Did the Trinity Develop from Aristotelianism

[Secret Alias]

A new discovery - https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/ltp/ ... 7699ar.pdf. Alfonso de Valladolid (Avner of Burgos), Teshuvot la-Meharef, in ms. Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, Parmense 2440, folio 20r, lines 8-16:

והם אשר ביאר ארסטו במה שאחר הטבע שהאלוה הוא <שלש> הסבות הקיצונות לכל העולם יחד, והן
הפועל והצורה והתכלית. ועליהן כתב ניקולאו בשם ארסטו שהאלוה הוא אחד בעצם, שלשה בגבול; וזה כי
אלה העניינים שהם עצם אחד, והוא האלוה ñ כלומר הענין שבו היה פועל את העולם, והענין שבו היה צורה
אליו, והענין שבו היה תכלית אליו ñ לא יתכן לחשוב שיסתלקו ממנו, ואפילו במחשבה ולא אפילו כשנחשוב
שהיה העולם אפס ונעדר, ואחר כך נמצא; שאילו כן לא היה הוא אלוה וסיבה ראשונה.
These facts are explained by Aristotle in the Metaphysics, (i.e.) that God is the three23 distant
causes of the whole world at once, i.e. the action, the form and the aim. And concerning
them Nicholas in the name of Aristotle wrote that God is one in substance, three
in definition, that is to say, one cannot think that those (principles), being one substance
which is God — i.e. that with which He makes the world, and that with which He is its
form, and that with which He is its aim — are separated from Him, even in thought, nor
even when we consider that24 the world was void and absent, and after this has come to
be ; (in fact), if so (i.e. if those principles depart from Him), He (= God) would be neither
a god nor a First Cause

Most likely Avner found this passage in the Arabic version of the DPA, probably written in the 9th century, and based upon a previous Syriac version of the Greek original text. The Arabic version might still have been extant in 13th century Spain, since it was apparently quoted by the Spanish Jewish philosopher Shem Tov Ibn Falaquera (c. 1225-1295). The author is a certain Nicolaus who has always been identified as Nicolaus of Damascus, who sat in the court of Herod. The article suggests that this proves that Nicolaus was in fact a Christian. But why can't it be that Christianity took over ideas that already in the schools of Aristotle? How does this citation prove that Nicolaus 'has to be' a Christian Nicolaus rather than Nicolaus of Damascus.

[MrMacSon]

fwiw -

"Trinitas" is a Latinization of the Greek "he trias" (the Triad), a term first used by Theophilus of Antioch in his Ad Autolycum 2.15 to refer to God, God's Logos (Jesus), and God's Sophia (Holy Spirit). It seems to have been picked up by Tertullian and used in his Adversus Praxean.

I'm pretty sure I've seen reference to tripartite entities in Judaism, or other religions (or both), earlier that those guys used it.

[andrewcriddle]

A new discovery - https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/ltp/ ... 7699ar.pdf. Alfonso de Valladolid (Avner of Burgos), Teshuvot la-Meharef, in ms. Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, Parmense 2440, folio 20r, lines 8-16:

והם אשר ביאר ארסטו במה שאחר הטבע שהאלוה הוא <שלש> הסבות הקיצונות לכל העולם יחד, והן
הפועל והצורה והתכלית. ועליהן כתב ניקולאו בשם ארסטו שהאלוה הוא אחד בעצם, שלשה בגבול; וזה כי
אלה העניינים שהם עצם אחד, והוא האלוה ñ כלומר הענין שבו היה פועל את העולם, והענין שבו היה צורה
אליו, והענין שבו היה תכלית אליו ñ לא יתכן לחשוב שיסתלקו ממנו, ואפילו במחשבה ולא אפילו כשנחשוב
שהיה העולם אפס ונעדר, ואחר כך נמצא; שאילו כן לא היה הוא אלוה וסיבה ראשונה.
These facts are explained by Aristotle in the Metaphysics, (i.e.) that God is the three23 distant
causes of the whole world at once, i.e. the action, the form and the aim. And concerning
them Nicholas in the name of Aristotle wrote that God is one in substance, three
in definition, that is to say, one cannot think that those (principles), being one substance
which is God — i.e. that with which He makes the world, and that with which He is its
form, and that with which He is its aim — are separated from Him, even in thought, nor
even when we consider that24 the world was void and absent, and after this has come to
be ; (in fact), if so (i.e. if those principles depart from Him), He (= God) would be neither
a god nor a First Cause

Most likely Avner found this passage in the Arabic version of the DPA, probably written in the 9th century, and based upon a previous Syriac version of the Greek original text. The Arabic version might still have been extant in 13th century Spain, since it was apparently quoted by the Spanish Jewish philosopher Shem Tov Ibn Falaquera (c. 1225-1295). The author is a certain Nicolaus who has always been identified as Nicolaus of Damascus, who sat in the court of Herod. The article suggests that this proves that Nicolaus was in fact a Christian. But why can't it be that Christianity took over ideas that already in the schools of Aristotle? How does this citation prove that Nicolaus 'has to be' a Christian Nicolaus rather than Nicolaus of Damascus.

Firstly IIUC the prima-facie evidence for Nicolaus of Damascus being the author of the DPA (De philosophia Aristotelis) seems very weak. Outside the DPA their is no evidence that Nicolaus of Damascus was interested in Aristotle.

Secondly the use of the technical term one substance in this connection suggests a context of 3rd or 4th century CE Christian debates.

Andrew Criddle

[andrewcriddle]

There seem to be parallels to the thought of the 4th century CE philosopher Themistius.
See Aristotle Reinterpreted

Andrew Criddle

[Charles Wilson]

The author is a certain Nicolaus who has always been identified as Nicolaus of Damascus, who sat in the court of Herod. The article suggests that this proves that Nicolaus was in fact a Christian. But why can't it be that Christianity took over ideas that already in the schools of Aristotle? How does this citation prove that Nicolaus 'has to be' a Christian Nicolaus rather than Nicolaus of Damascus.

Outside the DPA their is no evidence that Nicolaus of Damascus was interested in Aristotle.

As one who has for some time advocated for Nicholas of Damascus being extremely important in NT studies, may I make a modest suggestion?

Nicholas of Damascus would, in this instance, fill the role that Papias fills (See concurrent Posts on Papias). Papias (if he existed) tells us that Mark had all of the Stories, just not in the correct order. This is Meta-Data: "These Stories were rewritten and Transvalued and placed in the order they were so that they could be presented for effect in the New Religion".

Nicholas of Damascus was Greekophile and probably Aristotelian. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... damascenus . *IF* NofD was the Person of Interest in SA's Good Post, he would have had no clue about the upcoming New Religion. He was an Agent for Caesar and the Empire and the Political Control Officer in charge of Herod. He has a success record of 100% arguing in front of Caesar concerning Affairs of State and Judea. In the absorption of Judea into the Empire, no one plays a more important role in the more peaceful times.

When the Commies came to power in the new Soviet Union, Lenin had to show that the New Rule was legitimate and that Russia had in fact gone through the Industrial Revolution. The Road to Socialism was thus following the Plan of History, not in the Death of Millions but in Fulfillment of History.

NofD has to be Revalued in the same manner.
Someone - again! - is telling us something and it is a telling of a different Type of History. The early writers of histories provided their facts which were rewritten. Some - Pliny the Younger and Tacitus - get rewritten as the Bad Guys. NofD lived behind the Outhouse in Jerusalem for 20 years for the Good of the Empire.

He gets written as the Good Guy.

CW