I’ve been working on my Trinities book today, and have been reading a lot of Origen (d. c. 253) lately. As is well known, most of his famous On First Principles (kindle, hardback) has been lost in the original Greek, but we have a “complete” copy of a Latin translation made by Rufinus of Aquileia (d. 410) in 398-9.
Unfortunately, this translation was made in the heat of a theological controversy having to do with whether or not some of Origen’s teachings are heretical. (In his own lifetime, he aimed to be and was considered by most to be the leading defender of catholic orthodoxy.) This was also a personal quarrel between Rufinus and Jerome, the details of which it’d be tiresome to relate.
Anyway, in his translation Rufinus boldly cuts out, paraphrases, or adds to anything Origen says which is either obscure or which grated on the theological sensibilities of Rufinus’s time. How do we know this? Because Rufinus explicitly tells us this in his preface! (And he later defends this monkey-business, and he complains when another scholar puts out an unchanged Latin translation, now sadly lost.) Also, we now can compare his Latin version to the less than 1/6 of the work which has survived in Origen’s original Greek, most notably, some longish passages (in a Philokalia) excerpted by Basil (d. 379) and Gregory of Nazianzus (d. 390) a little before Rufinus’s lousy translation.
On such passage jumped out at me just now, in On First Principles IV.2.7. Here’s the Greek as related by Basil and Gregory:
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…
Note that Origen uses “God” three times here, each time obviously meaning the Father only.
Here is Rufinus’ Latin rendering, or rather, re-write.
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)
There you have it: the catholic transition from unitarian to trinitarian theology, via the pen of an over-bold translator. There are a few other places in Rufinus’s translation which reflect the view that the one God is the Trinity, rather than the Father. But I’ve never found such a place in Origen’s uncorrupted works (or in any author of the second or third centuries).
But the story of Rufinus’s corruptions gets worse! Next time…
A Trinities book? That would be great. Looking forward to it!
Me too!
Thanks, guys. Yeah, its been in the works for awhile. I’m a slow writer, perhaps too much of a perfectionist, and am easily distractable. Bad combo. But I’ve been hammering away at the last several chapters lately, and am hoping to send it off perhaps by the end of the year. Currently buried in Origen, whom I’m discussing in one chapter.
Can you give a teaser about what will be covered? I’m sure you’ll discuss the various (failed, IMO) attempts at making the doctrine coherent, but what about the historical problems, e.g. what I’ve referred to as “The Problem of Expectation”? (See http://kazesland.blogspot.com/2013/09/those-who-are-familiar-with-work-of.html).
I think that someone with more time and mental vigor than this old man has could probably write a thesis on the various reasons why certain historical models that are looked to in order to help bolster orthodoxy, e.g. Hurtado’s and Bauckham’s writings, are ultimately highly problematic from a historical perspective. Such models may not be “trinitarian” in and of themselves, but they’re thought to lay the foundation for a properly emerging trinitarianism. We’re never told why that’s supposed to be plausible, though, and given the historical implications, that’s a real lacuna — a rather large elephant missing from the room;-)
Hi Sean – here’s the corrected link: http://kazesland.blogspot.com/2013/09/those-who-are-familiar-with-work-of.html Excellent post, by the way.
Yeah, the book lays out widely agreed desiderata for an interpretation of the traditional Trinity formulas, and goes through the main ones recently developed by Christian philosophers, evaluating them along the way. To them, I add the subordinationist views of Origen and Clarke, and what I’ve called a humanitarian unitarian view. Then, I argue for this last. One isn’t going to be able to satisfy all the desiderata which people have put out there. There’s a lot going on in the book. I try to explain a lot of philosophy to non-philosophers, but also to spend more time on the relevant teachings of the Bible than philosophers normally do, all while (supposedly) keeping the book short. I don’t want it to be like my densely written journal pieces, so I’m using stories and other examples to try to make things comprehensible.
In all seriousness, I would solicit your prayers that I can finish this book by the end of this summer, or so. Also, will be looking for a publisher then.
Thanks, Dale, now I’m really, really looking forward to the book! 🙂 I would think that that would be a good one for Westminster/John Knox, or Wipf & Stock, or maybe even Harper Collins. I can’t imagine that you’ll be able to meet the criterion of keeping it short, however, but you’d know better that I what you’re capable of in that regard.
Yeah, been in the work for awhile. Trying to finish it.
Comments are closed.