack of knowledge (pretty common practice in ancient writings).

[Peter Kirby]

Trinitarianism is a derived compromise theology to harmonize multiple schools (sects) and gospel texts. Since I think the gospels mostly, except the last (small) layers which are the subject here, came together in the basic forms we see in the last quarter of the 2nd century. Trinitarianism and those layers had to be later, either coming at the end of the 2nd century or in the first third of the 3rd century. I'm running the assumption that the consolidation of schools/sects into a somewhat unified church and the development of a comprehensive doctrine that could cover most of their teachings took more than a few years to hash out and be agreed enough that a prominent church leader could espouse this new doctrine. It had to absorb Adoptionist, Possessionist, and to some extent Patripassionist sects under one creed compatible with the emerging proto-Orthodoxy.

As a result, I favor a later date for Celsus and the early layers of Irenaeus into the first parts of the 3rd century, figuring the Patristic reports of their composition dates are off, effectively back dating them like they back date everything some fifty to one hundred plus years. I'm not convinced its deliberate, so much as passing down lore they heard, and simply accepting it. Pseudo-biographical material is the most unreliable, often thinly disguised common tropes mixed with some legend about the assigned author to fill in a complete lack of knowledge (pretty common practice in ancient writings).

Thank you! I'm very interested in this kind of thing, and I'd love to have more details.