Tag: archaic

Origen’s First Principles

Gary Pollard

Early Christian writers (before AD 325) left us a huge body of writings. These are not scripture and they don’t claim to be (that I’ve seen yet). However, they do give valuable insight into the culture, language, and beliefs that the early church had. There’s just one tiny problem: they’re very difficult to read. Lightfoot published his translations in the 19th century. Roberts et al. published theirs in the same century. We stand on the shoulders of giants and would be in a tough spot had they not put in the work translating these volumes of ancient text! Unfortunately, though, average reading comprehension isn’t quite what it used to be. Archaic British English tends to quickly fatigue the mind and divert mental resources away from digesting the meaning of the text. As long as that barrier exists the words of some of the earliest Christians reach very few people. 

So what’s the utility of reading the early church writers if their writings aren’t scripture? Peter admitted that some of Paul’s writings are “very difficult to understand” (II Pt 3.15-16), and Paul wrote in the common language of the day. Add a couple thousand years, a dead language, and translator interference and those difficult texts become even more complicated. Early Christians apparently asked many of the same questions we have about the meaning of difficult passages, what things are doctrine vs what has flexibility, the nature of God and how we should worship him, and many, many other things. Early church writers offer some of the best historical material in existence (outside of scripture) on the life, times, and beliefs of pre-denominational Christians. 

For the next several months (if God allows) I will be re-working some of the Ante-Nicene writings. This will not be a translation! I’m not qualified to do so and would probably mess it up if I tried. I’m reading an existing translation and doing my best to modernize the language while preserving meaning. Origen started my fascination with these writings so we’ll read some of his works first. My goal is to eventually modernize all known Ante-Nicene writings, and maybe tackle the Pseudepigrapha next (if I’m still alive). 

Without further rambling, here is the first part of the Preface in Origen’s On first principles1 (ca. AD 220): 

  1. Everyone who believes and is confident that grace and truth come from Jesus Christ, and who know Christ to be the truth (he even said, “I am the truth”), gain the kind of knowledge that pushes people to a good and happy life from his teaching and words. We aren’t just talking about the words he spoke when he became human and lived here in a physical body. Christ was the word of God before he was human. He was in Moses and the prophets. Without God’s word they couldn’t have prophesied about Christ! We could spend forever showing proof after proof that Moses and the prophets were filled with Christ’s spirit. That would take a long time, though, and we’d like to keep this as brief as we reasonably can. It should be enough to quote what Paul said in Hebrews2, “Moses grew up and became a man. He refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. He chose not to enjoy the pleasures of sin that last such a short time. Instead, he chose to suffer with God’s people. He did this because he had faith. He thought it was better to suffer for the Messiah than to have all the treasures of Egypt.” Paul also said, “You want proof that Christ is speaking through me,” to show that Jesus spoke through his apostles after he went up to the sky. 
  2. A lot of people who say they believe in Jesus have wide-ranging differences in opinion. These differences are over both insignificant and significant things, some of which are extremely important. These differences are over things like God, the master Jesus Christ, and the Spirit. They also disagree about other created entities like the “powers” and what are called “virtues”. Because of this we need to be very clear about each one of these things before we investigate anything else. When we came to believe that Christ was the son of God, we stopped our search for truth. Greeks and non-Greeks have all made public their incorrect opinions about what is true. But we were convinced that we could only find truth in its source: Jesus himself. Many people think they have the same opinions that Jesus had, even though they think differently from the people who came before them. The church’s teachings came straight from the apostles and are preserved to this day. We can only accept teachings that don’t differ in any way from established church and apostolic tradition. 

 1 Roberts D.D., A. & Donaldson LL.D., J. (1885). Ante-Nicene Fathers IV: Fathers of the third century: Tertullian, part fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, parts first and second. American Edition: The Christian Literature Company (Buffalo).  

2 Coxe’s footnote: “Here and frequently elsewhere (some 200 times in all), Origen ascribes the authorship of [Hebrews] to Paul. Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, vi. 25) quotes Origen as saying, ‘My opinion is this: the thoughts are [Paul’s]; but the diction and phraseology belong to some one who has recorded what the apostle said… If, then, any church considers this Epistle as coming from Paul, let it be commended for this; for neither did those ancient men deliver it as such without cause. But who it was that committed the Epistle to writing is known only to God.’”

Thee, Thou, Thy, And Thine

Wednesday’s Column: Third’s Words

Gary Pollard

A prominent religious group is pretty well-known for their use of archaic pronouns in prayer. When asked about it, their official response is (paraphrased), “It’s more reverent and respectful,” (ldsliving.com). They believe that prayer is something that requires a special vocabulary, one that demonstrates a deeper respect for God. 

We do it, too, and for the same reasons they cite. I would like to offer some points to consider: 

1. Early Modern English does not demonstrate a greater level of respect. Why not use Middle English? Why not use Greek or Hebrew or Latin or Aramaic? From a purely linguistic standpoint, thee/thou/thine are not more formal in this century, and haven’t been for roughly three centuries (Yaswen, University of Toronto). Reverence comes from the heart. It is not something that can be invoked with a special vocabulary. 

2. It can be detrimental to evanglism. God expects us to emulate our culture as long as it doesn’t violate his law (I Cor 9.19-27). Many non-religious people, when talking about religious things, will switch to archaic, exaggerated English to highlight the oddness of religious people. An example in mainstream culture is the show Supernatural. One of the main characters reads something with archaic wording to another main character. When asked about it, his response was, “…that’s how God talks” (S8, E19). If our goal is to reach the lost, we should try to avoid potential obstacles (that aren’t related to doctrinal issues). When we invite them to worship, hearing, “Well-pleasing in thy sight,” or, “This, thy table,” or, “We thank thee, father,” etc. may reinforce Christianity’s irrelevance/social incompatibility in their minds. 

3. Biblical prayers do not teach a pattern of special language at all. Jesus’ example prayer was very simple (Matthew 6). Paul’s prayers did not differ from his conversational language (Eph 1.18; 3.14ff; Rom 1.8-10; 15.30-33; I Cor 1.4ff; II Cor 1.3ff; 9.12ff; Col 4.2ff; I Thess 3.9ff; 5.23f; II Tim 1.16ff; Philemon 4ff). No New Testament example suggests that using anything other than conversational language is superior. What does matter is our spiritual state when we pray (Jn 9.31; I Pt 3.7; I Tim 2.8). 

To be very clear, this is not a salvation issue at all. This is not even an indictment those who use Early Modern English pronouns in prayer. I strongly believe that Christians who pray or direct worship using old English have pure motives and are simply doing what they think most honors God! Hopefully this will serve as encouragement to evaluate our approach to prayer and worship so we can most effectively lead people to God. 

“To the Jews I became like a Jew so that I could help save them…to those who don’t practice the Law I became like someone who doesn’t practice the Law to help save them (though I am still ruled by Christ’s law). To those who are weak, I became weak so that I could help save them. I did this so that I could save people in any way possible. I do all this to make the Good News known. I do this so I can share in the blessings of the Good News” (I Cor 9.20-23).