Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Dissertations (1934 -) Projects Monarchianism and Origen's Early Trinitarian Theology Stephen Edward Waers Marquette University Follow this and additional works at: https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, and the History of Christianity Commons Recommended Citation Waers, Stephen Edward, "Monarchianism and Origen's Early Trinitarian Theology" (2016). Dissertations (1934 -). 622. https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/622 MONARCHIANISM AND ORIGEN’S EARLY TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY by Stephen E. Waers, B.A., M.Div. A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Milwaukee, Wisconsin May 2016 ABSTRACT MONARCHIANISM AND ORIGEN’S EARLY TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY Stephen E. Waers, B.A., M.Div. Marquette University, 2016 This dissertation unfolds in two parts. In the first, I offer a reconstruction of the core of monarchian theology using four main primary texts: Hippolytus’ Contra Noetum, Tertullian’s Adversus Praxean, the Refutatio omnium haeresium (often attributed to Hippolytus), and Novatian’s De Trinitate. The monarchian controversy enters the historical record at the beginning of the third century, but we know little of its origins or motivations. The first part begins with a hypothesis about what might have prompted the rise of monarchianism. Following that, I give an account of the core of monarchian teaching using the sources listed above. My account gives specific attention to both major theological themes and exegetical trends in monarchian theology. Not only is such an account lacking in English-language scholarship, but I also use a different method than the methods used in those few non-English accounts that exist. The result of part one of the dissertation is a portrait of the monarchians who sought to preserve the unity and uniqueness of God by claiming things such as “the Father and the Son are one and the same.” Such an overtly anti-Trinitarian theology, I argue, catalyzed the development of Trinitarian theology by creating a need to better articulate the unity and distinction of the Father and Son. In part two of the dissertation, I offer a limited rereading of Origen’s early Trinitarian theology in light of the monarchian controversy. I focus on books 1-2 of his Commentary on John. Against the trend of many contemporary scholars who use anachronistic categories to interpret Origen’s Trinitarian theology, I seek to read him within his own context in the early third century. I argue that Origen’s anti-monarchian polemics caused him to develop and utilize a rich Wisdom Christology. Finally, I approach the question of whether Origen was a “subordinationist” by reframing the question within the horizon of anti-monarchian polemics in the early third century. I conclude that Origen can be considered a “subordinationist” and that subordinationism was a commonly employed anti-monarchian polemical strategy. Origen used subordinationism to articulate and defend the distinction of the Father and Son. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Stephen E. Waers, B.A., M.Div. When I began my doctoral studies, I did not realize that writing a dissertation entailed entering a sort of isolating wilderness. My own wilderness was a library carrel whose wild temperature fluctuations could never be predicted. My completion of this dissertation was only possible because of the support and generosity of others. I am thankful for the financial resources provided to me by the Theology Department at Marquette. The majority of this dissertation was written during the year they provided me with a dissertation fellowship. This fellowship allowed me to focus all of my attention on the dissertation. In this last year of writing, I have had the financial support of the department through an opportunity to teach. This teaching brought me out of the isolating wilderness of the library and began to prepare me for life after the dissertation. I am extremely grateful for the support and direction offered by the members of my board: Dr. Michel René Barnes, Fr. Joseph Mueller, Dr. Marcus Plested, and Dr. Ronald Heine. Dr. Barnes helped me move from an ill-formed idea in an independent study to an interesting and, I think, important dissertation topic. His guidance has given shape not only to this dissertation, but also to a research program that will continue for many years. Although I still use them on occasion, his disdain for adverbs has improved my writing and thinking. I am thankful that Dr. Heine, my outside reader, agreed to be on my committee. His expertise on Origen and monarchianism make him uniquely qualified to help guide this project to completion. Conversations with Fr. Mueller and Dr. Plested have also helped me clarify my thoughts and fill gaps in my argument. For this work beyond what was required of them, I am thankful. I am also indebted to the community of friends in the Theology Department who have helped me through this process and made contributions of their own. Samantha Miller and Drew Harmon have been constant conversation partners, and they have both read drafts of more than one chapter. Despite moving away, Joe Gordon has given me encouragement as we have journeyed through the process of completing a dissertation together. My conversations with Kellen Plaxco on Origen, monarchianism, and Middle Platonism have been enriching and enlightening. Such friends have interrupted the isolation of writing a dissertation and punctuated it with moments of warm conversation and human contact. This dissertation would have far more typos and grammatical errors were it not for the diligent proofreading of my mother, Kathy Waers. Above all, I am thankful to my wife, Katie, for her support. In the first place, she agreed to leave both a good job and our native South to move to Wisconsin so I could pursue a Ph.D. at Marquette. In the second place, she has been supportive and patient with me through the whole process. On days when I have been alone in my carrel with my books and my thoughts, hers has often been the only human contact I have had. She has kept me grounded. During my time in coursework, studying for exams, and writing, she has both worked a demanding full-time job and borne two beautiful daughters. The ii ability to do all of this while dealing with my stress and anxiety is truly a gift from God. Without her, the completion of this dissertation (or the maintenance of my sanity) would not have been possible. She forever has my love and gratitude. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................. i TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... vii INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 Monarchianism ....................................................................................................... 4 Major Scholarship on Monarchianism .................................................................... 6 Origen ................................................................................................................... 14 Subordinationism .................................................................................................. 20 Plan of the Dissertation ......................................................................................... 25 CHAPTER ONE: MODELS OF FATHER/SON RELATIONSHIP IN THE SECOND CENTURY ........................................................................................................................ 29 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 29 Soft Distinction ..................................................................................................... 35 1 Clement .................................................................................................. 35 2 Clement .................................................................................................. 36 Ignatius of Antioch ................................................................................... 38 Polycarp .................................................................................................... 41 Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, and Shepherd of Hermas .......................... 42 Epistle to Diognetus .................................................................................. 45 Melito ........................................................................................................ 47 The Ambiguous Middle ........................................................................................ 52 Theophilus of Antioch .............................................................................. 52 Irenaeus ..................................................................................................... 58 Clement of Alexandria .............................................................................. 61 iv Athenagoras .............................................................................................. 73 Hard Distinction: Justin Martyr ............................................................................ 79 One God ...................................................................................................