70 Non Trinitarian translations of John 1:1

[Shermana]

An excellent collection though a few show a few signs of liberties. There's a lot more "A god" translations than I realized.

Is it logical to conclude that there is much more than the JWs as an authority that this reading of John 1:1 can be legitimately read as "a god"?

Are there enough translations that present the case of "a god" or "Divine" as the translation of an article-less "Theos" to conclude that it's not just some fringe baseless position? Is it more of a Theological issue why the "A god" translation is so unappreciated by the "Conservative scholars"?

[JehovahsWitness]

Firstly "a god", which treats the anarthrous theos as indefinite, and secondly "divine" which treats the anarthrous theos as qualitative.

So which is it to be, "a god", or "divine"? It can't be both.

I am not a greek scholar, but my understanding is essentially that it indeed can be both (ie either is linguistically acceptable) given the meaning of the word divine.

I fear your argument relies too greatly on the somewhat ambiguous meaning of the English adjective “divine� and not on the qualitative meaning of the Greek noun θεός [theos : god]

Depending upon the circumstances an anarthrous θεός can indeed be indefinite, qualitative or for that matter definite. However, in any given situation its main force can only be one of definite indefinite or qualitative. So, which is it to be?

The English adjective “divine� has a much wider range of meaning than intended by the qualitative θεός, and it is for this reason it is an imperfect translation. [Had the author of John intended the meaing “divine� he perhaps might have employed the exact adjective θεῖος : theios ~ pertaining to that which belongs to the nature or status of deity, divine]

People assume that the word 'divinity' (or indeed god theos) is always to be understood in an absolute sense but the Greek word "theotetos" translated divinity or diety according to most scholarly Greek lexicons can mean "divine quality." and may or may not apply to Almighty God.

I fail to see why you are introducing the word θεότης [theotes] into the argument . According to BDAG θεότης means “the state of being god, divine character/nature, deity, divinity�, however the author of John doesn’t use the word at 1:1c so its meaning, in this instance, is irrelevant. [by the by as we are playing “most scholarly Greek lexicons� you should be aware that when discussing a particular Greek word it is referred to in its lexical form i.e. for a noun that is the nominative singular θεότης; θεότητος is the genitive singular.]

In short "a god" = he who is "divine" = = has the nature of theos = Qualitative theos.

You reason that as the adjective “divine� can be applied to “a god� the translations of θεός as “a god� or “divine� are synonymous. Unfortunately your argument fails as the adjective “divine� can equally be applied to “the god� or “god� or “gods�. By your reasoning “divine� and “the god� are also synonyms.

In Greek, a qualitative noun places the stress on quality, nature, or essence. It does not merely indicate membership in a class of which there are other members [such as an indefinite noun], nor does it stress individual identity such as a definite noun.

Unfortunately the concept of qualitative nouns is uncommon in English so it is hard to provide an exact translation that is at the same time concise.

In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,� Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.� He suggests: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’� (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) .

On this I agree. Harner produced evidence that 80% of anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives involve qualitative nouns.

Dixon [The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John�, Th.M thesis , Dallas Theological Siminary 1975] goes further and concludes that 94% of these predicate nominatives are qualitative. The remaining 6%, Dixon found, are definite. Dixon could find no examples where the main force was indefinite.

It is therefore reasonable to assume that an anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominative is a structural signal indicating that the main force of the noun is qualitative and as consequence, the main force of θεός at John 1:1c is qualitative. While there remains a very small possibility that it might be definite, “the god�, there is no possibility that it can be indefinite, “a god�.

The difficulty is, as I mentioned previously, arriving a translation that is both exact and concise. “Divine� is concise, but inexact, and as you have demonstrated, can too easily be perverted to imply an incorrect meaning in an English translation.

On the other hand, the REB’s “what God was, the Word was� clearly conveys the correct meaning, that the Word has all the qualities and attributes that the God of 1:1b has, and is therefore more exact but hardly more concise.

Perhaps “divine� is acceptable provided it is made clear that the term can only be applied to the true deity. However, which ever way you choose to translate the θεός at John 1:1c, your translation must demonstrate that θεός is qualitative i.e. the Word shares the same qualities and attributes of the God of 1:1b. Furthermore, any translation that arrives at, or equates to “a god� is clearly incorrect.

I found your post a very interesting read; its unfortunate I'm not qualified to address the points raised in detail as I'm not (as I said on the outset) a greek scholar. Still I was interested in your conclusion that "what God was, the Word was" and would like to know if any other translators have thus rendered the verse.

I understand what you are saying about the english adjective "divine" but its the very broadness of the word as used today in english, that I think has allowed so many translators to feel it encomposes the meaning John was trying to convey - that the Word was of the nature of God but not THE God. As you rightly point out, our options are narrow if we are going to fittingly convey in english thie idea John wanted and all translations are imperfect.

I don't think that the scholarly (as opposed to the traditional) consensus is that "a god" is *wrong* any more than "what God was, the Word was" is *right* as you yourself said, as long as the qualitive nature of what John was trying to convey is communicated in the second language, then I think the translation has been adequately rendered. In English most would understand that "a god" means "like a god/godlike/of the nature of god" which is why some translations have made this choice.

Anyway, if the discussion was to make a choice between the two renditions "the word was divine" or "the word was a god" and the correct answer is "neither" I would have to disagree. If the question is which best conveys the substance of what John wanted to convey, I would say its too close to call.

Thanks again for a very excellent read - if I didn't understand everthing in it, I can still recognise good points when I see them.

Regards,
JW

[Shermana]

#25 is mostly Similar.

(25) Scholar's Version, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was�
“Scholars Version ( The Five Gospels )�
Macmillan Publishers, 1993

[teddy_trueblood]

In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,� Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.� He suggests: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’� (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) .

I agree with most of what you and Shermana have to say. However, if you analyze Harner's 'evidence', you will see why I disagree with his "qualitative" noun idea.

Here is my personal study based on and refuting his JBL article:

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... le_12.html

[teddy_trueblood]

mich (#27) wrote:

“The problem with using the term "a god" seems to identify the Word as simply one of the many gods followed by pagan tribes. You do have a point concerning the use of the article since Origen wrote about this. However, Origen believed in the trinity. It seems that his explanation of the use of the article centered on the Word as being separate from God as opposed to the unitarian teaching.�

Origen was a great scholar as well as a great theologian. …. His work on the words of Scripture has a value quite independently of his theological views. Some of the most important qualifications of the worthy interpreter of Scripture he possesses in a supreme degree. His knowledge of Scripture is extraordinary both for its range and its minute accuracy. He had no concordance to help him; but he was himself a concordance. Whatever word occurs he is able to bring from every part of Scripture the passages in which it is used. …. a knowledge of all parts of the Bible as is probably without parallel. It has to be added that he is strong in grammar, and has a true eye for the real meaning of his text; the discussions in which he does this often leave nothing to be desired. – p. 293, Vol. 10, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Eerdmans, 1990 printing.

Origen actually taught:

"The agent of redemption as of all creation is the Divine Logos {‘the Word’} or Son of God, who is the perfect image or reflection of the eternal Father. Though a being distinct, derivative, and subordinate. - p. 551, An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm (ed.), 1945.

Origen believed that

‘the Son can be divine only in a lesser sense than the Father; the Son is [theos] (god), but only the Father is [autotheos] (Absolute God, God in Himself).’ - p. 1009, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (trinitarian), ed. F. L. Cross (trinitarian), Oxford University Press, 1990 printing.

Origen, whose knowledge of NT Greek (“the language of the New Testament was his mother tongue�) was probably greater than any other Bible scholar (and certainly quantum levels above the speculations of any modern scholar), shows us that this verse should be properly understood: “And the Word was a god.�! - ANF, 10:323.

Trinitarian Bernhard Lohse also concedes that Origen taught

that ‘the Son was a creature of the Father, thus strictly subordinating the Son to the Father’ and, ‘Origen is therefore able to designate the Son as a creature created by the Father.’ - pp. 46, 252, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Fortress Press (trinitarian), 1985.

This is excerpted from the RDB Creeds study:

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... reeds.html

[mich]

mich (#27) wrote:

“The problem with using the term "a god" seems to identify the Word as simply one of the many gods followed by pagan tribes. You do have a point concerning the use of the article since Origen wrote about this. However, Origen believed in the trinity. It seems that his explanation of the use of the article centered on the Word as being separate from God as opposed to the unitarian teaching.�

Origen was a great scholar as well as a great theologian. …. His work on the words of Scripture has a value quite independently of his theological views. Some of the most important qualifications of the worthy interpreter of Scripture he possesses in a supreme degree. His knowledge of Scripture is extraordinary both for its range and its minute accuracy. He had no concordance to help him; but he was himself a concordance. Whatever word occurs he is able to bring from every part of Scripture the passages in which it is used. …. a knowledge of all parts of the Bible as is probably without parallel. It has to be added that he is strong in grammar, and has a true eye for the real meaning of his text; the discussions in which he does this often leave nothing to be desired. – p. 293, Vol. 10, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Eerdmans, 1990 printing.

Origen actually taught:

"The agent of redemption as of all creation is the Divine Logos {‘the Word’} or Son of God, who is the perfect image or reflection of the eternal Father. Though a being distinct, derivative, and subordinate. - p. 551, An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm (ed.), 1945.

Origen believed that

‘the Son can be divine only in a lesser sense than the Father; the Son is [theos] (god), but only the Father is [autotheos] (Absolute God, God in Himself).’ - p. 1009, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (trinitarian), ed. F. L. Cross (trinitarian), Oxford University Press, 1990 printing.

Origen, whose knowledge of NT Greek (“the language of the New Testament was his mother tongue�) was probably greater than any other Bible scholar (and certainly quantum levels above the speculations of any modern scholar), shows us that this verse should be properly understood: “And the Word was a god.�! - ANF, 10:323.

Trinitarian Bernhard Lohse also concedes that Origen taught

that ‘the Son was a creature of the Father, thus strictly subordinating the Son to the Father’ and, ‘Origen is therefore able to designate the Son as a creature created by the Father.’ - pp. 46, 252, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Fortress Press (trinitarian), 1985.

This is excerpted from the RDB Creeds study:

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... reeds.html

I agree that Origen was indeed a great theologian. I also agree that Jesus is the "Son of God" and therefore subordinate to the Father. The Catholic Church does speak of the Son as being"begotton" of the Father. However, the divine nature of the Son is the same as the Father. The Catholic Church speaks of the Father as being "eternal" and the Son as being"co-eternal" with the Father, meaning that the divinity of Christ cannot be separate from the divinity of the Father, while the Father is called divine or God in His own right. Origen seems to agree with this and is not in anyway supporting the Arian teaching of the Christ being created from nothing as the rest of the creation.

Origen
DE PRINCIPIIS
BOOK I.
CHAP. II.--ON CHRIST.

And who that is capable of entertaining reverential thoughts or feelings regarding God, can suppose or believe that God the Father ever existed, even for a moment of time, without having generated this Wisdom? For in that case he must say either that God was unable to generate Wisdom before He produced her, so that He afterwards called into being her who formerly did not exist, or that He possessed the power indeed, but--what cannot be said of God without impiety--was unwilling to use it; both of which suppositions, it is patent to all, are alike absurd and impious: for they amount to this, either that God advanced from a condition of inability to one of ability, or that, although possessed of the power, He concealed it, and delayed the generation of Wisdom. Wherefore we have always held that God is the Father of His only-begotten Son, who was born indeed of Him, and derives from Him what He is, but without any beginning, not only such as may be measured by any divisions of time, but even that which the mind alone can contemplate within itself, or behold, so to speak, with the naked powers of the understanding. And therefore we must believe that Wisdom was generated before any beginning that can be either comprehended or expressed.

...From all which we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit was of such authority and dignity, that saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all, i.e., by the naming of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and by joining to the unbegotten God the Father, and to His only-begotten Son, the name also of the Holy Spirit. Who, then, is not amazed at the exceeding majesty of the Holy Spirit, when he hears that he who speaks a word against the Son of man may hope for forgiveness; but that he who is guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit has not forgiveness, either in the present world or in that which is to come!

For even although something else existed before the Holy Spirit, it was not by progressive advancement that He came to be the Holy Spirit; as if any one should venture to say, that at the time when He was not yet the Holy Spirit He was ignorant of the Father, but that after He had received knowledge He was made the Holy Spirit. For if this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the Unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit. When we use, indeed, such terms as "always" or "was," or any other designation of time, they are not to be taken absolutely, but with due allowance; for while the significations of these words relate to time, and those subjects of which we speak are spoken of by a stretch of language as existing in time, they nevertheless surpass in their real nature all conception of the finite understanding.

Andre

[teddy_trueblood]

I don’t believe Origen had an ‘everything out of nothing’ idea, but he certainly did not believe in a trinity or that Jesus is God as some parts of the late Latin copies by Trinitarian copyists of his work would indicate.

Apparently you haven’t read the part of the Creeds study (the link provided in my last post) which speaks of Origen:

Like Irenaeus (and most, if not all, Ante-Nicene Fathers), Origen considered “Wisdom� speaking at Prov. 8:22-30 to be Christ, the Son of God. He wrote:

“we have first to ascertain what the only-begotten Son of God is, seeing He is called by many different names, according to the circumstances and views of individuals. For He is termed Wisdom, according to the expression of Solomon:

‘The Lord {“Jehovah� in the ancient Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts} created me {Wisdom, ‘the only-begotten Son of God’} - the beginning {see Rev. 3:14} of His ways, and among His works, before He made any other thing; He founded me before the ages. In the beginning, before He formed the earth, before He brought forth the fountains of waters, before the mountains were made strong, before all the hills, He brought me forth.’ {Prov. 8:22-25}

He is also styled First-born, as the apostle has declared: ‘who is the first-born of every creature.’ {Col. 1:15} - ANF 4:246, ‘De Principiis’.

It’s obviously not unexpected that the many later trinitarian re-copyists, translators, and re-definers would have caused original non-trinitarian statements to now read as trinitarian statements, but they certainly would never have allowed any non-trinitarian changes or additions to Origen's work (it would have meant their lives to do so!). These non-trinitarian statements that still remain, therefore, must be original. Certainly Origen did not teach a trinity (or binity) even though trinitarian scholars have “credited� him with formulating the trinity doctrine!

De Principiis, the foremost treatise on systematic theology in the ancient Church, has survived in the main only in Rufinus' largely emended Latin translation. - p. 551, An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm, 1945.


_________________________________________
* “RUFINUS ... (c. 345-410), monk, historian and translator .... He also studied for several years in Alexandria under Didymus the Blind [St. Didymus, a staunch Nicene trinitarian - p. 402], and was deeply influenced by his Origenism [Didymus tried to ‘prove’ that Origen had taught a trinity doctrine in his De Principiis - p. 1010] .... [Rufinus’] free translation of Origen’s De Principiis, the only complete text now surviving, was intended to vindicate Origen’s [‘trinitarian’] orthodoxy, and involved Rufinus in bitter controversy with his former friend, St. Jerome, who criticized the tendentious character of his rendering.� - p.1207, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Revised, 1990 printing, Oxford University Press.

“It is much to be regretted that the original Greek of the De Principiis has for the most part perished. We possess it chiefly in a Latin translation by Rufinus. And there can be no doubt that he often took great liberties with his author. So much was this felt to be the case, that [Roman Catholic “Saint�] Jerome [342-420 A.D.] undertook a new translation of the work; but only small portions of his version have reached our day. He strongly accuses Rufinus of unfaithfulness as an interpreter, while he also inveighs bitterly against Origen himself, as having departed from the Catholic Faith, specially in regard to the doctrine of the Trinity.� - ANF, 4:233.

In other words, Rufinus did not translate literally, but, instead, intentionally changed (or ‘corrected’) De Principiis so as to make people believe that Origen had taught the trinity! And this is the text that has been used by trinitarians ever since to “prove� that Origen taught the trinity! Furthermore, the famed trinitarian St. Jerome (ca. 400 A.D.) who accused Rufinus of dishonestly mistranslating Origen’s work noted with great bitterness that Origen DID NOT TEACH THE TRINITY!!!!

To illustrate Rufinus’ corruption of Origen’s original Greek text we have a few pages of Book IV of Origen’s De Principiis still existing in the original Greek. Here are two passages of the Greek with Rufinus’ Latin “translation� of them beneath (originally beside) as published in the trinitarian The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, pp. 362, 363, Eerdmans Publ.:



Origen’s Original Greek
“through the Word who was in the beginning with God,
illuminated the ministers of truth, the prophets and
Apostles�

“the (doctrines) belonging to God and His only-begotten
Son are necessarily laid down as primary�


Rufinus’ Latin ‘Translation’ of the above
“through the power of His only-begotten Word,
who was in the beginning God with God, enlight-
ened the ministers of truth, the prophets and apostles�

“Accordingly, it is of God, i.e. of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, that these men,
filled with the Divine Spirit, chiefly treat�


So the “unity of ‘substance’� (homoousios) concept which was used by those who much later developed the “orthodox� trinity doctrine apparently meant merely a unity of will for Origen. “The term Homoousios had begun to become current with Heracleon [c. 160 A.D.] who had claimed that those who worshiped God in Spirit and in truth were themselves spirit and ‘of the same nature [homoousios] as the Father’.� - p. 394., note #111, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend (trinitarian), Fortress Press, 1985. Obviously homoousios, as it was first used within Christendom by Heracleon, did not have the same meaning as later trinitarians made it seem!

And as for Origen's development of the “Eternal Generation� of the Son - it is true that existing manuscripts today indicate that he used the term, but it is apparent that it did not mean to him what those later trinitarian developers insisted that it did. Lohse tells us: “It has thus an entirely different foundation from that of a similar idea found in the later theology of the Trinity .... It is immediately apparent that this second feature [‘eternal generation’] is considerably more problematical than the first.� (p. 47.)

In fact Origen apparently even considered all creation as ‘eternally generated.’ At least he thought that Logos and the world, were coeval {‘of the same age or duration’} with God. Furthermore he did not believe anything that was “eternally generated� could actually be God! “The ‘eternal generation’ of the Logos did not for {Origen} imply that the Logos is God’s equal; being ‘generated’ or ‘begotten’ entailed being secondary - i.e., subordinate.� - p. 93, A History of the Christian Church, Williston Walker (trinitarian), Scribners, 4th ed. So, since being “generated� connotes “being secondary� and “subordinate� to God, then his being “eternally generated� likewise connotes Jesus’ being eternally secondary and subordinate to God!

And the quotes in my previous post still stand.

Sincerely,

Ted

[mich]

Ted, I will not comment on everything you wrote as this would become way too long; if I did not respond to something that you wanted me to, just rewrite it in yout next reponse.

I don’t believe Origen had an ‘everything out of nothing’ idea, but he certainly did not believe in a trinity or that Jesus is God as some parts of the late Latin copies by Trinitarian copyists of his work would indicate.

I agree; but you need to understand that the "theology" of the trinity was in development in the second century; however, the doctrine of the trinity did exist as we have documented proof of this. The same can be said for the doctrine of the immaculate conception; the doctrine of Mary being "a spotless virgin" existed at the very beginning.I believe that Origen was an incredible theologian; it certainly is not impossible, due to his copious documents (we have only a small portion)that he could have ventured into some ideas which the church did not come to accept. However, Origen was never regarded as being a heretic. There was indeed a movement which "interpreted" Origen's writings, called "Origenism" that was condemned by the church, I believe, but this is not the same as condemnng Origen himself.

Now if, as I believe the Jehovah's witnesses belief states, that the Word of God is "separate"from the rest of creation" as He is indeed it's creator, then, our view of the divinity of the Word is not that different. Notice that we also believe the Word as being subordinate to the Father and having being "born" of the Father.
The difference is that neither we, nor Origen believes the Word is part of the temperal creation,and as a Jehovah's witness, you shouldn't either, since the Word is the creator Himself.

Apparently you haven’t read the part of the Creeds study (the link provided in my last post) which speaks of Origen:

He is also styled First-born, as the apostle has declared: ‘who is the first-born of every creature.’ {Col. 1:15} - ANF 4:246, ‘De Principiis’.

Origen’s Original Greek
“through the Word who was in the beginning with God,
illuminated the ministers of truth, the prophets and
Apostles�

We will stick with Origen for now. Yes, I agree, Jesus is the "first-born of every creature",was in the beginning with God ect... and these are statements that you would hear often within the Catholic Church. But what type of generation, or birth does Origen allow for the Word? You can look at my previous post for some of his thoughts, and here are some others.


CHAP. II. -- ON THE PERPETUITY OF BODILY NATURE.
I. On this topic some are wont to inquire whether, as the Father generates an uncreated Son, and brings forth a Holy Spirit, not as if He had no previous existence, but because the Father is the origin and source of the Son or Holy Spirit, and no anteriority or posteriority can be understood as existing in them; so also a similar kind of union or relationship can be understood as subsisting between rational natures and bodily matter


Origen. Commentary on John

Book II

Now the Word comes to men who formerly could not receive the advent of the Son of God who is the Word; but to God it does not come, as if it had not been with Him before. The Word was always with the Father; and so it is said, "And the Word was with God." He did not come to God, and this same word "was" is used of the Word because He was in the beginning at the same time when He was with God, neither being separated from the beginning nor being bereft of His Father. And again, neither did He come to be in the beginning after He had not been in it, nor did He come to be with God after not having been with Him. For before all time and the remotest age the Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God. Thus to find out what is meant by the phrase, "The Word was with God," we have adduced the words used about the prophets, how He came to Hosea, to Isaiah, to Jeremiah, and we have noticed the difference, by no means accidental, between "became" and "was."

[b]...The Word was not made in the beginning; there was no time when the beginning was devoid of the Word, [/b]

So the “unity of ‘substance’� (homoousios) concept which was used by those who much later developed the “orthodox� trinity doctrine apparently meant merely a unity of will for Origen. “The term Homoousios had begun to become current with Heracleon [c. 160 A.D.] who had claimed that those who worshiped God in Spirit and in truth were themselves spirit and ‘of the same nature [homoousios] as the Father’.� - p. 394., note #111, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend (trinitarian), Fortress Press, 1985. Obviously homoousios, as it was first used within Christendom by Heracleon, did not have the same meaning as later trinitarians made it seem!

While I agree the theology of the doctrine of the trinity may have continued development after Origen, however, the argument is that Origen did believe in the trinity and was not anyehre close to the Arian doctrine.


Origen
DE PRINCIPIIS
BOOK I.
CHAP. III.--ON THE HOLY SPIRIT


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, as it is written in the Psalm: "By the word of the LORD were the heavens strengthened, and all their power by the Spirit of His mouth." There is also a special working of God the Father, besides that by which He bestowed upon all things the gift of natural life. There is also a special ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ to those upon whom he confers by nature the gift of reason, by means of which they are enabled to be rightly what they are. There is also another grace of the Holy Spirit, which is bestowed upon the deserving, through the ministry of Christ and the working of the Father, in proportion to the merits of those who are rendered capable of receiving it. This is most clearly pointed out by the Apostle Paul, when demonstrating that the power of the Trinity is one and the same, in the words, "There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; there are diversities of administrations, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God who worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit: withal." From which it most clearly follows that there is no difference in the Trinity, but that which is called the gift of the Spirit is made known through the Son, and operated by God the Father. "But all these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every one severally as He will."

In fact Origen apparently even considered all creation as ‘eternally generated.’ And the quotes in my previous post still stand.

While Origen might have believed that "other" creations might have existed prior to ours, he did not believe the world to having been "eternally generated".


Origen
DE PRINCIPIIS
BOOK I.
2. But since those rational natures, which we have said above were made in the beginning, were created when they did not previously exist, in consequence of this very fact of their nonexistence and commencement of being, are they necessarily changeable and mutable; since whatever power was in their substance was not in it by nature, but was the result of the goodness of their Maker

notice the difference between the generation of the Word as opposed to the rest of the creation.

Andre

[teddy_trueblood]

Hi, Mich,

Ted, I will not comment on everything you wrote as this would become way too long; if I did not respond to something that you wanted me to, just rewrite it in yout next reponse.

I guess that my main point was a "Catch 22." And, yet, I believe it is true in most cases of the 2nd and early 3rd century (at least) Christian 'Fathers.'

And that is, as specifically pointed out concerning St. Jerome's attack on Rufinus' translation of Origen AND Jerome's attack on Origen for not believing in the orthodox (at the time of Jerome and Rufinus) Trinity doctrine.

It is clear to scholars and historians that Rufinus' made many changes to his Latin 'translation' of Origen's writings. The sample given in my last post showed that clearly as do the words of St. Jerome himself.

The point is that from 325 A.D. (and certainly from 381 A.D.) copies of non-trinitarian material were destroyed and new copies or translations of older manuscripts added trinitarian material.

So, as unfair as it may seem, we must be wary of seemingly trinitarian material in these earliest writings since only copies of copies, etc. are available today. And the relatively late copies we have available today were sent through this "copy/recopy" trinitarian mill for centuries.

On the other hand, we cannot conceive of copyists getting away with adding non-trinitarian material to their copies. Their heads would have been found before their new copies would ever appear to the public.

So, for the most part, all the early writers' manuscripts were re-written over the many centuries. And, unless we have manuscripts from before 382 AD (at least), we cannot trust trinitarian segments within them.

Unfortunately, the earliest extant manuscript of Origen's Commentary on John is from the 13th century.

And, except for a page or two, the only mauscripts we have available for De Principiis are copies of Rufinus' disgraceful Latin translation. See my last post.

[teddy_trueblood]

Duplicate - couldn't delete.

[teddy_trueblood]

I noticed that in the original list of 70 translations, #23 and #49 are the same Bible: REB.

Perhaps the conclusion of Dr. Jason BeDuhn will make up the difference. When comparing the translations of John 1:1 (KJV; NASB; NRSV; NIV; NAB; AB; LB; TEV, and NWT), BeDuhn, after analysis of the Greek, wrote: "Surprisingly, only one, the NW[T], adheres to the literal meaning of the Greek, and translates 'a god'." - Truth in Translation, p. 124.

We also find "a god" in the early coptic translations: http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/