Origen and the Emergence of Divine Simplicity before Nicaea

Pui Him Ip

Description

This book establishes how the doctrine of divine simplicity was interwoven with the formation of a Christian Trinitarian understanding of God before Nicaea.

For centuries, Christian theology affirmed God as simple (haplous) and Triune. But the doctrine of the simple Trinity has been challenged by modern critics of classical theism. How can God, conceived as purely one without multiplicity, be a Trinity? This book sets a new historical foundation for addressing this question by tracing how divine simplicity emerged as a key notion in early Christianity. Pui Him Ip argues that only in light of the Platonic synthesis between the Good and the First Principle (archē) can we make sense of divine simplicity as a refusal to associate any kind of plurality that brings about contraries in the divine life. This philosophical doctrine, according to Ip, was integral to how early Christians began to speak of the divine life in terms of a relationship between Father and Son.

Through detailed historical exploration of Irenaeus, sources from the Monarchian controversy, and especially Origen’s oeuvre, Ip contends that the key contribution from ante-Nicene theology is the realization that it is nontrivial to speak of the begetting of a distinct person (Son) from a simple source (Father). This question became the central problematic in Trinitarian theology before Nicaea and remained crucial for understanding the emergence of rival accounts of the Trinity (“pro-Nicene” and “anti-Nicene” theologies) in the fourth century. Origen and the Emergence of Divine Simplicity before Nicaea suggests a new revisional historiography of theological developments after Origen and will be necessary reading for serious students both of patristics and of the wider history of Christian thought.

Introduction: In Search of Doctrinal History

1. The Locus Classicus of Divine Simplicity

2. From the Simple God to the Simple First Principle

3. Irenaeus’ Critique of Valentinian probolē and the Proto-Trinitarian Problematic

4. Monarchianism and the Fully Trinitarian Problematic

5. Divine Simplicity as a Metaphysical-Ethical Synthesis in Origen

6. Divine Simplicity as an Anti-Monarchian Principle of Differentiation between the Father and Son

7. Divine Simplicity as an anti-Valentinian Principle of Unity between the Father and Son

Epilogue: Towards a Prospective Historiography

Bibliography

Index

Sujets

• Philosophie
• Philosophie de la religion
• Religion
• Christianisme
• Christian Theology
• Religious
• PHILOSOPHY
• Philosophie et théologie
• Nicea
• Trinitarian theology
• Nicaea
• Monarchism
• Theology
• Systematics
• Origen
• Holy Spirit
• Christianity
• Plato
• Father
• History
• Son

Informations

• Publié par: University of Notre Dame Press
• Date de parution: 15 novembre 2022
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9780268203603
• Langue: English

Extrait

ORIGEN AND THE EMERGENCE OF DIVINE SIMPLICITY BEFORE NICAEA
ORIGEN AND THE EMERGENCE OF DIVINE SIMPLICITY BEFORE NICAEA
PUI HIM IP
Foreword by Rowan Williams
University of Notre Dame Press
Notre Dame, Indiana
Copyright © 2022 by the University of Notre Dame Press
Notre Dame, Indiana 46556
undpress.nd.edu
All Rights Reserved
Published in the United States of America
Library of Congress Control Number: 2022935752
ISBN: 978-0-268-20361-0 (Hardback)
ISBN: 978-0-268-20363-4 (WebPDF)
ISBN: 978-0-268-20360-3 (Epub)
This e-Book was converted from the original source file by a third-party vendor. Readers who notice any formatting, textual, or readability issues are encouraged to contact the publisher at [e-mail]
For Natasha
CONTENTS Foreword by Rowan Williams Acknowledgements Note to the Reader Abbreviations Introduction. In Search of Doctrinal History CHAPTER 1 The Locus Classicus of Divine Simplicity CHAPTER 2 From the Simple God to the Simple First Principle CHAPTER 3 Irenaeus’s Critique of Valentinian Emission and the Proto-Trinitarian Problematic CHAPTER 4 Monarchianism and the Fully Trinitarian Problematic CHAPTER 5 Divine Simplicity as a Metaphysical-Ethical Synthesis in Origen CHAPTER 6 Divine Simplicity as an Anti-Monarchian Principle of Differentiation between the Father and the Son CHAPTER 7 Divine Simplicity as an Anti-Valentinian Principle of Unity between the Father and the Son Epilogue. Toward a Prospective Historiography Notes Bibliography Scripture Index General Index
FOREWORD
Analysing how the earliest Christian writers set out to define and refine their concepts is an exercise that has been repeatedly reworked over the past two centuries. The once popular model of a Babylonian captivity imposed on the simple gospel by “Hellenistic” habits of mind has almost entirely disappeared from serious scholarship. A growing sophistication in our understanding of what happened to Greek philosophy in the first centuries of the Christian era prompted some more careful study of how the themes and vocabulary of that philosophy were digested and adapted, often in startlingly innovative ways, by Christian thinkers. The notion that patristic theologians, Greek and Latin alike, were either derivative or inept readers of philosophical texts has been very properly challenged, and the intellectual respectability and interest of Christian variations on their themes has been brought out (we might think here of Richard Sorabji’s work on cosmology, for example).
But the present study, by one of the most promising theological scholars of his generation, takes this a stage further. When we encounter a discussion in patristic literature of a topic we might categorize as metaphysical, we should beware of rushing to the conclusion that it is merely a Christian contribution to an ongoing philosophical debate. Patristic theologians undertake the labor of conceptual clarification with two main and related aims in mind: to provide a toolkit for reading the authoritative text of Scripture and to do so in such a way as to make sure that Scripture is read in a way congruent with the basic logic of how the infinite God must be spoken of if we are to avoid idolatrous and trivializing accounts of divine life and agency. Faced with a treatment of some apparently philosophical problem, we need to ask, “Exactly what exegetical pitfalls is this meant to help us avoid?” And because speaking nonidolatrously of God is fundamental to our spiritual well-being, we need equally to be alert to what specific ethical and spiritual temptations have to be circumvented and what turns of phrase give unacceptable room to such temptations.
This book offers an exemplary close reading of language about divine “simplicity”—the metaphysical assumption that the divine life cannot involve any sort of plurality or divisibility. That this is in some tension with claims about Trinitarian doctrine is a familiar issue, and there have been some sound studies of how this is dealt with in the post-Nicene period. But when pre-Nicene writers discuss divine simplicity, they have in mind a set of errors that must be avoided, hermeneutical dead ends that need to be ruled out—and ruled out not only because of conceptual incoherence but because of their effect on the coherence of the life of prayer and discipleship. As Pui Him Ip shows, Trinitarian language is itself, in the thought of the greatest of pre-Nicene thinkers, Origen of Alexandria, bound up with precisely this concern to provide a defensible way through some of the complications around simplicity and plurality. Unless we understand the very particular questions he is asking, we shall just repeat the mistakes of later Greek (and modern) theologians in writing off Origen’s Trinitarian scheme as an unhappy and inconsistent mélange of proper theological reflection and dubious “Middle Platonic” tropes. The argument of these pages urges, among much else, a more imaginative and generous reading of the great Alexandrian without suggesting that post-Nicene theology needs rewriting.
This is a study of admirable clarity and freshness, raising very substantial questions around method in patristic studies, the history of our histories of early Christian thinking, and the range of constraints that shape an agreed Christian “grammar” for speaking of the God of Jesus Christ. It will surely be recognized as a really significant contribution to its subject, necessary reading for serious students both of patristics and of the wider history of Christian thought.
Rowan Williams Cardiff, August 2021
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
No intellectual project comes to its fruition without the help of others. First and foremost, I am truly indebted to my doctoral supervisor, Rowan Williams, for seeing the potential of the project in the first place. As a supervisor and theological mentor, Rowan taught me how to pursue scholarship that combines philosophical rigor, historical sensitivity, and theological humility. His enduring support and encouragement kept me going in times of darkness. Gregory’s description of his experience studying with Origen captures well my years in Cambridge learning the craft and discipline of theology under Rowan with fellow supervisees: Οὗτος παράδεισος ἀληθῶς τρυφῆς, αὕτη ἀληθὴς εὐφροσύνη καὶ τρυφή, ἥν ἐτρυφήσαμεν ( Paner . 16. 184).
A special note of thanks must go to Christian Hengstermann and Isidoros Katsos, who organized the intensive Origen reading seminars in the Divinity Faculty at Cambridge during the 2016–17 academic year. These seminars provided the perfect laboratory for developing and experimenting with presenting the arguments in this book (always accompanied by earthly goods such as Coca-Cola, sweets, and pizzas). Christian and Isidoros: This book would not be possible without your friendship. My attention to Platonism (chapters 1 and 2) and the “metaphysical-ethical synthesis” (chapter 5) bear the marks of your intellect.
A great number of people have contributed to my research. Samuel Fernández introduced me to Antonio Orbe and Manlio Simonetti, whose works on the polemical context of Origen’s Trinitarian theology inspired me to build the argument that now forms chapters 6 and 7. I must also thank Stephen Waers, whose expertise on Monarchianism has been a constant help. Stephen read through drafts of chapters 6 and 7 carefully, offering detailed comments and suggestions that saved me from many errors. In my first-year examination, Janet Soskice and Sarah Coakley pushed me to clarify the philosophical meaning of simplicity, a concern that inspired the early chapters. In the viva , Ian McFarland helped me pluck up the courage to confront the problems in the structure of the original dissertation. Lewis Ayres graciously offered support and advice at every stage of research despite not having any formal obligation to do so. I especially thank him for the suggestion that I include a chapter on Middle Platonism, which has improved the overall structure of the book. Conversations with Michel Réne Barnes, Andrew Radde-Gallwitz, and John Behr at the Colloquium on Divine Simplicity in 2015 at Wheaton College led to my decision to focus on ante-Nicene developments in the book. I thank George Kalantzis for kindly giving me the opportunity to attend the colloquium and Ryan and Jenni Clevenger for their hospitality during my stay.
This book would not have seen the light of day without the generous support of various institutions. A substantial portion of the manuscript was revised during 2018–19, while I was departmental lecturer in patristics at Oxford. I owe Carol Harrison, Graham Ward, and Brian Young for the opportunity to work on the initial revision of the manuscript in such an intellectually stimulating environment. A special note of thanks goes to Mark Edwards, who took time to answer my questions, comment on various drafts, and share his encyclopedic knowledge of patristic scholarship. His concern with holding doctrinal analysis together with rigorous historical scholarship modeled the way I seek to do historical theology in this project (see the introduction). Ilaria Ramelli offered invaluable comments during her stay at Christ Church when I was revising the Origen chapters. The final revisions were carried out during the 2019–20 academic year, when I started my current position at the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion. I am indebted to Robert White, Denis Alexander, Keith Fox, and Hugh Rollinson for offering me a stable environment back in Cambridge to complete the revisions.
As with any projects of this scale, this book would be impossible without the generous engagement and guidance of many people over the years. Johannes Hoff far-sightedly set me down the path toward patristics when I was immersed in modern Trinitarian theology. Ruth Görnandt explained the complexity of the critique of metaphysics in German Protestant theology. Hugh Burling, Jonathan Carter, Ryan Mullins, and