THE EMERGENCE OF DIVINE SIMPLICITY IN PATRISTIC TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY ORIGEN AND THE DISTINCTIVE SHAPE OF THE ANTE-NICENE STATUS QUAESTIONIS Pui Him Ip Magdalene College October 2017 This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy For Natasha ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS No intellectual project could come to its fruition without the help of others. First and foremost, I owe a debt of gratitude to my supervisor Rowan Williams, for seeing the potential in the project in the first place, and for showing me that it is possible to pursue scholarship that combines philosophical rigour, historical sensitivity, and theological humility. During the last three years, Rowan’s guidance has gifted me a truly theological, and not merely academic, experience. I am deeply humbled by the fact that Rowan always looks out for the theological treasures in my writings, allowing me to see the light shining through my often muddled thoughts. Moreover, Rowan has managed to perform the miracle of encouraging me to pursue tangential but important problems arising from my doctoral research while preventing my dissertation to go off the rails. For these reasons, I am eternally grateful to have you as my supervisor and theological mentor. A special note of thanks must go to Christian Hengstermann and Isidoros Katsos who organised our regular and intensive Origen reading seminars during the 2016-17 academic year. This seminar was the laboratory in which I worked out most of the arguments in this dissertation. Without our heated debates, I would not be able to develop my own hermeneutical lens through which I understand Origen’s theology. On the topic of reading Origen, I must also thank Stephen Waers, whose expertise on Monarchianism and third-century Trinitarian theology has proved to be a constant help. Stephen read through drafts of Chapter 5 and 6 carefully, supplying detailed comments and suggestions that saved me from many errors. Further, I must thank Samuel Fernández, who first introduced me to reading Origen’s Trinitarian theology vis-à- vis Monarchianism, and whose works led me to the works of M. Simonetti and A. Orbe. It is through Simonetti and Orbe where I first discovered the potential of understanding Origen’s Trinitarian theology in his third century doctrinal contexts. Many others have contributed to this project in various ways. Thanks must go to Jordan Barrett, Mark Smith and Jonathan Platter who read various drafts of this dissertation. I want to thank especially Barnabas Aspray, who checked every small print of this dissertation. Barney’s sharp eyes have saved me from many unnecessary mistakes. Philip Pattenden and Neil Wright made learning Greek and Latin the most enjoyable experience. At the early stage of the project, Peter Widdicombe gave me important advice for narrowing down the scope of the project. As an outsider, George Kalantzis allowed me to attend the 2015 Wheaton Colloquium on divine simplicity, from which I learned a great deal. Ryan Clevenger hosted me during my stay in Chicago for the colloquium and provided hospitality. Hugh Burling helped me to keep track of debates about divine simplicity in contemporary philosophy of religion, as well as compiling for me a very helpful bibliography. To all of you, I am grateful for your kindness and generosity. Looking back, I cannot imagine my doctoral studies without the friendships formed during this season of life. Barney and Silvianne Aspray have supported me in countless ways throughout the last three years. Silvianne was the first person who welcomed me to the Faculty of Divinity, and Barney was the last person I consulted before I submitted. I cannot imagine getting through the process of doctoral research without our conversations, personal and theological. Sotiris Mitralexis always provides excellent company and stimulating discussions. I have learned so much from Sotiris, from the mundane (how to write applications and organise conferences) to the sublime (Maximus the Confessor’s and Orthodox theology). Daniel de Haan and Vika Lebyzek gifted me many hours of their time to talk through many topics on Catholic philosophy and faith. I will always be grateful to Daniel especially for introducing me to Bernard Lonergan, who proved to be a fruitful distraction during the dark hours of my second year. Outside of work, many happy hours were spent with the Fornecker family (Sam, Gina, Brooks and Evelyn-Rose). To all of you, our friendship is one of the most precious things I have gained from my studies. It is difficult to know where to begin when it comes to my parents, Wallace Pun Ming Ip and Yvonne Yee Chu Yeung. Without their courageous decision to re-settle the family in England, it is almost certainly the case that I would never be where I am today. It is difficult to imagine that if we had remained in Hong Kong, I would aspire to study philosophy and theology. Throughout my life, in a perhaps counter-cultural fashion, my parents have always given me freedom to explore my personal interests. When I decided to switch from theoretical physics to philosophy/theology, they never questioned my decision but supported me throughout. For these reasons, mum and dad, I am grateful for the sacrifices you have made so that I can be where I am today. Finally, I dedicate this dissertation to my long-suffering wife, Natasha. I thank God for gifting me such a wonderful companion and helper. During the course of my studies, we have learned to suffer together, laugh together, grow together, pray together, and persevere together. Your ceaseless positivity, endurance, and hope were the fuel that kept me going. Thank you for bearing with me, treating our marriage as higher than our momentary feelings for each other that fluctuate from one day to the next. Natasha, this dissertation is a testament to the power of the truth you held onto throughout the last three years: ἡ ἀγάπη οὐδέποτε πίπτει (1 Cor 13.8). CONTENTS Abbreviation ......................................................................................................................... i Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 Simplicity and Trinity in Pro-Nicene Trinitarian Theology ............................................................... 2 Simplicity and Trinity: The Emergence of the Modern Consensus ................................................. 5 The Shape of my Argument ................................................................................................................... 9 Part I: The Meaning of Divine Simplicity Chapter One ‘A god, then, is simple (ἁπλοῦν) and true (ἀληθὲς) in word and deed’ (Rep. 382e): Divine Simplicity and Two Trajectories of Interpretations ........................... 13 Two Trajectories of Interpretation in Plato ...................................................................................... 15 Divine Simplicity in Plato’s Republic 380d-386c ...................................................................... 15 Non-composition in Plato’s Phaedo 78b-81a ........................................................................... 18 The Emergence of Divine Simplicity in Ante-Nicene Theology: The Greek Apologists ......... 22 Justin Martyr................................................................................................................................. 23 Athenagoras ................................................................................................................................. 25 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 29 Chapter Two ‘I do not change’ (Mal. 3.6): Divine Simplicity as a Metaphysical-Ethical Synthesis in Origen ............................................................................................................. 30 The Metaphysical Simplicity of the Divine Nature.......................................................................... 31 Origen’s Metaphysical Doctrine of Divine Simplicity in Parch I.1.6: Context .................... 32 The Immediate Polemical Context ............................................................................. 32 The Theological Commitment underlying Origne’s Polemics ................................ 37 Origen’s Metaphysical Doctrine of Divine Simplicity in Parch I.1.6: Analysis ................... 41 God as intellectualis natura simplex: The Philosophical Case ...................................... 41 God as intellectualis natura simplex: The Exegetical Case ............................................ 46 The Ethical Simplicity of the Divine Character ............................................................................... 48 The Ethical Sense of One and Many ........................................................................................ 48 The Basic Scheme .......................................................................................................... 49 εἷς λόγος—-The One Word and Many Words .......................................................... 50 Vir Unus—-Singular and Plural Pronouns in Scripture ........................................... 53 One God—the self-same, unchanging reality ......................................................................... 58 The Metaphysical-Ethical Synthesis ................................................................................................... 60 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................