JW Insider

5 hours ago, Bible Speaks said:

According to researchers of the Jewish culture, the human gene would have the signature of the name of God, with the 4 letters of the Tetragrammaton.(Yod) ה (heh) ו (vav) ה (heh), Tetragrammaton .....Hey vau, = 5 = 6, beats = 5;10 + 5 + 6 + 5

@Bible Speaks

What is this?

4 hours ago, Cos said:

Please don’t take this the wrong way as I am enjoying our discussion and therefore don’t mean to be rude in this, but why send three posts when only one would do, I don’t get that, it seems to be a common practice by some here.

 

I get a lot of emails, a lot, which I have to go through, so sending more than one reply only makes it more cumbersome to work with not to mention that it is difficult to follow your train of thought; I hope that you can understand this. If you want to quote what I say then just put in your post something like “You say, ‘such and such and such’ ” there is no need, which I can see, to respond by multiple posts.

I will try to remember that for conversations with you. I have a tendency to respond with too many words, so I'm usually guessing that most people look at what I have written and just don't bother. ("too-long-didn't-read" -- tldr.) I rarely edit things down to a better size, which means that putting all my posts together would create "tldr times three" or "tldr times four." Of course, it doesn't bother me at all if no one reads what I've said, because writing out my responses in detail serves to make me think through an idea more completely, for myself, and then produces a "paper trail" for others to correct or to see if it still makes sense after I learn more. And if it's "tldr" then only those who WANT to go to the time and trouble to correct my errors will engage.

4 hours ago, Cos said:

You say in one post;

“The language had indeed developed so that Origen's seeming contradictions could now be stated with words that erased those contradictions. (In my opinion, the developing language merely hid the contradictions.)”

 

Can you give some examples of the “developing language” that you say “hid the contradiction”.

homoousia

4 hours ago, Cos said:

You then bring up Paul of Samosata, who held to the view of monarchianism, and who is also referred to as a devotee of Artemas, see Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 5 chapter 28. This just goes to show the amount of misunderstanding which abound in regard to Origen.

People can pick and choose from more than one teacher. Paul of Samosata followed Origen in several ways. I see no misunderstanding.

4 hours ago, Cos said:

Rufinus, at least, is straight forward in what he says; if he was “editing Origen himself” as you claim, why would he say to compare these with other portions of Origen’s writings? The kind of opinion you hold to about Rufinus, show me that you are set on the negative by calling into doubt what is said because it doesn’t sit right with you and your belief system.

That's one of the evidences that Rufinus sincerely thought he was doing the right thing. If he misunderstood what Origen meant in one place and it made him edit what Origen said in another place then it means we have lost out on being able to determine for ourselves the full range of Origen's ideas, or we may have lost out on our ability to see where Origen may have contradicted himself. Also, if Origen said "A" in one place and "B" in another, how do we know whether Rufinus picked the correct places to edit. Perhaps Origen would have preferred all his A's to be corrected as B's and Rufinus corrected all his B's and made them A's.

4 hours ago, Cos said:

After my quote from Irenaeus; “The Church … has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith in one God, the Father … in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit.” (Against Heresies)

 

You say

“This is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, too. Sometimes, there is confusion because we generally avoid terms like "incarnate" but we still believe that the Word became flesh

 

If this is what “Jehovah’s Witnesses believe, too”, then you must put equal faith in the Holy Spirit as in the Son and the Father,  the same as Irenaeus does, do you, JW Insider, put equal faith in the Holy Spirit? Note how “this faith” is singular and is applicable to all three equally.

God helps us and communicates to us through the Word, his only-begotten Son, and God helps and communicates to us through the holy spirit, which was especially manifested through the work of the apostles and first-century disciples in laying the foundation of the first-century congregations. That work of the holy spirit has come down to us in the form of the inspired Bible which added the inspired Greek Scriptures to the canon of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures. The holy spirit also works in the lives of individuals so that we can give faith, love and hope a priority in our lives and conquer in our war over sin and the works of the flesh. (Galatians 5:16-26)

Therefore we do have equal faith in God, his Son, and his holy spirit. We can't have real faith in God without equal faith in all his means of help and all his means of communicating his purpose and character to us. It should therefore have been quite natural for all Christian writers to link God, his Son, and his holy spirit. It should be natural for them to be linked together in the Greek Scriptures, too.

4 hours ago, Cos said:

By the way the “and” in the quote from Clements letter to the Corinthians before “the Holy Spirit” indicates that “lives” is applicable the Him also. And yes others, or at least one other did respond to this quote, but when I ask him what he thought it meant, all he could say was “What he said” so “what he said’ is what he meant (?). I will ask you the same question, what does Clement mean when he says that the three are “the faith and hope of the elect”?

If that "and" argument were necessarily so, he would not have needed to add "lives" before Jesus, either.

To the question as to what Clement likely meant, I would merely repeat the last two paragraphs I wrote above. They should be linked because our faith and hope is dependent on God and his direct means of working with us. Our faith and hope is not dependent on angels, organizations, material support, or even our fellow believers.

4 hours ago, Cos said:

Remember Eusebius makes no mention of any such [binitarian] system.

Perhaps not intentionally. His goal is to tie the current official faith of the Church to the faith handed down by the apostles. You are referring to a more formal Binitarian belief. I am referring to a time shortly after the writings of the apostles, especially John's gospel, when the primary goal was to resolve the meaning of Christ's divinity. There were several potential solutions offered, some which congealed in religions that are hardly recognizable as "Christianity" today, such as various heresies and forms of gnosticism.

4 hours ago, Cos said:

The true belief system would not cease, so any claim to “restoration” is contrary to Scripture.

Perhaps. There are two ways to look at this issue. One is that the wheat and weeds grow together throughout the history of believers. But it might never mean that there was a time when the majority of believers held correct beliefs. Jehovah's Witnesses have long held that there were believers holding to a true belief system throughout history. Only near the end, towards the time of the harvest, would the wheat and weeds become distinguishable. So JWs believe that God and Jesus have always had "Witnesses" throughout history, and that the true belief system has not ceased. Another way to look at this is that the congregation that Jesus identifies as his Witnesses is not strictly identified throughout all of history by the sum total of their belief system. It may be that it refers to all those who are motivated to allow Jesus teachings about love for God and neighbor to guide their lives, doing unto others as they would have done to themselves, and therefore they are allowing the fruits of the holy spirit to guide their lives. Outside of that, all these other doctrines are of a much lower priority.

4 hours ago, Cos said:

There is much more in the writings of the early church prior to Nicea that show what they believed and taught is consistent with the later creedal formula, we have only touch on a few examples I can cite more if you like. The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit were together believed upon by these first Christians.

I have already described a sense in which the three entities should be spoken of together, and I have no problem linking them in many of the ways that the ANF linked them.

47 minutes ago, The Librarian said:

Hi @JW Insider

I knew the photo wasn't correct.... just a green NWT.... 

BUT ... I didn't catch the 1970 revision. Thanks for the correction. I will keep this post the way it is in case someone does have a link to the 1961 actual "Fat Boy" version.

(Wasn't this 1970 edition just as "Fat" though?)

I think the photo is correct for the 1970 revision of the green 1961 NWT.  Would have looked the same as the cover of the 60's versions. The actual "Fat Boy" was a direct rebinding of the 5 previously released volumes that came out in 1953, 1955, 1957, 1958 and 1960 until the entire Bible was complete. (The Greek Scriptures came out first, then Genesis through Malachi split across several volumes.)

So the "spine" was about half the width of the cover, not 1/4 of the width as shown in your photo. But more than that, the "Fat Boy" has cross-references down the middle, which your PDF doesn't have.

On 5/19/2017 at 1:56 PM, JW Insider said:

Undoubtedly, the divine name or Tetragrammaton appeared in the Hebrew mss of the OT. Perhaps not in all of them, but apparently in the vast majority. I'm trying to do a quick, last-minute study to get a sense of what the evidence shows about Hebrew mss of the OT in this time period that did NOT contain the Divine Name. [POINT A, for further research] To get a sense of the evidence for this, I'm also trying to look into the overall time period when the Divine Name began to fall out of general use among Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek-speaking Jews. [POINT B, for further research]

When I realized I didn't know nearly enough about this subject, I decided to look into 4 questions that came up from reading the NWT Appendixes:

1. Point A. Did the Tetragrammaton appear in all the Hebrew manuscripts of the OT in the first century?
2. Point B. What was the general history of the appearance and use of the Divine Name and at what point did it begin to fall out of general use among Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek-speaking Jews?
3. Point C. Did some (many? most?) of the LXX texts available to the first-century Christians already contain replacements for the Divine Name?
4. Point D. [Based on the new claim in the NWT Appendix 2013-2017, not the old claim from 1984]
   • Primary Question: Is there any evidence showing that it was sometime during the second or early third century C.E., when a practice had developed where those copying the manuscripts among those copying the manuscripts to replace the Tetragrammaton with a title such as Lord or God?
   • Secondary Question: Is there any evidence showing that those same copyists just mentioned (in the 2nd and early 3rd century) may have copied from manuscripts where this had already been done?

More questions have come up since, but these are still basic questions I'm interested in. So far I have either skimmed or read the following articles, papers, and other research that make points relative to these questions. If anyone is really interested in some of these I can summarize them and make fair-use quotes from them, but my access to them does not give me the right to quote long portions without permission. Some or several of them might be publicly accessible.

• The Divine Name Yahweh Author(s): Raymond Abba Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 80, No. 4 (Dec., 1961), pp. 320-328 Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature
• YHWH, THE INEFFABLE NAME: AVOIDANCE, ALTERNATIONS AND CIRCUMVENTIONS IN THE NON-BIBLICAL MANUSCRIPTS AT QUMRAN by JOËLLE ALHADEF-LAKE. https://www8.twu.ca/library/theses/330418_pdf_331138_23B9F692-8718-11E4-B9A0-5421EF8616FA_lake_j.pdf [187 pg pdf, very detailed and useful, imo]
• Concerning Exod 34:6 Author(s): Norman Walker Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 79, No. 3 (Sep., 1960), p. 277 Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature
• The God Yahweh-Elohim Author(s): Raphael Patai Source: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 75, No. 4 (Aug., 1973), pp. 1181-1184 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Anthropological Association
• Reviewed Work(s): Yahweh: The Divine Name in the Bible by G. H. Parke-Taylor Review by: Herbert B. Huffmon Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 96, No. 4 (Dec., 1977), pp. 580-581 [This work is often quoted in the most relevant research by others scholars, I haven't obtained the original work yet, but intend to obtain it, even if I have to pay for it.]
• Reviewed Work(s): De Septuaginta, Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday by A. Pietersma and C. Cox Review by: G. D. Kilpatrick Source: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 27, Fasc. 4 (Oct., 1985), pp. 380-382 [The Review of Pietersma's contribution covers the major points on the topic "Kyrios or Tetragram" {in the LXX and NT mss} is long enough and very relevant to this topic] 
• Septuagint Research: A Plea for a Return to Basic Issues Author(s): Albert Pietersma Source: Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 35, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 1985), pp. 296-311 Published by: Brill [not as relevant as his work on "Kyrios or Tetragram" in the LXX, but gives a detailed background to what we know about the LXX variations.]
• The Origin of the Nomina Sacra: A Proposal Author(s): L. W. Hurtado Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 117, No. 4 (Winter, 1998), pp. 655-673 Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature [very relevant]
• The Gnostics Speak Again: The "Gospel of Truth" Author(s): Virginia Corwin Source: The Massachusetts Review, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Winter, 1960), pp. 218-228 Published by: The Massachusetts Review, Inc. [Gnostic studies are surprisingly helpful due to the number of references to the Divine Name(s)]
• “The god Iao and his connection with the Biblical God with special emphasis on the manuscript 4QpapLXXLevb” («Ο θεός Ιαώ και η σχέση του με τον Βιβλικό Θεό, με ιδιαίτερη εστίαση στο χειρόγραφο 4QpapLXXLevb»), Vetus Testamentum et Hellas, Vol. 4 (2017), pp. xx. https://www.academia.edu/30967321/_The_god_Iao_and_his_connection_with_the_Biblical_God_with_special_emphasis_on_the_manuscript_4QpapLXXLevb_Ο_θεός_Ιαώ_και_η_σχέση_του_με_τον_Βιβλικό_Θεό_με_ιδιαίτερη_εστίαση_στο_χειρόγραφο_4QpapLXXLevb_Vetus_Testamentum_et_Hellas_Vol._4_2017_pp._xx
• Pavlos D. Vasileiadis Aspects of rendering the sacred Tetragrammaton in Greek Open Theology 2014; Volume 1: 56–88
• THE NAME OF GOD, A STUDY IN RABBINIC THEOLOGY Author(s): SAMUEL S. COHON
  Source: Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. 23, No. 1, Hebrew Union College Seventy-fifthAnniversary Publication 1875-1950 (1950-1951), pp. 579-604
• The "Horned Hunter" on a Lost Gnostic Gem Author(s): Roy Kotansky and Jeffrey Spier
  Source: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 88, No. 3 (Jul., 1995), pp. 315-337
  Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity School [relevant to pronunciation of YHWH]
• Gaulish Tau and Gnostic Names on the Lamella from Baudecet Author(s): Bernard Mees
  Source: Latomus, T. 66, Fasc. 4 (OCTOBRE-DÉCEMBRE 2007), pp. 919-928
  Published by: Société d'Études Latines de Bruxelles [Again, a surprising find related to spelling and pronunciation of YHWH]
• Gnosticism and the New Testament Author(s): G. Quispel
  Source: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Jun., 1965), pp. 65-85 Published by: Brill
• A HYMN AGAINST HERETICS IN THE NEWLY DISCOVERED SCROLLS Author(s): ISAIAH SONNE
  Source: Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. 23, No. 1, Hebrew Union College Seventy-fifthAnniversary Publication 1875-1950 (1950-1951), pp. 275-313 Published by: Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion
• Jewish Gnosticism? Author(s): Joseph Dan
  Source: Jewish Studies Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 4 (1995), pp. 309-328 Published by: Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co. KG
• Once Again: The Minim Author(s): Harris Hirschberg
  Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 67, No. 4 (Dec., 1948), pp. 305-318 Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature [References to the Minim in Jewish Talmud, etc, sometimes considered to be Christians]
• Philo and the Names of God Author(s): A. Marmorstein
  Source: The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Jan., 1932), pp. 295-306 Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press
• NOTES ON A PHOENICIAN DRACHM BEARING THE NAME IAHVE Author(s): A. W. Hands
  Source: The Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Royal Numismatic Society, FourthSeries, Vol. 9 (1909), pp. 121-131
  Published by: Royal Numismatic Society
• Speaking with Angels: Jewish and Greco-Egyptian Revelatory Adjurations Author(s): Rebecca Lesses
  Source: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 89, No. 1 (Jan., 1996), pp. 41-60
  Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity School  [More on IAO and YHWH]
• The Origin and Interpretation of the Tetragrammaton Author(s): Hans H. Spoer
  Source: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Oct.,1901), pp. 9-35
  Published by: The University of Chicago Press [Includes info on whether IAO was a transliteration of YHWH]

These are in no particular order, and of course there are many more to list. In case some appear unrelated or completely worthless, well, it's true. Some are nearly worthless, anyway. But some points might still be useful to compare or reference. For example, take this little "gem," mentioned above: The "Horned Hunter" on a Lost Gnostic Gem. Here is a quote from it attached as an image (so I don't have to reproduce the Hebrew/Greek/phonetics). Note that it discusses an early pronunciation of "Jehovah" close to the first century:

@The Librarian Not to nitpick but .... two things:

1. That's not the famous "Fat Boy" coveted by Bible students. You can tell from the picture.

2. After downloading, it's not the "Fat Boy" content either; it's not even the original 1961 NWT. It's the 1970 revision of 1961.

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Surely this explains why we never hear religious affiliation for anyone other than JWs when abusers are found out.

I think your general sentiment is right, of course, but this idea reminds me that a couple weeks ago, I was sent a few newspaper articles from Australia (via Facebook) that were supposedly from a follow-up on the ARC cases. The majority of them had no religious affiliation so I had to take his word for it. I did a search on a few of the names, and was able to figure out that at least one of the accused abusers had been identified as a Witness.

It made me think that this probably happens a lot more often than I had thought, where a newspaper writer will often leave off the religious identity unless they think it's an important part of the story.

That made me think that what happens on forums like this is that there are always some persons, both for and against us, who have their news feeds set up to find any mention of Jehovah, Jehovah's Witnesses, Watchtower, Kingdom Hall, Watchtower, etc., as key words for their searches. So naturally, the news that gets talked about here is news where a Witness has been identified in the news article.

On 5/19/2017 at 4:07 PM, AllenSmith said:

Among the Qumran manuscripts, The Manual of Discipline is unique in attesting a five-letter name for God, hw'h* (1QS VIII.13). In an allusion to Isa.40:3, the phrase V drk hw'h יcorresponds to drk YHWH of the MT, which is represented by drk followed by four dots where the Tetragrammaton occurs.

I ran across a document here, that either you or bruceq might find interesting:

https://www8.twu.ca/library/theses/330418_pdf_331138_23B9F692-8718-11E4-B9A0-5421EF8616FA_lake_j.pdf

It appears to be very thorough for what it does. It's title is:

YHWH, THE INEFFABLE NAME: AVOIDANCE, ALTERNATIONS AND CIRCUMVENTIONS IN THE NON-BIBLICAL MANUSCRIPTS AT QUMRAN

by JOËLLE ALHADEF-LAKE

The introduction provides a kind of summary:

This thesis studies alternations in the usage of the Tetragrammaton in non-biblical manuscripts at Qumran through an analysis of scriptural quotations from the Torah to the Nevi’im in the Dead Sea Scrolls citing the Tetragrammaton. Thirty-three distinctive divine name alternations were identified. Additionally, a list of alternation types and of scrolls featuring alternations in Qumran were compiled. Distinctive groups of scrolls were identified at Qumran: some featured the Tetragrammaton, with or without alternations, and some circumvented it completely. Our study focuses on the avoidance of the Tetragrammaton, on alternations in square script, and on writing traditions: El, Tetrapuncta and paleo-Hebrew. Two applications were then investigated: the use of alternations in divine names in order to determine the scrolls’ origins and the distribution of names in paleo-Hebrew in these scrolls.

For context, the author says that:

The scrolls date from about 250 B.C.E. to 68 C.E. Scholars divide the Dead Sea Scrolls into two convenient categories: the “biblical” and the “non-biblical” manuscripts. The term “biblical” is based on the traditional Hebrew Bible (Tanakh). The non-biblical scrolls were previously estimated to approximately 670 scrolls. [out of 1,000+ total manuscripts]

The document is 187 pages, but much of it is in tables that describe every example found by type. The author also decided to look at how these documents avoided the divine name or otherwise changed or circumvented the wording of direct quotes from the Bible in these manuscripts. Can't tell yet if that could have any bearing on the way various scribes might have copied NT documents, but it would still be an interesting comparison, if different. Quoting from the document again:

THE THESIS QUESTION This thesis will discuss what alternations for the name YHWH appear in Qumran nonbiblical manuscripts when scriptural units are quoted. The term “alternations” refers to lexical and syntactical changes, as well as to alternations in writing traditions, such as the use of paleo-Hebrew script and Tetrapuncta for divine names. The first step of research involved a discovery of scriptural quotations from the Hebrew Bible referring to the Tetragrammaton in Qumran non-biblical manuscript; as a result, a corpus of alternations was established—some scrolls displayed the Tetragrammaton, others exhibited a mix of alternations and a group of scrolls circumvented the use of the Tetragrammaton altogether.

These findings led to this thesis question: In the Qumran non-biblical manuscripts circumventing the Tetragrammaton, what alternation patterns predominated and what was the nature of these documents? Two applications of the research were then investigated. Could the information on alternations to the Tetragrammaton be useful in locating the origins of scrolls? Additionally, in scrolls displaying instances of paleo-El (or Elohim), was there a consistent organization in all the scrolls with respect to the combination of El (God) in square script and El in paleo-Hebrew?

1 hour ago, bruceq said:

I put this up merely for research purposes. I do not endorse the entire research anymore than the Watchtower Society endorses everything mentioned in the hundreds of books they also quote from. I do not consider the points I gleaned from it "devastating" to any position as I try to keep an open mind as long as it is in accord with Jehovah's Organization.

I understand this and I agree. I gleaned many points from it that were valuable and were not at all devastating to the positions promoted in our publications.

I was speaking about a specific position he posits that would be devastating if it's true.  It would be devastating because it would take away the entire point we make about YHWH in the LXX. We would probably stop making use of any argument about the LXX and YHWH.

1. That's because the basic point is that the original LXX may have used IAO instead of YHWH. IAO would have come first because of the pagan and Hellenistic influences that remained in copies of the LXX well into the Christian era, even copied by Christians who made copies of the LXX. Then, he says, it could have been later Hebraist influences that were intended to correct the "pagan" influence, by putting YHWH into the places where IAO had originally been.

2. But another point is that the use of YHWH in the LXX was to keep it from being pronounced, while the use of IAO made a word like Iao (Ya'o, or Yaho), easy to pronounce. In some cases the term YHWH was put not just in Hebrew/Aramaic characters but in 1,000-year-old style archaic Hebrew letters, which would further assure that it was not pronounced. 

Both these points are devastating to our argument about IAO because we have said it was so that a form of YHWH would be pronounced.

On 5/19/2017 at 2:30 PM, bruceq said:

Yes that one is good and also his research into "IAO" as the Greek version of "Jehovah"  and what he says about how it may have appeared in original NT authographs.

https://www.academia.edu/30967321/_The_god_Iao_and_his_connection_with_the_Biblical_God_with_special_emphasis_on_the_manuscript_4QpapLXXLevb_Ο_θεός_Ιαώ_και_η_σχέση_του_με_τον_Βιβλικό_Θεό_με_ιδιαίτερη_εστίαση_στο_χειρόγραφο_4QpapLXXLevb_Vetus_Testamentum_et_Hellas_Vol._4_2017_pp._xx

It is similar to George Howards ideas of the Tetragram in the NT  except this guy goes into much more research into the subject

I finished the two papers by Vasieiadis. I have previously read what George Howard said and found him convincing at the time. What I'm trying to do now though is start from scratch, with no bias for or against any position, and just see where the evidence takes us.

His research into "IAO" would be rather devastating to the position that the NWT translators have held, and that the Watch Tower publications promote. It has similarities to a lot of the research that AllenSmith has just presented, which would also be devastating to the Watch Tower's currently accepted research if even half of it were true. Recall that the NWT Appendix said:

*** nwtsty C1 The Restoration of the Divine Name in the “New Testament” ***
The divine name also appeared in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the “Old Testament” that was widely used in the first century C.E. At that time [in the first century C.E.], the divine name was represented in the Septuagint by either the Hebrew characters (YHWH) or the Greek transliteration of those characters (IAO).

What is striking about Vasileiadis's research, is that he claims that the original Septuagint [LXX] which came from Egypt, might have never contained YHWH, but initially contained the name of an Egyptian "Almighty God" who went by the name Iao. He says this could have been based on Hellenistic syncretism, especially prevalent among Jews who lived outside of Palestine. This is nearly the opposite of what the NWT Appendix claims above:

On the other side, the god named Iao is found in Greek and Latin works of the Hellenistic period already since the 1st century BCE. It mainly appears in writings displaying marks of religious syncretism, used as one of the names designating either the highest God or one of his emanations. In the following the possibility is examined that the use of the name Iao, instead of another form of the Tetragrammaton, in the manuscript 4QpapLXXLev^b (4Q120; Rahlfs 802) may be the result of a Hellenizing rather than a re-Hebraizing tendency, a view that tends to prevail in the Septuagint studies. Evidence coming from Christian writers shows that for few centuries CE Bible manuscripts that contained the theonym Iao were circulating among them and even possibly produced by them.

He traces the possibility through the large Jewish community at Elephantine since the 6th & 5th century B.C.E.  (famous for the second ancient Jewish Temple). These Jews had long used a 3-letter "Tetragrammaton:" YHW (likely pronounced "Yaho"/"Ya'u"). Scholars have said that this Jewish community was syncretic almost to the point of being polytheistic, similar to the common problem that all the prophets continued to warn the Jews in Jerusalem about. But it wasn't about polytheism so much as the idea that various cultures in Hellenistic society had a pantheon of gods, but identified one of those gods as "the Supreme Being" or the "Highest One." He says this would include usually, Zeus, Helios, Sarapis, and Iao. 

He doesn't mention it, but this may not be so different from how Zeus becomes Dzeus or Deus, which many languages use to refer to the Almighty God of Christianity and Judaism. (Dios, Deity, Divine)

Also, his research doesn't mention it, but it seems that it would have been the same as if the LXX had happened 400 years later in a Latin translation and the choice had been to translate YHWH as either "Jupiter" or "Jove," the equivalent of the Supreme, Highest God (Jove=Zeus). Following the logic of his research, they would have likely chosen "Jove" because it was a close compromise to YHW. But, who knows, even Jupiter could have been possible, because its derivation is likely related to changing DZeu-pater or God-the-Father. Easy to rationalize as a good name for any Almighty God.

He says that many of the Gnostic influences (also widespread in Egypt) popularized IAO as the name of angels or subordinate deities from the 1st century BCE to the first century CE. (Then again, the Gnostics also subordinated Jehovah as a lesser deity.)

On the point of subordinate deities, I found this particular footnote interesting:

Sean McDonough, YHWH at Patmos: Rev. 1:4 in Its Hellenistic and
Early Jewish Setting, Tübingen 1999, 95–97. For instance, in late
Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, Ιαω [IAO] was a prominent name of the lion-
headed Sabaoth, the Biblical Creator, who could assume many
names and be identified with some gods or heroes. He was Mihos
for the Egyptians, Ialdabaoth for the Ophite Gnostics, Judas, Michael
or Moses for other Judaizing sects, and also the Greek hero
Perseus. He was the god of amulets and was invoked in several
magical spells. Also, he was depicted to use the powerful divine
snake Chnoubis as his weapon. . . . This is widely observable all over the
Mediterranean world in inscriptions of that period.

Of course, YHWH is also called Jehovah-Sabaoth in the Bible [Lord of Hosts/Jehovah of Armies], and the name Sabaoth remained intact through Hebrew, Greek and Latin. The mention of the magic amulets and papyri is interesting, because in the magic of the time, the idea was to pronounce the name of a god properly to gain the power or influence of the god. The papyri might even offer several possible pronunciations, and at least two of the magic sources even give us some hints as to how YHWH was to be pronounced.

I found another academic source that claims that although "Yahweh" was the more likely Jewish pronunciation of YHWH, it claims that "Yehova/Jehovah" was a pronunciation given in the magical papyri for casting spells, gaining power, etc.

5 hours ago, Cos said:

I will continue from Clement of Rome who wrote also at the turn of the first century;

“For as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ lives, and the Holy Spirit, who are the faith and the hope of the elect.... Amen.” (Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, 58:2)

This was responded to already, by others. There is nothing here that we don't believe. Curious that the Holy Spirit doesn't explicity "live" and that God is separated from Jesus and the Holy Spirit, so that they not God in this context. Trinitarian doctrine is conspicuous by its absence.

5 hours ago, Cos said:

In around the year 125;

“The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh;.... This is taught in the gospel” (THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES chapter 2)

Wikipedia quotes references to put it at 138-161. The line "This is taught in the gospel" is not found in all the versions and is considered a gloss. That doesn't change the idea that "God came down from heaven" which is evidently part of the original, and which I would say is worded in a way that is different from inspired scripture. God sent his Son from heaven, who had been with God "from the beginning." But this is not the same God coming down from heaven, because God was still in heaven. Jesus said that he would return to "my God" at his ascension. And of course, even after that ascension it was God who gave Jesus Christ the Revelation, which he gave to John. This was the point that JTR previously made.

I agree that it's quite possible however that somewhere between 125 and 161, some Christians explained the divinity of Christ in terms that were at least "Binitarian" but not yet Trinitarian. The nature of philosophical beliefs and syncretism with their former beliefs as Gentiles probably influenced confusion in some of them during the life and preaching of the apostles, themselves.

There is not a perfect consistency in the doctrines as they are presented by Justin Martyr around 160 (opinion) and he may have even been responsible for some of the wording we see in the "Apology of Aristides" above. Both of them use the expression "he was pierced by the Jews" for example. But I would agree that Martyr also appears "Binitarian" but not yet fully Trinitarian. I'll check into the quote from his First Apology later.

After Iranaeus, 180, and those after him, I'm not concerned that there were full Trinitarians teaching openly. But even here, as with Origen, their teachings were not always considered consistent enough to avoid condemnation.

4 hours ago, Cos said:

would like to have a look at one of the earliest of Christian writings after the NT. In an anonymous letter to Diognetus, some say it may have been written as early as the late 80’s of the first century, though the date has been difficult to determine most scholars date it around the turn of the century. Even at this early date, however, we can see what was believed was later formulated at Nicea.

Wikipedia indicates that most scholars would seem to put it closer to the 190's, not the 80's:

estimates of dating based on the language and other textual evidence have ranged from AD 130^[1] (which would make it one of the earliest examples of apologetic literature), to the late 2nd century, with the latter often preferred in modern scholarship.^[2]

4 hours ago, Cos said:

“Truly God himself … has sent from heaven and placed among men the truth and the holy and incomprehensible Word and has firmly established him in their hearts. He did not, as one might have imagined, send to men any servant, angel, ruler, or anyone of those who bear sway over earthly things … but the very Creator and Fashioner of all things—by whom he made the heavens.” (Letter to Diognetus chapter. 7)

 

This anonymous author was not trying to explain exactly the formulated creed but he leaves us several clues that he held the same view as that of the later creed.

 

Here's another one:

“He sent the Word that he might be manifested to the world … This is he who was from the beginning, who appeared as if new, and was found old, yet is ever born afresh in the hearts of the saints. This is he, who being from everlasting, is today called the Son.” (Letter to Diognetus chapter. 11)

The letter is known from a 13th century manuscript. Wikipedia makes a point about a phrase in chapter 10:

The 10th chapter breaks off in mid thought and so the last two chapters, a kind of peroration that abandons the (fictive?) epistolary formula, are often considered to be later additions as characteristically 3rd-century contentions appear in them: "This Word, Who was from the beginning...". Some have ascribed these additions to Hippolytus, based on similarities of thought and style.

This does not spoil your point about the entire letter, but I find nothing in the letter that I could not agree with. Note too that the words you left out after "Truly God himself, the Almighty, has sent from heaven and placed among men the truth and the holy and incomprehensible Word." Although Witnesses identify the Word with Michael as an archangel, we would also agree that the Almighty God did not send just "any servant, angel, ruler," etc. The Bible is clear that it was Jesus, as the Word, through whom all things were created.

2 hours ago, Cos said:

You say that you “never assumed he (Rufinus) was personally dishonest” but then you call into question why he singled out “one topic…almost all Trinity references”.

Rufinus may have been sincere in thinking he was editing out corruptions to Origen, when he was actually editing Origen himself. He may have merely been judging Origen by his own later standards, as you say of others. The language had indeed developed so that Origen's seeming contradictions could now be stated with words that erased those contradictions. (In my opinion, the developing language merely hid the contradictions.) More evidence that Rufinus got some of it wrong is seen in the language of those "students/disciples" who followed Origen. I can't speak for differences, for example, in Paul of Samosata's view of monarchianism yet (three manifestations of one God in one person, instead of 3 persons).

As I get a chance, I'm re-reading the first couple volumes of "The Faith of the Early Fathers" and just starting "Origen: Scholarship in Service of the Church." I should probably re-read Eusebius, which I just found again yesterday in my library. I read it about 30 years ago as a complete novice to these things, and was only concerned then about his views on the various books of the Bible canon.

3 hours ago, Cos said:

“The Church … has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith in one God, the Father … in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit.” (Against Heresies)

This is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, too. Sometimes, there is confusion because we generally avoid terms like "incarnate" but we still believe that the Word became flesh.

3 hours ago, Cos said:

But what we find in Eusebius’ “Ecclesiastical History” is that it abounds with quotes from those who lived before him. If the church in its earlier days had believed anything different from Nicea, OR if the belief system of the early church had developed over time no one would have known better than Eusebius. But instead of testifying any change, Eusebius defended what they believed in harmony with the Nicene creed.

To me this is evidence that Eusebius did his duty to find agreement in past statements even if he had to cherry-pick to do it. Eusebius was a church "politician" in my view. Some of what he says is very intriguing. The way he dismisses Papias, for example, as a fool because Papias thought he should go to Palestine and get the views of secondary witnesses, and came back with a lot of stories that weren't in (or contradicted) the canonical scriptures. But we have several such issues that seem impossible if there had already been a coherent and unchangeable canon in front of 2nd century bishops. (Not just Papias, but the adoptionism of Theodotus of Byzantium, for example.) Eusebius in effect admits to "cherry picking" in the way he dismisses what doesn't fit.

4 hours ago, Cos said:

To which doctrine, explained in this way, it appeared right to assent, especially since we knew that some eminent bishops and learned writers among the ancients have used the term “homoousios” in their theological discourses concerning the nature of the Father and the Son”

I'll quote the opening to the article, I quoted from before: "DID ORIGEN APPLY THE WORD HOMOOUSIOS TO THE SON?" with some highlights added:

This essay takes its title from one by Richard Hanson, which gives as its answer a 'decisive no'.^₁ Mine will be a qualified yes— the more confident, however—in that I argue for an indirect and transient application of the term, which will explain why it does not appear elsewhere in Origen's works and was not adopted by his pupils. The question is an important one, since Origen was, by common consent, the most profound and versatile theologian of the Church before the Council of Nicaea in 325. After this date the homoousion gradually prevailed as the orthodox symbol for the unity of the Godhead,² but Origen had given the Church its complementary formula of 'three Hypostases'.³ As the homoousion came to signify, not merely a community of attributes or nature, but an equality of status between the persons of the Trinity, Origen's theology was denounced by those who believed that he subordinated the other two Hypostases to the First. For this reason and others he was condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553.

That said, I can add that I have no problem with the way that Origen used the term in the sense that Jesus and God are of the same nature or essence. They are spirit creatures. But not equal, as Origen makes clear. This makes them, in effect, the same "substance" as spirit, and therefore also "the holy spirit" which emanates from them.  (Although I hate to use the term substance of something that is not material.)

It's curious that they chose a word that had actually been developed into a 2nd-century doctrine by the very unorthodox Gnostics. Note this from Wikipedia:

Pre-Nicene usage

The term ὁμοούσιος had been used before its adoption by the First Council of Nicaea. The Gnostics were the first to use the word ὁμοούσιος, while before the Gnostics there is no trace at all of its existence.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]} The early church theologians were probably made aware of this concept, and thus of the doctrine of emanation, taught by the Gnostics.^[11] In Gnostic texts the word ὁμοούσιος is used with the following meanings:

• Identity of substance between generator and generated.

• Identity of substance between things generated of the same substance.

• Identity of substance between the partners of a syzygy.

For example, Basilides, the first known Gnostic thinker to use ὁμοούσιος in the first half of the 2nd century AD, speaks of a threefold sonship consubstantial with the god who is not.^[12][13] The Valentinian Gnostic Ptolemy claims in his letter to Flora that it is the nature of the good God to beget and bring forth only beings similar to, and consubstantial with, himself.^[14] The term ὁμοούσιος was already in current use by the 2nd-century Gnostics, and through their works it became known to the orthodox heresiologists, though this Gnostic use of the term had no reference to the specific relationship between Father and Son, as is the case in the Nicene Creed.

Adoption in the Nicene Creed

The Nicene Creed is the official doctrine of most Christian churches . . . with regard to the ontological status of the three persons or hypostases of the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Origen seems to have been the first ecclesiastical writer to use the word ὁμοούσιος in a nontrinitarian context,^[a] but it is evident in his writings that he considered the Son's divinity lesser than the Father's, since he even calls the Son a creature.^[16]

13 hours ago, ARchiv@L said:

maybe this is part of the answer ..... 

Can't be. Leviathan is male in Hebrew, and Behemoth is female. Just the opposite of what you'd expect if that was the answer.

Enoch apparently draws from Jewish legends or ancient folklore. There were Jewish legends that said that although God made two Leviathan, both a male and female, that he only allowed the male to be free to inhabit the waters. If he had allowed the female to be free then they could have had children and resulted in more chaos.

The Behemoth was the less chaotic but still untamable beast of beasts (it's a single entity using a plural word, very rare in Hebrew) who roamed the land portion of God's creation. The Leviathan was conceived to be a huge dragon-like sea-serpent with seven heads that could breathe fire.  And although God made all things, this represented God's control over chaos. A part of the Jewish folklore about Leviathan (during the few hundred years before Jesus was born) was that Leviathan was 300 miles long, and that the female was being saved up, perhaps in Tartarus, until the great banquet just after judgment day for all of the "elect" to feast upon in the many mansions of heaven.

I think the following is a place to start.

9 minutes ago, bruceq said:

Insider have you ever read the research of 

Pavlos Vasileiadis

Not before you mentioned him. I just downloaded his 34-page pdf: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273185850_Aspects_of_rendering_the_sacred_Tetragrammaton_in_Greek

From what I can see, he quotes from a lot of sources that I have, including a couple resources I just read through last night, so it should be an interesting read.

1 hour ago, bruceq said:

Yes you may quote from my ebay site, also there is now alot more updated info from 2017 that many may not realize since it is not in print but only online in the NWT Study edition on JW.ORG:

Thanks for pointing this out and making the links easy to get to. It's also up to date on the 2016 Watchtower Library, [v.18 with regular online updates through 2017].

The resources provided by the Watch Tower Society are excellent, of course, but they are not always clear about which statements are assumptions (and therefore subject to change) and which statements are 'statements of fact.' Sometimes even the word 'proven' is used, when it's only a strongly held assumption or belief.

I'm working through it now to see which are which:

*** nwtsty C1 The Restoration of the Divine Name in the “New Testament” ***
When Jesus and his apostles were on earth, the divine name, or Tetragrammaton, appeared in the Hebrew manuscripts of the “Old Testament.” (See Appendixes A4 and A5.)

Undoubtedly, the divine name or Tetragrammaton appeared in the Hebrew mss of the OT. Perhaps not in all of them, but apparently in the vast majority. I'm trying to do a quick, last-minute study to get a sense of what the evidence shows about Hebrew mss of the OT in this time period that did NOT contain the Divine Name. [POINT A, for further research] To get a sense of the evidence for this, I'm also trying to look into the overall time period when the Divine Name began to fall out of general use among Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek-speaking Jews. [POINT B, for further research]

*** nwtsty C1 The Restoration of the Divine Name in the “New Testament” ***
The divine name also appeared in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the “Old Testament” that was widely used in the first century C.E. At that time, the divine name was represented in the Septuagint by either the Hebrew characters (YHWH) or the Greek transliteration of those characters (IAO).

This first sentence is also undoubtedly true. Almost every quote of the OT in the NT follows the Septuagint [LXX] instead of the Hebrew text that the NWT (and almost everyone else) uses for the OT, wherever the LXX and Hebrew are known to differ.

The second sentence is true, too, but I don't think we are really saying definitively that, in the first century, the divine name was always represented either by YHWH or IAO in the LXX. We know of various other divine name abbreviations, and it might still be true that some LXX texts, even in the first century C.E., may have already contained replacements for the divine name. [POINT C, for further research]

*** nwtsty C1 The Restoration of the Divine Name in the “New Testament” ***
Some portions of manuscripts of the Septuagint from the first century C.E. and earlier still exist today, and they prove this fact. So when the inspired writers of the “New Testament” quoted from the “Old Testament,” they must have seen the Tetragrammaton, whether they were quoting directly from the Hebrew text of the “Old Testament” or the Greek translation of that text, the Septuagint.

The first sentence is correct again, and what they "prove" is that at least some of the LXX copies (which we currently date to the first century C.E. and earlier) have YHWH (or a form of this) or IAO, which we consider to be a transliteration of IAO.

The second sentence states that the inspired writers of the NT when quoting from the OT, must have seen the Tetragrammaton in one of these two forms, at least. This may very well be true, although I'm not sure it was always necessarily true based on "POINT C," which I still need to research further.

Also, of course, it may very well be true that they saw the Tetragrammaton and purposely, even through inspiration, chose NOT to copy it. This doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus didn't utter the divine name. It's even possible that they knew that Jesus had uttered the divine name when quoting from Isaiah or Psalms for example, and yet the inspired Bible writers produced their initial manuscripts with "kyrios" or "theos" for example. This latter point is not something I expect to research further, or draw a conclusion from, it's only that I don't wish to jump to any conclusions not actually evident from the facts.

*** nwtsty C1 The Restoration of the Divine Name in the “New Testament” ***
Today, however, no manuscripts of the “New Testament” from the first century C.E. are available for us to examine. So no one can check the original Greek manuscripts of the “New Testament” to see whether the Bible writers used the Tetragrammaton. The Greek manuscripts of the “New Testament” that would have a bearing on this issue are copies that were made from about 200 C.E. onward. The more complete manuscripts are from the fourth century C.E., long after the originals were composed.

Nothing to research further here. These are all statements of proven fact. (Until and unless further evidence or manuscript discoveries are disclosed.) Further disclosed discoveries or evidence would not necessarily help the side of the argument that we are expecting it to help, however.

*** nwtsty C1 The Restoration of the Divine Name in the “New Testament” ***
However, sometime during the second or early third century C.E., a practice had developed where those copying the manuscripts either replaced the Tetragrammaton with a title such as Lord or God or copied from manuscripts where this had already been done.  *

We might already have enough evidence to test this particular claim. [POINT D, for further research]

I believe it already shows that the NWT translators have backed off the stronger claim made earlier in 1984 (and quoted by Micah Ong, above):

*** Rbi8 p. 1564 1D The Divine Name in the Christian Greek Scriptures [1984] ***
Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures and replaced it with Kyʹri·os, “Lord” or The·osʹ, “God.”

Also the footnote  * in the new C1 Appendix, opens up the possibilities much more widely, and removes the need to have mentioned the second or third century scribes in the first place. After all, these scribes, it is admitted, might just be copying from manuscripts where the Tetragrammaton had already been replaced with "Lord" or "God." In the worst case, this comes very close to admitting that it might have already been done up to and (technically) even including the initial manuscript, where an inspired NT writer might have already removed the Tetragrammaton reference from an LXX quotation, for example. That's obviously not the intent of the NWT Appendix writer to state this, but especially with the footnote material in view, it shows just how little is left of the original claim.

The last point for further research, therefore, might not include the claim from the 1984 NWT about second and third century scribes removing the Tetragrammaton from the LXX. The real important question is just the NT manuscripts here. It was always an odd claim anyway that both Jewish and Christian scribes would have agreed at some point as late as the third century to remove the name from both the NT mss and the LXX mss, as if all the dozens of manuscript copies were under some central control. Recensions of various types would still exist, because there is no way they could have got them all. And if we find evidence of this being done before the second and third centuries, the entire argument loses its meaning.

4 minutes ago, bruceq said:

Yes I did not mean the ones in other languages. The ones I offer are only in English. Sorry for any confusion.

Yes, I understand. I just saw your link and now I recognize that I have already purchased from you several times. In case that link disappears, I wanted to quote from it. I hope you don't mind. I wanted to have access to comment on what you said:
 

Quote

 

. . . Psalms Dead Sea Scrolls 11Q5.  {See New World Translation Study Edition for more info }.

   Why should the name "JEHOVAH" {YHWH} appear in the New Testament ? 

   One reason is that Copies of the Hebrew Scriptures used in the days of Jesus and his apostles contained the Tetragrammaton throughout the text. In the past, few people disputed that conclusion. Now that copies of the Hebrew Scriptures dating back to the first century have been discovered near Qumran, the point has been proved beyond any doubt. So Jesus and his Apostles would have quoted from these scrolls that contained the Tetragrammaton - JEHOVAH !!! {See 2013 New World Translation Appendix A and B}.

  This Psalms in a Dead Sea Scroll dated to the first half of the first century C.E. the very time of Jesus and his Apostles of the First Century Christian Congregation! The text is in the style of the Hebrew letters commonly used after the Babylonian exile, but the Tetragrammaton appears repeatedly in distinctive ancient Hebrew letters

   Psalms Scroll 11Q5 Reproduction mounted in a clear two-sided frame 6 by 18 inches with hardware for table or wall mounting included. This Psalms scroll contains 11 of the 15 Songs of Ascent (Psalms 120-134). Pilgrims would sing these Psalms while they ascended up to Jerusalem. It was in 1956 that a Bedouin discovered cave 11 with these psalms. These Psalms date to the first half of the 1st century C.E.

 

I was just doing some reading last night and this morning to try to get a better sense of what the DSS actually show us about the use of the Divine Name during the time period(s) represented. So I'll want to get back to this soon.

19 minutes ago, bruceq said:

And this is the very reason now dozens of Biblse now contain "YHWH" in various forms in the New Testament whereas in 1950 when the NWT was made only a couple did.

The Foreward to the 1950 NWT indicates that there were then about 60 Bible versions with a vernacular form of YHWH in the NT.  This included NT-only Bibles, especially "missionary" Bibles. Did you mean only a couple of full Bibles as opposed to partial?

2 hours ago, Micah Ong said:

"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, "Lord" or The·os´, "God."" New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures - With References p.1564 1D The Divine Name in the Christian Greek Scriptures

There is no proof whatsoever to support this claim, as not a single ancient New Testament document has been found with YHWH in it. Several available manuscripts date back to this period. P47 dates prior to 300 A.D. and contains four uses of Kyrios from Revelation that the NWT translates as Jehovah. P66 dates from around 200 A.D. from John (written in 98 A.D) and contains five occurrences of Lord that appear in the NWT as Jehovah. Some manuscripts go back to within 25 years of John's writings, yet none contains YHWH.

I was very dismissive of your initial post for reasons I already gave. I am sorry for that, now. But I also said that I would be happy to engage if I thought your purpose was different.

On 4/21/2017 at 8:52 AM, JW Insider said:

I would be happy to engage fully with your points especially if I thought your purpose was to help remove potential error from our teachings.

I see how serious you were in studying this issue very thoroughly and coming to a thoughtful and reasonable conclusion. Initially, I thought this was just going to be a matter of taking a few quick "snipes" at the JW teaching and therefore be dismissive of all teachings over another Trinity-related matter.

I see that you have made a good point about the quote above where the reference edition of the NWT states that "Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures . . . "

I agree that there is no evidence for this claim (yet) although I would not be surprised if something was discovered in the future that might shed more light on this. I have agreed for several months now with the idea that we should not be insistent on adding a form of the Divine Name to the Greek Scriptures [New Testament] until that evidence shows up. But I have not made a thorough investigation of the evidence for myself, and I see from your posts that there is already some good evidence to work from - that leads you to the opposite conclusion. I'd like to go through this evidence myself, and see if there is anything that might sway against the evidence you referenced. If more evidence leads to the same conclusion then I'll see just what position that might lead to.

I had the impression that no one knew very much about the divine name in the LXX translation of the Hebrew Scriptures [Old Testament] until fairly recently. (About 1939 seemed to be indicated in the various NWT forewords and appendixes). This is a big deal to the stance the JWs have taken for decades. When the NWT "NT" was published in 1950, the Foreword on pages 10-25 covered this point, and showed that it was public knowledge that such LXX versions existed due to the comments from Jerome and others. I know that finding the divine name represented in the LXX is not evidence that it was ever in the New Testament manuscripts, but at the very least it could allow for the idea that direct quotes of the OT in the NT could have some reason to include it. 

I think that the points about the so-called "J documents" have always provided a very weak argument since the addition was done for didactic purposes just as it was done in some Native American (Indian) language translations and African languages, for example. Clearly one of the reasons for these so-called "J documents" was to help teach the Trinity doctrine, which is why the NWT translators have also ignored a lot of the so-called "J" support for using the divine name.

On 5/17/2017 at 8:17 AM, Cos said:

Thanks for your further comments. I really feel now that there is no need for me to respond to the other two posts as you have encapsulated what my response was to be, and that is that there are many scholars, as you acknowledge, that hold a completely different view on Origen to those that you quoted, such as E. J. Fortman, “The Triune God” page 58, expressing that “Origen is Trinitarian in his thought…”

This is true, and I am aware of the more orthodox Trinitarian sounding quotes. It's not a definitive method, but I have also compared some of the scholarship with respect to Origen over time. It seems (generally) he was considered orthodox enough for his day, then was partly blamed for Arianism even before 325,  then was condemned for his views against the Trinity after 325, then found favor among more modern Trinitarians who tried to bring him back into the fold, then was scrutinized In more recent scholarship that put him back into the non-Trinitarian column, and has seen a modest attempt to synthesize his views and make them at least semi-Trinitarian. This was what I found generally, and it's probably informed by my own opinions and prejudices, too. But there are exceptions, as you have pointed out.

I did see those exceptions, because most articles that discuss Origen's Trinity references not only acknowledge these other quotes from Origen and others, but they also discuss them in great detail. Part of the process of determining truth has always included "testing" every side of a matter. But, of course,  I didn't want to get into a discussion of which scholars are better than other scholars. For me, it is sufficient to know that the arguments about Origen generally fall into two sides, and one of those two sides is closer to the truth than the other. So far, I chose a side, and you have chosen another. 

Another point to consider is not whether Rufinus was honest or not in a 4th century translation of  3rd century works, but the very fact that he was sure these books had been changed by "heretics and malevolent persons." I never assumed he was personally dishonest. What is more interesting is that in the 100-150 years since they were written, he focuses on one topic where he thinks these changes had been made. They were almost all Trinity references. That fact alone tells me that the Trinity doctrine was not resolved prior to the 4th century. I have also read Rufinus' own words about the "Falsification of the Books of Origen." It reminds me of the same fact. (Which also reminds me that a couple of the most disputed passages that ended up being generally identified as "glosses" or "forgeries" in the NT itself were on the topic of Trinity.)

On 5/17/2017 at 8:17 AM, Cos said:

You say;

“My main point was that the Trinity doctrine as defined in the 4th century was developed over time, and actually "evolved" somewhat from the 2nd century through the 4th.”

 

It is exactly to this allegation that I want to look, if Christian’s as early as Clement, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus (just to name a few), are speaking in definite terms of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as God, how can it have “developed over time” or “evolve”?

I'm sure you already know that more and more scholarly works on the topic are being published all the time. From what I have seen, the majority of them agree that it developed over time.  Some of the same "Church Fathers" who helped to develop and maintain the Trinity doctrine over time also believed that Plato and Aristotle's works might have been inspired of God because they were so thankful that they provided a language and framework in which to explain the Trinity.  

I ran across a lot of that in the Origen articles, but this short page is accessible to everyone: https://blog.logos.com/2013/11/plato-christianity-church-fathers/ and includes a quote from Dean Inge that I think is very relevant to the discussion of "development." The emphasis was added on the original site.

Dean Inge, the famous professor of divinity, writes that:

“Platonism is part of the vital structure of Christian theology . . . . [If people would read Plotinus, who worked to reconcile Platonism with Scripture,] they would understand better the real continuity between the old culture and the new religion, and they might realize the utter impossibility of excising Platonism from Christianity without tearing Christianity to pieces. The Galilean Gospel, as it proceeded from the lips of Jesus, was doubtless unaffected by Greek philosophy . . . . But [early Christianity] from its very beginning was formed by a confluence of Jewish and Hellenic religious ideas.” (Emphasis added)

And, of course, for background a couple of quotes from the same site from persons who wrote prior to 325. (Eusebius also wrote after 325, of course. As I'm sure you know, he was famous for his book on "Church History" and infamous for his Arianism.) 

Eusebius of Caesarea

“[Plato is] the only Greek who has attained the porch of (Christian) truth.”

Clement of Alexandria

“. . . before the advent of the Lord, philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteousness. And now it becomes conducive to piety; being a kind of preparatory training to those who attain to faith . . . . For God is the cause of all good things, but of some primarily, as of the Old and New Testaments; and of others by consequence, as philosophy. Perchance, too, philosophy was given to the Greeks directly and primarily . . . . For [philosophy] was a schoolmaster to bring ‘the Hellenic mind . . . to Christ.’ Philosophy, therefore, was a preparation, paving the way for him who is perfected in Christ.” (Emphasis added)

On 5/17/2017 at 8:17 AM, Cos said:

The early church, from the first century onwards, always agreed that there were three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as God. If one examines carefully and with all honesty the writings of the early church their language and theology bear forth their understanding of the Triune God long before and in complete harmony with the fourth century formulated creeds.

I don't agree, but I do agree that what the first-century early church agreed upon, should be the basis for our current belief.

On 5/17/2017 at 8:17 AM, Cos said:

We notice that from the Scriptures the testimony is that Jesus’ church would not cease at any time and then re-emerge some years later, this "restoration" claim contradicts Scripture. Yet it is this very claim that is made by all religions which were founded in the past 150 years!  

I think you can see what I’m getting at.

Jehovah's Witnesses are careful not to claim that the church ceased to exist through the intervening centuries, only that restoration was needed through long years of false doctrine. The verse that is usually used to show what you are saying is:

(Matthew 16:18) 18 Also, I say to you: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my congregation, and the gates of the Grave will not overpower it.

But Jesus also said:

(Luke 18:8) Nevertheless, when the Son of man arrives, will he really find this faith on the earth?”

Illustrations about the wheat and the weeds, the sheep and the goats, the narrow vs the broad road, etc., have always led Witnesses to believe that the intervening centuries have been full of major falsehoods, but that Jehovah and Jesus have not judged all of Christendom in the past centuries over these doctrines. But we also believe that it's possible to compare and test various doctrines as brighter light thus helps to restore truthful, healthful teachings.

(1 Corinthians 11:18, 19) . . .. 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident.

(2 Timothy 4:3, 4) 3 For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled. 4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.

On 5/14/2017 at 5:57 PM, Bible Speaks said:

Look at three other news sources then? 

Took me exactly 15 seconds to locate the picture here on the Daily Mail. As anticipated, it's not about the Witnesses in Russia at all. It's a picture about a protest against Putin.

Like many involved in this middle-class uprising, Chkhartishvili is new to politics but fed up with their posturing prime minister. ‘Putin is out of date, he is obsolete,’ he told me last week. ‘All of a sudden he looks ridiculous.’

Unrest: Ultranationalists try to break through a cordon during a demonstration against recent parliamentary election results

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2078554/Russian-protests-Tens-thousands-thronged-Moscow-defiance-Vladimir-Putin.html#ixzz4hG4TmpPP 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

13 hours ago, Health and Medicine said:

As might be expected from such chaos, these animals are profoundly deaf.

I'm thinking of getting some for around the house. This way I won't have to take the bell off the cat's collar.

1 hour ago, Cos said:

If I may, I would like to respond to what you say, but I can’t do it in the same timeframe as your replys, it will take me a lot longer I’m afraid, as my family and work necessitate much of my time,

That's quite understandable. I'm retired, don't sleep enough, and have replaced TV with Internet. Up until just a couple years ago, I wasn't able to join conversations on the net while I was working and raising a family. I should also admit that while I do have an excessive library, the items I quoted from were from an college alumni account that gives me access to a million academic journals. I didn't check if any of these are freely available to the public, but I got complaints in a previous conversation when I tried to give links that apparently only worked for me.

I should also mention that when you respond, I'm not really that interested in defending what the Arians believed or what Origen believed. My main point was that the Trinity doctrine as defined in the 4th century was developed over time, and actually "evolved" somewhat from the 2nd century through the 4th. But I would already admit that it is possible to find sources that would align Origen more closely with orthodox thinking (and by "orthodox" I mean mid-4th century). I also know that Origen is not considered the Father of Arianism by some scholars. I only mention this because I wouldn't want you to feel it's necessary to respond to the points I made, because I probably will just agree that there are other possible points of view. (e.g., Rufinus didn't really change as much of Origen's work as people have claimed; it was really Origen's students who were the father of Arianism, etc., etc.)

I do have a much stronger interest in what the original text of the Bible would have presented, so that some of the copyists' changes that appear to move any Bible text toward a more 4th-century Trinitarian direction will always interest me. You made some good points about John 1:18. What looks like evidence to one person is not always definitive.

As you can tell, as a Witness, I don't accept the Trinity, and we are not exactly Arian, either. Anna pointed out that a lot of the thinking and explanations that went into the Trinity doctrine (and some forms of Arianism) might not have been possible without the ideas of Plato and Aristotle. I am not interested in any of that. I'm only interested in whether or not a particular belief system will explain the entire range of Scriptures that touch on the issue of the "divinity" of Jesus Christ. I think Ann O'maly was also right in saying that there are several Bible verses that might not be covered by either neo-Arian or Trinitarian solutions. (I think the ideas about the holy spirit will fall into place when the first issue is resolved.)

I blame it on Lake Erie.

Saw this over at http://www.newyorkupstate.com/western-ny/2017/05/what_is_the_international_joint_commission_doing_about_lake_ontarios_flooding.html

Also, briefly talk about the flooding around Montreal - did that hold up water releases, say in late March or early April that otherwise would have taken place?

Lake Ontario outflows have generally been higher since the beginning of April, but were reduced below 7,000 cubic meters per second for four days in April and five days in May. This occurred when extremely high flows in the Ottawa River caused significant flooding in the Montreal area. The Ottawa River flows into the St. Lawrence River at Lake St. Louis in the Montreal area. The Ottawa River basin is larger than the Lake Ontario basin and it received 150 percent rainfall above-average in April. An outflow of 820 cubic meters per second for one week from Lake Ontario will remove one inch of water from the lake, but will also raise the level of Lake St. Louis by 11 inches for the entire week. Reducing the Lake Ontario outflow for a few days while the Ottawa River flows are peaking can prevent several feet of flooding in the Montreal area.

I know this is a secular post, but since you wanted a sea curse, your best bet is Greek Poseidon-related mythology. The closest you get in Scripture is Job 3:8

 (Job 3:8) Let those who curse the day put a curse on it,
Those who are able to awaken Le·viʹa·than.

In Hebrew, the consonantal word YM has been understood here as YoM, for day, but based on Hebrew poetic parallelism could more likely have originally been YaM, which is sea. Therefore the call would have been:

 8 Let those who [can] curse the sea put a curse on it,
Those who are able to awaken Le·viʹa·than [either a crocodile-like sea-monster or a sea-monster-like crocodile]

Perhaps a prayer instead to the God who says of the boundary between land and sea:

(Job 38:11) And I said, ‘You may come this far, and no farther; Here is where your proud waves will stop’?

I understand the need to use as much of the land as possible, and I hate to see good soil eroded. But this current "sea level" (on the lake) is no worse than a record set back in the 1970's. So I never understand why people need to build so close to the shore.

On 5/14/2017 at 5:04 AM, Cos said:

More can be added, but I’m sure you can see that if Arius was influenced in any way by Origen, then Arius would be a Trinitarian just as Origen was.

Canon Green, after considering what we know of Origen outside of the view that was literally forged for him by Rufinus, is quoted in the book "Origen as Trinitarian" as follows:

Origen continues to use the same strongly ditheistic language about the Logos as Justin had done, and of the Spirit he goes so far as to say that He is a creation of the Father through the Logos. The Logos of Origen is that of contemporary Greek philosophy, the Nous of Flotinus, eternally begotten by God. Origen makes no attempt to conceal the pluralistic character of his thought.... Origen himself was no trinitarian in his more fundamental view .... The trinitarian element in Origen, which is certainly present, is due to his loyalty to the Baptismal Rule of Faith which required it without explaining it, rather than to the inner necessity of his thought.

This is not the only place where we see the claim that Origen used the terms that referred to a Trinity, not because he thought it meant the same thing to him as to others, but out of deference to others who needed to hear him use the terms. It would be like a person who joined a church and disagreed on the specific meaning of a term that the church used, but he still used the term so as not to stumble or offend others. Also, we now know that most of the places where people think that Origen used the term "Trinity" were inserted by Rufinus to replace the many places where Origen had actually spelled out terms that included "Father, Son and Holy Spirit." The term "peri triados" is written as a marginal gloss in an 11th century manuscript of Origen's Greek, where the actual text only mentions the three entities spelled out. It's as if there was a tendency to want to put words in his mouth. In fact, the actual word Origen would have used would be more like the Greek term like "triados" or "trias" which Theophilus of Antioch had used in the late 2nd century. But again, the 2nd and 3rd century triad is more of a "shorthand" and did not carry the same meaning as the word Trinity, or Latin, "trinitas," of the 4th century and beyond.

Remembering that the term "subordination" means that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are not co-equal, we can see that the change promoted by Athanasius was somewhat revolutionary to the century of Origen and many others of his time. Note this from "Does Origen Have a Trinitarian Doctrine of the Holy Spirit?" Author: Kilian McDonnell Source: Gregorianum, Vol. 75, No. 1 (1994), pp. 5-35 :

Here he [Origen] cannot be faulted. Until 355 everyone, with the exception of Athanasius, is a subordinationist⁶. The tradition is unashamedly monarchian. . . . Gregory of Nazianzus (329-389) summed it up when he said that "Origen is the stone on which all of us were sharpened"7. Basil (ca. 330-379) and Gregory Nazianzus, as a mark of their admiration, sifted through the writings of their master to produce an Origen anthology, the Philocalia, containing many passages whose Greek text would otherwise have been lost to posterity. A close look at the selections shows that discretion was used in the choice, especially in avoiding trinitarian passages which might be interpreted as subordinationist. Basil and Gregory did not altogether avoid On First Principles, where Origen placed his most pronounced trinitarian teaching, and therefore located the focus of the debate. Perhaps even more than the other two Cappadocians, Gregory of Nyssa remained under his influence, which "seriously imperilled his reputation for orthodoxy." (p.6)

Notice that scholars generally agree that pieces of the Trinity doctrine grew over time and were not accepted in the same way until we get further and further from the Greek Scriptures (NT) themselves. The same article states:

Neither Athanasius nor Basil apply "God" to the Spirit, even though writing respectively from 138-148 and 152-162 years later, [after Origen] after considerable theological development, writing with the set purpose of establishing the Spirit's divinity. Indeed, Basil uses "tortuous circumlocutions" to avoid saying the Spirit is God. If it is true, as G.L. Prestige declares, that no Greek in explicit terms said "the Spirit is God" before Epiphanius, this would in broad terms mean until the beginning of the fifth century. (p.7)

Back to the connection between Origen and Arianism, however, the same source states:

Scholarius indicated that this ambiguity drew down on Origen's head the distinction of being called the Father of Orthodoxy and the Father of Arianism. At least Jerome, that sometime friend, was convinced that Origen had spawned the heresy of Arius . . . . (p.5)

On 5/14/2017 at 5:04 AM, Cos said:

Your claim that the reading, “the only begotten Son”, is an intentional change from the alternative “the only begotten God”, this is a good theory, but, the term “the only begotten God” is found in many places as you mention [p66 p75 S B C*] to these can also be added [L 33 syr(p) cop(north)];  so it is most likely that the change is a copyist error and not intentional. “It seems to have arisen from a confusion of the contracted forms of writing Υ and Θ” (Henry Alford The Greek Testament; See also Bruce M. Metzger's; A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament page 198, and Murray J Harris; Jesus as God, pages 74-103)

It could have been a simple copyist's error. If it was a copyist's error the rules of textual analysis would favor a change from god to son, not son to god.** [See comments within the next link, and near the end of this post.] Besides, we have the testimony of the earlier manuscripts that show this. I'm not arguing for whether the "tampering" was intentional or not, only for why it would have more easily remained and gained popularity over the older reading, if that older reading was, indeed, "only begotten G/god." There is a good discussion that refers to some points made by two JW's (Greg Stafford and Rolf Furuli) at the following link. (Don't know if Greg Stafford is still a JW, but I'm pretty sure both were at the time.)

http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn1_18.htm

There is also a reference to Origen's understanding of this verse, which shows he was looking at the term "monogenes theos" not "monogenes huios."

Origen cites of John 1:18 in Contra Celsum 2.71:  "kai monogenês ge ôn theos ...," which I would translate "the one and only [Son], being God..."  McReynolds cites this as "a clear early witness as to how one should understand the reading monogenês theos."¹⁰

^{McReynolds, by the way, was a student of Metzger.}

On 5/14/2017 at 5:04 AM, Cos said:

You then claim that after the fourth century and the Council of Nicaea “You couldn't say that Jesus was an only begotten God after Arianism was outlawed” is not quite correct because some post-Nicene church writes such as Hilary Poitiers, Basil of Caesarea, Didymus, Gregory of Nyssa, Jerome, just to name a few, advocated the rendering in John 1:18 “the only begotten God”.

That's a good point. I should not have implied that they couldn't say it at all. After all, most of the existing Greek manuscripts they worked from still had "only begotten G/god" as far as I can tell. So it couldn't be avoided altogether. I really meant that you couldn't say that it meant Jesus Christ, the Word, was a begotten God after Arianism was outlawed.

There is some evidence that it already carried a different meaning to each group, and therefore it meant what they read into it. Origen himself, as indicated above, might have read it as meaning "only begotten, [who is] God." This leads to an implicit understanding of "only begotten [Son], [who is] God." If Son is already implied in the term "monogenes," then that reading pleased both groups, and it would not be a problem for either side in the Arian controversy.

**In textual criticism, there is a rule that says that if someone made a mistake and it made the text more difficult to read and understand, that it would more likely be corrected back to the correct reading in later copies and manuscripts. If it made the text easier to read and understand, then that new reading would more likely remain in later copies and manuscripts. Therefore, a difficult reading that remained in at least some later copies and manuscripts is often considered the better reading for that reason.

But we don't need to invoke that rule on its own. We also have the very careful textual criticism of Origen himself, who was famous for this in his works, and he testifies to the "only begotten God" reading. Whether he ever used this particular verse, I'm not sure, but he did argue for a begotten God in the sense of a "created" Son who is called God. 

On 5/14/2017 at 5:04 AM, Cos said:

Hello JW insider,

 

Thank you for adding more detail to your claim, I appreciate that.

 

You make some remarks that I hope you don’t mind me commenting on?

Not at all. Hope you don't mind this style of interspersing comments between each of your paragraphs. This way I'm sure I don't miss anything you said.

On 5/14/2017 at 5:04 AM, Cos said:

I will start with some of the claims made in regard to Origen. I always question comments such as “the tradition of left-wing Origenism”. I have read the works of Origen and find that he was not “left-wing” or whatever that may imply. You say after quoting a portion of an article that make this claim; 

In the case of Origen, I think it's more meaningful to speak of two branches of "Origenism" precisely because he was extremely well-respected as a scholar on the one hand and therefore many who followed tried to follow even his more "radical" ideas. They were radical, at least, by later standards as they developed. On the other hand, his great body of work was "protected" by re-interpreting and highlighting the more conservative ideas that agreed with later standards as they developed. Most of these conservative persons "forgave" him for his lack of understanding, but this didn't sit well with the fact that he still had the reputation as the only REAL scholar the church ever had for the next 200-300 years. It's for this reason that, well after the Nicaean Council of 325, Origen finally had to be denounced. (It took until 533!!) And this was in spite of the fact that he had been protected by the 4th century Latin translator of "De Principiis" so that the most important things he said about the Trinity, to Latin readers at least, had been edited and changed to Nicaean beliefs. The translator did his work immediately after the council of Nicaea.

We know this because the translator admitted it very clearly. Also, this was at a time when hardly anyone was speaking Greek anymore. Which is why we have actually lost most of Origen's original Greek writing of De Principiis and we only know it completely through the edited Latin source. You may already be aware of this, but since it has a direct effect on most of the quotes you offered, I'll provide some material on the translator, Rufinus.

A Note on the Status of Origen's "De Principiis" in English Author(s): Ronnie J. Rombs Source: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Feb., 2007), pp. 21-29

Origen's text survives through the Latin translation of Rufinus, aversion that Koetschau fundamentally distrusted: Rufinus had admittedly expurgated Origen's text and could not, accordingly, be trusted. (p.21) . . . Greek fragments and Origenistic material-that is to say, passages that were not direct quotations of De principiis, nor even directly Origen's-were inserted into Koetschau's text based upon presumed doctrinal parallels between those fragments and Origen's 'authentic' thought. We cannot reconstruct the Greek text; what we have inherited for better or worse is Rufinus's Latin translation of Peri archon . . . (p.21)

By Rufinus's own admission³ Koetschau was convinced that Rufinus had seriously distorted Origen's text. Rufinus explains in the preface to his translation, "Wherever I have found in his books anything contrary to the reverent statements made by [Origen] 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."⁴ The comparison of Rufinus's translation with fragments and material attributed to Origen in Jerome's letters, the emperor Justinian's letter to Mennas,⁵ and the Anathemas against Origen from the Second Council of Constantinople suggested that Rufinus's emendations were so great that much of Origen's authentic doctrine had been excised completely or else greatly obscured in the De principiis. The distrust of Rufinus's text was substantial enough that Butterworth could describe Rufinus's text as "a garbled version of Origen's work"; for Rufinus was "willing to alter the text, or to omit portions of it, on no evidence whatever, and for no purpose except to conciliate the prejudices of his readers and to give greater authority to his translation."⁶ (p.22)

Some of these same admissions about the "Trinity" quotes from Origen are expanded upon in the following additional sources, which I will quote from (for other purposes) later in the post:

Why Does Origen Refer to the Trinitarian Authorship of Scripture in Book 4 of "Peri Archon?" Author(s): P. Martens Source: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 60, No. 1 (Feb., 2006), pp. 1-8

Does Origen Have a Trinitarian Doctrine of the Holy Spirit? Author(s): Kilian McDonnell Source: Gregorianum, Vol. 75, No. 1 (1994), pp. 5-35

DID ORIGEN APPLY THE WORD HOMOOUSIOS TO THE SON? Author(s): M. J. Edwards Source: The Journal of Theological Studies, NEW SERIES, Vol. 49, No. 2 (OCTOBER 1998), pp. 658-670

The Holy Spirit as Agent, not Activity: Origen's Argument with Modalism and its Afterlife in Didymus, Eunomius, and Gregory of Nazianzus Author(s): Andrew Radde-Gallwitz Source: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 65, No. 3 (2011), pp. 227-248

ORIGEN AS TRINITARIAN Author(s): Charles W. Lowry Source: The Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 37, No. 147 (JULY, 1936), pp. 225-240

On 5/14/2017 at 5:04 AM, Cos said:

I’ll quote for you some examples from Origen which run contrary to this claim. Some here don’t like when I do this and will label him to satisfy their own lack of historical understanding.

BTW, it was not only De Principiis that was distorted by Rufinus. Also, Jerome and Justinian, for example, quote Origen directly from the Greek in places, which allows us to see just how badly the Latin has been changed.

Origen did refer to the Trinity. And his belief was not Arianism, per se, either. But Origen didn't mean the same thing that later ANFs meant by the word Trinity. He purposely avoided ever saying that the "Holy Spirit is God." He avoided using many words that were becoming part of the vocabulary of the Trinity, at least with respect to the Son/Word/Jesus and the Holy Spirit. As the one through whom all things were created, Christ/Logos is spoken of as a "demiourgos/demi-urge" He speaks, not just of Jesus, the human being, born or created, but the Son of God, the Word being born or created. The same goes for the Holy Spirit. He spoke of the subordination of the Son and the holy spirit, such that the Father is greater than the Son, and the Son is greater than the Holy Spirit. It's true that he didn't put the beginning of the Son or Holy Spirit in human, temporal time, but he didn't do that for the other spirit creatures, either, since they exist outside of a physical realm of time, "before time" and because there must be a sense in which creation of the spiritual beings, especially the Son, always existed in some way with the Almighty. This resolved the question about the Logos having no beginning since "in the beginning the Logos was [already] with God." But Origen goes as far as to imply that the Father, therefore, was not always the Father (until there was a Son) and that he was also limited in some way as to the number of spirit creatures he could create. Origen could speak of the Word/Logos/Jesus as a second God, and still claim that there is only one God. The Holy Spirit is spoken of as a rational being, but one that is not independent.

He [Origen] adds, however, that the Holy Spirit seems to have need of the Son, to minister to Him His hypostasis, in order not only that He may exist but that He may be wise and rational and just. What is true of the Holy Spirit, the most excellent and the first in order of all that was made by the Father through Christ, is true of all other spiritual and rational beings. (Origen as Trinitarian, [referenced above], p.231)

The position of the Logos in the scale of being corresponds to His function as mediator. He is μεταξύ τηs τον άγενήτουάγενήτου και τηs των γενητών πάντων φύσεως.¹ He is God, θεός,² but secondary in rank, ό δεύτερος θεός.³ The Father alone is ό θεός ⁴ and God in Himself, αΰτόθεος⁵; ,the Logos is the image par excellence of God, but it is only the image and reflection of Him. If He did not contemplate the Father continually, He would cease to be God.'⁶ In relation to the being of the Father, the Son is numerically distinct from Him,⁷ and is another than the Father in ουσία, νπόστασις, and υποκείμενου.⁸ He is at once the Son of the Father and a creature.⁹ This paradoxical conception finds expression in a favourite formula of Origen (which combines St John and Colossians), ,the only-begotten and first born of every creature¹⁰ (p.232)

It remains to consider Origen's doctrine of the Trinity as a whole and in relation to his idea of God. It is a ' trinity', a triad of beings (ousiai, hypostaseis, hypokeimena), not a triune being. These divine beings are in no sense co-equal but constitute a graduated hierarchy. The Father is the supreme God, alone uncreate and alone God in Himself. The Logos or Son of God is ' the second God ', born of the will of the Father but not in time, in rank intermediate between the highest God and all other created beings. The Holy Spirit is also God and is the third in dignity and excellence after the Father and the Son. (p.235,236)

(Note that the Word "Logos" is a second God, in rank and number. This is the issue that later Trinitarians thought they resolved by making them all one "substance" yet 3 "persons." Origen put God beyond "substance" although he spoke of "spirit" and "truth" being related to this sense of substance. This is probably not so different than the way most Witnesses would describe all three entities as of one same "substance", that substance being spirit.)

And it is important to remember just how Origen was seen at the time, vs. how he was seen after the Council of 325 CE:

In this sense there is a profound justice and necessity in the eventual condemnation of Origen by the Church, however deplorable the spirit in which it seems to have been done when far lesser men and poorer Christians united in execrating his memory. (p.238)

He was condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553."

And lastly from this particular source, we also have another source for the previously stated conclusion that Arius was a left-wing Origenist, while another view, unsupported in reality, made him a "Nicene before Nicea."

The relation of these to Origenism and to Arius, ' a left-wing Origenist', is in no way questioned. They then turn to the other side of this many-sided' theologian and exhibit him in the role of a Nicene before Nicea, . . .  and the upholder either explicitly or implicitly of the homoousion. The resulting patent contradiction is either explained away by ingenious reasoning or simply left to be accepted. (p.239)

So what was said above was intended to give a more rounded view of what Origen himself meant by Trinity. It should allow a response to the individual quotes to go more quickly.

On 5/14/2017 at 5:04 AM, Cos said:

“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…. Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less” (De Principiis book 1 chapter 3 emphasis mine)

“But in our desire to show the divine benefits bestowed upon us by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which Trinity is the fountain of all holiness” (De Principiis book 1 chapter 4)

The second of these is merely a mention of the triad as a matter of convenience in that all three entities are of the same purpose. Origen even used Acts 4:32 to explain one way (by analogy) in which they were of equal purpose: (Acts 4:32) "Moreover, the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and not even one of them would say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. . ."

The first quote is exactly the type of adjustment made by Rufinus. Another example from the article called "Did Origen Apply the Word Homoousias to the Son?" [referenced above] says:

Rufinus is a far more likely suspect, as he began translating Origen after the triumph of the Athanasian party, which upheld the homoousion as an article of faith. Moreover, he himself admits that his method in translating is to omit, expand or simplify those statements which might otherwise be misconstrued as heresies by readers of his day. He had therefore both the motive and the means to decorate Origen with a spurious orthodoxy. (p.661)

Origen, however, is more generally accused of the opposite heresy, of saying that the Son not only depends for his existence on the Father, but also that his relation to the Father is that of a creature to its Creator. His own vocabulary seemed to allow both 'coming-to-be' and 'creation' within the Trinity, and for this he was repeated condemned. (p.663)

On 5/14/2017 at 5:04 AM, Cos said:

“For we have pointed out in the preceding pages those questions which must be set forth in clear dogmatic propositions, as I think has been done to the best of my ability when speaking of the Trinity.” (De Principiis book 1 chapter 6).

Origen's use of the word Trinity was evidently much less common than originally supposed, but in any case was merely a convenient way of speaking of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not the doctrine as defined later.

On 5/14/2017 at 5:04 AM, Cos said:

“When the Word was made flesh can we say that it was to some extent broken up and thinned out, and can we say that it recovered from that point onward till it became again what it was at first, God the Word, the Word with the Father” (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 1, chapter 42).

Yes. All things originate with God. And the Word was God. Origen speaks of the creation of the Word by God, and even speaks of the Holy Spirit as a creation by the Word, since all things came to be made through the Word.

On 5/14/2017 at 5:04 AM, Cos said:

“…surely they ought to ask what is meant when it is said of the Son of God that He was the Word, AND GOD, and that He was in the beginning with the Father, and that all things were made by Him.” (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 1, chapter 41 emphasis mine).

Origen was rarely vague, like some others of the ANF writers. But more than once he sets up this particular idea as a question (of how the Son came to be both created and already coexisting with God in the beginning).

On 5/14/2017 at 5:04 AM, Cos said:

More can be added, but I’m sure you can see that if Arius was influenced in any way by Origen, then Arius would be a Trinitarian just as Origen was.

Due to the length here, I will have to continue my response onto another post. As I type, I see that the editing window is slowing down and not keeping up, so that I have to keep typing things two or three times.