Saturday, December 11, 2010

NOVATIONS TEXT TINKERED WITH - PART 5


THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE DE TRINITATE: 

Chapter III

[SUBHEADING]: E. Conclusion 
 
...Some time in the 240’s CE, the Roman presbyter Novatian wrote a treatise, which was basically a commentary on the creed, and which was intended to show the errors of alternative christologies. This document has come down to us as the De Trinitate, the first truly theological work to come from the Roman church, written in the Latin language. While no early manuscript has survived, the current editions are based on the work of sixteenth century editors who had early manuscripts at their disposal. Although the editio princeps shows evidence of some theological “doctoring,” the earlier manuscripts survived long enough for later editors to correct the text. Today we can be reasonably certain that the latest editions accurately reflect the thought of Novatian. The only serious critique of the textus receptus [by Pamelius] is Petitmengin and Pelland’s reconstruction of the ending of the document, both versions of which are included in the appendices for the reader’s comparison. Novatian’s work was clearly accepted by the greater Roman church as consistent with the direction in which it was going. This fact is shown by his subsequent appointment to the office of “acting bishop” after the death of Fabian in January of 250. As the Roman church completed the transition from Greek to Latin in the third century, Novatian’s De Trinitate is a window into the thought of his time, in which we can see how one writer, who spoke for the church of Rome, interpreted the Scriptures, and defended his interpretation as the orthodox Catholic position. Having established the text, we can now turn to the language and content of that interpretation...” - (Chapter III, Pages 8-15, “Between Two Thieves”The Christology of Novatian as “Dynamic Subordination,” Influenced by His Historical Context, and His New Testament Interpretation. By James Leonard Papandrea Ph.D. Dissertation, 1998, Northwestern University.)

I disagree that we have a text that “accurately reflect[s] the thought of Novation”.

Mr Papandrea himself argues for a Trinitarian view of Novation and I believe his translation reflects a certain amount of bias in that regard as well.

Also we only Pelland's reconstruction to go on. Which as Mr Papandrea admits is conjectural in places, in other words reflects a certain amount of guess work. And he cannot be regarded as being totally beyond suspicion of Trinitarian bias either.

Nonetheless, his work is very interesting and welcome for it's honesty and expose of the Tampering and “tinkering” with Post-Biblical Christian writers texts.

NOVATIONS TEXT TINKERED WITH - PART 4


THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE DE TRINITATE: 

Chapter III Page 8: 
 
[SUBHEADING]: D. The History of the Transmission of the Text 
 
...The editio princeps is the edition published by Martin Mesnart in Paris in 1545, in which the work was attributed to Tertullian.[25] In addition to erroneously placing Novatian’s De Trinitate in a collection of the works of Tertullian, Mesnart apparently edited the text, “correcting” passages which he thought were heterodox, or in which the Latin seemed awkward to him. The edition also contained errors, such as omissions due to homoioteleuton.[26] In 1550, Sigismond Gelenius, working from earlier manuscripts which are now lost, corrected the errors of Mesnart’s edition and restored the edited sections.[27] For our purposes it will suffice to give an example of a theological change made by Mesnart, and compare it to the restored text as preserved by Gelenius. In 16.3 of the text, Mesnart’s edition has:

(CORRUPTED LATIN TEXT): “...Sed si a Christo accepit quae nuntiet, non est homo tantum Christus, a quo accepit paracletus deus non minor, quoniam nec paracletus a Christo acciperet nisi Deus Christus esset: Christus ergo se Deum esse hoc ipso probat, quod ab eo accepit paracletus quae nuntiat, ut testimonium Christi divinitatis grande sit, dum ab illo paracletus sumit quae ceteris tradit...” 
 
(AUTHORS TRANSLATION): “...But if He receives what He would announce from Christ, Christ is not only a man, [the one] from whom the Helper receives is no less divine, since the Helper would not receive from Christ unless Christ is God: therefore this proves Christ Himself, from whom the Helper receives what He would announce, to be God also, so that
[this] would be a great testimony to the divinity of Christ, that from Him the Helper obtains what He gives to others...”

For the same passage, Gelenius’ corrected text reads: 
 
(CORRECTED LATIN TEXT): “...Sed si a Christo accepit quae nuntiet, maior ergo iam paracleto Christus est, quoniam nec paracletus a Christo acciperet, nisi minor Christo esset. Minor autem Christo paracletus Christum etiam Deum esse hoc ipso probat, a quo accepit quae nuntiat, ut testimonium Christi divinitatis grande sit, dum minor Christo
paracletus repertus ab illo sumit quae ceteris tradit...”[28]

(AUTHORS TRANSLATION): “...But if He receives what He would announce from Christ, then Christ is greater than the Helper, since the Helper would not receive from Christ unless He were less than Christ. But the Helper [is] less than Christ, which proves Christ Himself, from whom He receives what He would announce, to be God also, so that [this] would be a great testimony to the divinity of Christ, that the Helper is discovered [to be] less than Christ, from whom He obtains what He gives to others...”

From the omitted parts which I have underlined, it is clear that Mesnart edited out those phrases which make the Spirit subordinate to the Son, thereby making the Trinity less hierarchical and more consistent with the western orthodoxy of his time. Gelenius corrected the text, but he still attributed the work as a whole to Tertullian.[29] The first extant edition to correctly assign authorship to Novatian is that of Jacques de Paméle (Pamelius), in 1579. It was Pamelius who added the chapter divisions.[30] Pamelius noted that the manuscripts he was working with confirmed Gelenius’ corrections of the text, and allowed him to make further corrections.[31] Diercks counts corrections of almost 80 errors or lacunae, some common to Mesnart and Gelenius, others only in Gelenius’ edition.[32] Fausset notes that in 31.10-12, Pamelius restored the following passage, which also seemto have been removed in the earlier editions for theological reasons:[33]

(CORRECTED LATIN TEXT): “...Si inuisibilis fuisset, cum inuisibili collatus par expressus duos inuisibiles ostendisset et ideo duos comprobasset et deos. Si incomprehensibilis, si et cetera quaecumque sunt Patris, merito, dicimus, duorum deorum quam isti confingunt controuersiam suscitasset. Nunc autem quicquid est non ex se est, quia nec innatus est...” 
 
(AUTHORS TRANSLATION): “...If He had been invisible, He would have been compared with the invisible one, [and would] have been described [as] equal. He would have shown two invisible beings and for that reason He would also have demonstrated [the existence of] two Gods. If [He were] incomprehensible, or anything else that is rightfully of the Father, [then] we could say that He had stirred up the argument of two Gods which those [heretics] fabricate. But as it is, whatever He is, He is not from Himself, because He is not unborn...”

Again, to soften the subordination within the Trinity (which we will discuss at length later), the passage above was omitted, and the phrase: 
 
(CORRUPTED LATIN TEXT): “...Christus autem non innatus est...” 
 
(AUTHORS TRANSLATION): “...On the other hand, Christ is not unborn...” 
 
was inserted in its place.[34] Other editions include that of E. Welchman in 1724, and J. Jackson in 1728. Welchman reordered some chapters which had apparently gotten out of order, and Jackson made a few more corrections, though both also confuse some issues and add their own errors at times. Others had published editions of the text as well, attempting to make further corrections and adding commentary; however, by this time the manuscripts were lost and all future editions were based on the ones mentioned above. Therefore the Pamelius edition serves as the textus receptus.[35] Finally, Giles Pelland, following Pierre Petitmengin, has reconstructed an alternate ending to that found in the textus receptus of Pamelius. It seems that Pamelius may have failed to completely restore the original text, or may himself have changed a few lines that sounded too subordinationist for his taste. Pamelius’ text makes the return of divine authority to the Father at Christ’s glorification a result of the “sharing of substance,” while the alternate text has it as a product of the “subordination of the Son.” Pelland maintains that this is more consistent with Novatian’s thought in the rest of the treatise, and therefore must be the original wording.[36] The following is a comparison of the textus receptus with Pelland’s reconstruction of De Trinitate 31.18-20: 
 
[PAMELIUS’ EDITION, THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS]: “...Cuius sic diuinitas traditur, ut non aut dissonantia aut inaequalitate diuinitatis duos deos reddidisse uideatur. Subiectis enim ei quasi Filio omnibus rebus a Patre, dum ipse cum his quae illi subiecta sunt Patri suo subicitur, Patris quidem sui Filius probatur, ceterorum autem et Dominus et Deus esse reperitur. Ex quo dum huic qui est Deus omnia substrata traduntur et cuncta sibi subiecta Filius accepta refert Patri, totam diuinitatis auctoritatem rursus Patri remittit. Vnde unus Deus ostenditur uerus et aeternus Pater, a quo solo haec uis diuinitatis emissa, etiam in Filium tradita et directa, rursum per substantiae communionem ad Patrem reuoluitur...”

(AUTHORS TRANSLATION): “...Thus [the Father’s] divinity is communicated, so that neither disagreement nor imbalance [within] the Divine would seem to cause two Gods to exist. For since all things have been subordinated by the Father to Him, as the Son, while He Himself is subordinated to His own Father with these things which are subordinate to Him, He is indeed demonstrated [to be] the Son of His Father, but He is discovered to be both Lord and God of everything else. Therefore, since all subjected things are handed over to this one who is God, and everything received [which is] subordinate to Him, He gives back to the Father, He defers all divine authority back again to the Father. From this, the true and eternal Father is shown [to be] the one God, the divine power having been sent out from Him alone, and communicated and extended in the Son, it has been reverted back to the Father again through the sharing of substance...”

[PELLAND’S RECONSTRUCTION]: “...Cuius sic diuinitas traditur, ut non aut dissonantia aut inaequalitate diuinitatis duos deos reddidisse uideatur. Subiectis enim ei quasi Filio
omnibus rebus a Patre, dum ipse cum his quae illi subiecta sunt Patri suo subicitur, Patris quidem sui Filius et minister probatur, ceterorum autem et Dominus et Deus esse reperitur. Ex quo dum huic qui est Deus omnia substrata traduntur hic autem cum illis quae illi subiecta sunt subiciens se Patri, totam diuinitatis auctoritatem rursus ex subiectione sui Patri remittit. Vnus Deus ostenditur uerus et aeternus Pater, a quo solo haec uis diuinitatis emissa, etiam in Filium tradita et directa, rursum per subiectionem Filii ad Patrem reuoluitur...”

(AUTHORS TRANSLATION): “...Thus [the Father’s] divinity is communicated, so that neither disagreement nor imbalance [within] the Divine would seem to cause two Gods to exist. For since all things have been subordinated by the Father to Him, as the Son, while He Himself is subordinated to His own Father with these things which are subordinate to Him, He is indeed demonstrated [to be] the Son and servant of His Father, but He is discovered to be both Lord and God of everything else. Therefore, since all subjected things are handed over to this one who is God, yet He is subordinate to the Father with those things which are subject to Him, He defers all divine authority back again to the Father because of His subordination. From this, the true and eternal Father is shown [to
be] the one God, the divine power having been sent out from Him alone, and communicated and extended in the Son, it has been reverted back to the Father again through the subordination of the Son...”[37] - (Chapter III, Pages 8-15, “Between Two Thieves”The Christology of Novatian as “Dynamic Subordination,” Influenced by His Historical Context, and His New Testament Interpretation. By James Leonard Papandrea Ph.D. Dissertation, 1998, Northwestern University.)

[FOOTNOTE 21]: G. F. Diercks, introduction to Nouatiani Opera, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, vol. 4, ed. G. F. Diercks (Turnholt: Typographi Brepols Editores Pontificii, 1972), 2, esp. n. 2. There is one extant fragment in the codex Casinensis 384, which contains 36 words from chapter 18 of the De Trinitate.
[FOOTNOTE 22]: Jerome Aduersus Rufinum 2.19. See also DeSimone, The Treatise of Novatian the Roman Presbyter on the Trinity: A Study of the Text and Doctrine, 37.
[FOOTNOTE 23]: Jerome Aduersus Rufinum 2.19; De Viribus Illustribus 70.
[FOOTNOTE 24]: Jerome Aduersus Rufinum 2.19. See also Moore, 17. This assumes that the document which Jerome refers to is in fact Novatian’s De Trinitate, and not Tertullian’s Aduersus Praxean, as Quarry had argued. See above, n. 5, 7.
[FOOTNOTE 25]: Diercks, “Novatien et son temps,” 2. See also Mohrmann, “Les origines de la latinité chrétienne à Rome,” 163-164, and DeSimone, The Treatise of Novatian the Roman Presbyter on the Trinity: A Study of the Text and Doctrine, 49-52.
[FOOTNOTE 26]: Diercks, introduction to Nouatiani Opera, 3-4, n. 11.
[FOOTNOTE 27]: Diercks, “Novatien et son temps,” 2-3. See also Diercks, introduction to Novatiani Opera 4; and Weyer, Novatianus, “De Trinitate”: Über den dreifaltigen Gott, 16, n. 50. The manuscripts in question apparently belonged to a corpus Corbeiense.
[FOOTNOTE 28]: Diercks, introduction to Nouatiani Opera, 3-4, (emphasis mine).
[FOOTNOTE 29]: Diercks, “Note sur le traite De Trinitate de Novatien,” Sacris Erudi 19 (1969-1970), 27, n. 4.
[FOOTNOTE 30]: Fausset, xxv.
[FOOTNOTE 31]: Diercks, introduction to Nouatiani Opera, 4-5, n. 13. In addition to the manuscripts available to Mesnart and Gelenius, Pamelius mentions a codex Anglicus. See also DeSimone, The Treatise of Novatian the Roman Presbyter on the Trinity: A Study of the Text and Doctrine,
[FOOTNOTE 32]: Diercks, introduction to Nouatiani Opera, 5, n. 22-23.
[FOOTNOTE 33]: Fausset, xxv-xxvi, 119, n.16. See also DeSimone, The Treatise of Novatian the Roman Presbyter on the Trinity: A Study of the Text and Doctrine, 98.
[FOOTNOTE 34]: Fausset, xxv-xxvi, 119, n.16.
[FOOTNOTE 35]: Diercks, introduction to Nouatiani Opera, 5. Editions since Migne include those of Fausset (1909), Weyer (1962), and Diercks, (1972). Cf. Weyer, Novatianus, “De Trinitate”: Über den dreifaltigen Gott, 18, where Weyer criticizes Fausset’s edition as incomplete and inaccurate. Diercks’ text in vol. 4 of the Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina is the basis for my translation, which is included below as Appendix A.
[FOOTNOTE 36]: Giles Pelland, “Un passage difficile de Novatien sur I Cor. 15:27-28,” Gregorianum 66 (1985): 44-46. See also Pierre Petitmengin, “Ce que Pamèle connaissait de codex Johannis Clementis,” Revue des études augustiniennes 21 (1975): 266-272. Diercks follows Pamelius’s text for the ending of his edition, and this review of Diercks’ edition by Petitmengin includes notes on the manuscript behind the reconstructed text, codex Ioannis Clementis, which Welchman used to correct Pamelius’ text, but which he also had edited for theological reasons. I include a translation of Pelland’s reconstructed alternate ending as Appendix B.
[FOOTNOTE 37]: The translation is mine. The bold type and underlining for emphasis are also mine. Bold type represents an addition to Pamelius’ text, underlined text represents a replacement

IMPORTANT NOTE: So in the end, even the text that the Author and others use for his reconstruction of what was thought by THEM to be the original text, which was used also by the Author for his new translation, he has to admitt that Pamelius Textus Receptus cannot be trusted as being what the original actually said (because that is now lost) and being fully un-biased towards the Trinity.

To be continued. 

NOVATIONS TEXT TINKERED WITH - PART 3

Novation "Tinkered with" continued.

NOVATION WORK POSTHUMOUS NAME CHANGE

THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE DE TRINITATE

Chapter III, Pages 2,3:

"...Still, the point is that for the Roman church, Novatian emerges as its first Latin systematizer of doctrine; and his treatise which is given the title De Trinitate is his magnum opus. The original title of the work was probably De Regula Veritatis, since that is how it begins, and also since, as we will see, the word Trinitas does not actually appear anywhere in the document. In fact, it is not so much a treatise on the Trinity per se, as it is an expansion of, or a commentary on, the creed; the Rule of Faith. Nevertheless, by the time of Jerome, around the turn of the fifth century, the title De Trinitate had already been attached to it.[3] Some speculate that it may have gotten this title during the Trinitarian controversy of the fourth century.[4] In fact, Jerome’s writings contain the only mention of a treatise by Novatian called De Trinitate.[5] The assumption that our document is this treatise is based on a comparison of the text with Novatian’s letters..."[6] - (Chapter III, “Between Two Thieves” The Christology of Novatian as “Dynamic Subordination,” Influenced by His Historical Context, and His New Testament Interpretation. By James Leonard Papandrea Ph.D. Dissertation, 1998, Northwestern University.)

[FOOTNOTE 3]: Hieronymus (Jerome) Aduersus Rufinum 2.19, De Viribus Illustribus 70. See also DeSimone, The Treatise of Novatian the Roman Presbyter on the Trinity: A Study of the Text and Doctrine, 47- 49.
[FOOTNOTE 4]: For example, A. Casamassa, Novaziano (Rome: Dispense Universitarie, 1949), 163. See also DeSimone, The Treatise of Novatian the Roman Presbyter on the Trinity: A Study of the Text and Doctrine, 49.
[FOOTNOTE 5]: Jerome Aduersus Rufinum 2.19, and De Viribus Illustribus 70, in which Jerome calls Novatian’s De Trinitate an “epitome” of the work of Tertullian. But see J. Quarry, “Novatiani De Trinitate Liber: It’s Probable History,” Hermathena 10 (1899), 36, 41-42. Quarry believes that the document referred to in Aduersus Rufinum may actually have been Tertullian’s Aduersus Praxean, while he ascribes our De Trinitate to Hippolytus. Quarry also concludes that the heresy concerning the Spirit which is supposedly making use of the treatise in question is not pneumatomachianism, but is in fact Montanism, which he argues could be supported by elements in Tertullian. ... see Russell J. DeSimone, “Novatian,” introduction to Novatian the Presbyter, trans. Russell J. DeSimone, The Fathers of the Church, vol. 67, ed. T. P. Halton (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1974), 18;
[FOOTNOTE 6]: Hans Weyer, ed., Novatianus, “De Trinitate”: Über den dreifaltigen Gott, Testimonia, vol. 2 (Dusseldorf: Patmos-Verlag, 1962), 12, 14.

To be continued

NOVATIONS TEXT TINKERED WITH - PART 2

More tampering with the ANF:

THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE DE TRINITATE

Chapter III Page 1:

[SUBHEADING]: A. Introduction

"...However, before we can examine the content of the text, we will need to survey the history of the transmission of the text itself, from the time of its writing to the publication of the current critical edition, as well as examine some of the textual problems associated with it. The most important of these problems, for our purposes, has to do with “corrections” to the text made by various editors over the course of time, which betray their discomfort with some of Novatian’s language concerning the relationships within the Trinity. It is precisely this language, perceived as too subordinationist for some, which will be a central part of our study of Novatian’s christology, and therefore the reconstruction of Novatian’s original text is of great importance." - (Chapter III, “Between Two Thieves” The Christology of Novatian as “Dynamic Subordination,” Influenced by His Historical Context, and His New Testament Interpretation. By James Leonard Papandrea Ph.D. Dissertation, 1998, Northwestern University.)

To be continued.

NOVATIONS TEXT TINKERED WITH - PART 1

NOVATION "TINKERED WITH"

Robert Grant on Novation:

"...Novatian finally ends his treatise with allusions to the passage in 1 Corinthians (15:24-28) that speaks of the final subjection of the Son to the Father, ‘that God may be all in all.’ His own stance is thus subordinationist and can be explained in reference to his reliance on Biblical passages. Apparently the work is difficult to interpret toward the end because a later orthodox reviser has tinkered with the text..." - (Gods and the One God. By Robert M. Grant. Library of Early Christianity. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1986. Pages 159-160)

"Tinkered with the text..."

Not again!

JEROME SAID "ALL OF" ORIGENS "BOOKS" WERE "FULL OF" REFERENCES TO JESUS AS CREATED BEING

Now here's an interesting quote from Jerome in reply to Rufinus who re-doctored Origens, Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria and others writings to conform to the newly enforced standard of belief in his time.

Its a dialogue between a Valentinian Gnostic and Origen of Alexandria.

NOTE: Who argues upon the basis of SUBSTANCE and who argues for A CREATED BEING in this quote:

JEROME (347 to 420 C.E.): “...Now compare the words of Origen, which I have translated word for word above, with these which by him have been turned into Latin, or rather overturned; and you will see clearly how great a discrepancy between them there is, not only of word but of meaning. I beg you not to consider my translation wearisome because it is longer; for the object I had in translating the whole passage was to exhibit the purpose which he had in suppressing the earlier part. There exists in Greek a dialogue between ORIGEN AND CANDIDUS the defender of THE HERESY OF VALENTINIAN, in which I confess it seems to me when I read it that I am looking on at a fight between two Andabatian gladiators. CANDIDUS MAINTAINS THAT THE SON IS OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE FATHER, falling into the error of asserting a Probolé or Production. On the other side, ORIGEN, LIKE ARIUS AND EUNOMIUS, refuses to admit that He is produced or born, lest God the Father should thus be divided into parts; BUT HE SAYS THAT HE WAS A SUBLIME AND MOST EXCELLENT CREATION WHO CAME INTO BEING BY THE WILL OF THE FATHER LIKE OTHER CREATURES. They then come to a second question. Candidus asserts that the devil is of a nature wholly evil which can never be saved. Against this Origen rightly asserts that he is not of perishable substance, but that it is by his own will that he fell and can be saved. This Candidus falsely turns into a reproach against Origen, as if he had said that the diabolical nature could be saved. What therefore Candidus had falsely accused him of, Origen refutes. But we see THAT IN THIS DIALOGUE ( ALONE ) ORIGEN ACCUSES THE HERETICS OF HAVING FALSIFIED HIS WRITINGS, ( NOT ) IN THE OTHER BOOKS ABOUT WHICH ( NO ) QUESTION WAS ( EVER ) RAISED. Otherwise, if we are to believe that all which is heretical is not due to ORIGEN but to the heretics, WHILE ALMOST ALL HIS BOOKS ARE FULL OF THESE ERRORS, nothing of Origen’s will remain, but everything must be the work of those of whose names we are ignorant..." - (Hieronymus – Apologia Adversus Libros Rufini; Jerome’s Apology for Himself Against the Books of Rufinus; Addressed to Pammachius and Marcella from Bethlehem, a.d. 402. Book 2, Section 19, Page 512.)

[EMPHASIS ADDED]

Jerome clearly states that Origen taught and believed Jesus was "A CREATION ... LIKE OTHER CREATURES"

Jerome also shows he didn't follow the later idea of the Son being of the same SUBSTANCE of the Father, but that this was the BASIS OF THE ( GNOSTIC ) TEACHING AND ARGUMENT.

Thursday, December 2, 2010

CHRIST AS AN ANGEL BEFORE NICEA - PART (1)

(MARTIN WERNER): "...The pre-Arian discussion of the Angel-Christology did not turn simply on the question whether Christ was an angel, but on another issue, namely, in what sense could he, as an angel, rank as God. The explanation which was offered by the supporters of the Angel-Christology was that Christ, according to his nature, was a high angel, but that he was named 'God'; for the designation 'God' was ambiguous. The word 'God' did mean, in the first place, the absolute divine omnipotence but it was also used for the beings who served this deus verus [Latin, 'god true'= (the) true God]. That these were designated 'gods' implies reverence and recognition of Him who sent them and whom they thus represented. Consequently in the Scriptures (Exod. xxii, 28),  not only angels,  but even men could be called 'gods' [cf. Ps. 8:5; Heb. 2:7, 9; Ps. 82:6, 7; John 10:34, 35] without  according  them the status in the strict sense. Even Latantius [260-330 C.E.] had thought in this way2 ... 2 Latantius, inst. Epitome [The Epitome Of The Divine Institutes], 37." - (Martin Werner, The Formation Of Christian Dogma, Page 140).

(LACANTIUS circa 240 to 320): "...In fine, ( OF ) ALL THE ANGELS, whom THE SAME GOD (FORMED) from his own breath, ( HE ) alone was (ADMITTED INTO) a participation of his supreme power, ( HE ) alone was (called) God. (FOR) all things were (THROUGH) him, and nothing was without him...” (Epitome 42).

(LACANTIUS circa 240 to 320): "...God, therefore, the contriver and founder of all things, as we have said in the second book, before He commenced this excellent work of the world, begat a pure and incorruptible (SPIRIT), whom He (called) His Son. And although He had afterwards created by Himself (INUMERABLE OTHER BEINGS, WHOM WE CALL ANGELS), - (THIS) FIRST-BEGOTTEN, however, was (THE ONLY ONE) whom He considered worthy of being (called) by the divine name, as being powerful in His Father's excellence and majesty. ... Assuredly He is the very Son of God, who by that most wise King Solomon, full of divine inspiration, spake these things which we have added: [520] , "God founded ["CREATED" (LXX)] me in the beginning of His ways, in His work before the ages. He set me up in the beginning, before He made the earth, and before He established the depths, before the fountains of waters came forth: the Lord begat me before all the hills; He made the regions, and the uninhabitable [522] boundaries under the heaven. When He prepared the heaven, I was by Him: and when He separated His own seat, when He made the strong clouds above the winds, and when He strengthened the mountains, and placed them under heaven; when He laid the strong foundations of the earth, I was with Him arranging all things. I was He in whom He delighted: I was daily delighted, when He rejoiced, the world being completed." But on this account Trismegistus spoke of Him as "the artificer of God," and the Sibyl calls Him "Counsellor," because He is (ENDOWED BY GOD THE FATHER) with such wisdom and strength, (THAT GOD EMPLOYED) both His wisdom and hands in the creation of the world..." - (The Divine Institutes - Book IV: Chap. VI.--Almighty God Begat His Son; And the Testimonies of the Sibyls and of Trismegistus Concerning Him. Text edited by Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson and first published by T&T Clark in Edinburgh in 1867. Additional introductionary material and notes provided for the American edition by A. Cleveland Coxe, 1886.)

Compare Hebrews 1:4

(AUV-NT)  He had become as much superior  to the angels as the name He inherited   was superior to theirs 

(EMTV)  having become so much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.

(ERRB) Being made so much better than the angels, inasmuch as he hath by inheritance obtained inherited a more excellent name than they.

(GSNT)  showing himself to be as much greater than the angels as his title is superior to theirs.

(IAV)  Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

(ISV)  and became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is better than theirs.

(Moffatt NT)  and thus he is superior to the angels, as he has inherited a Name superior to theirs.

(JMNT[EXPANDED TRANSLATION])   Being born so much better (more excellent) than agents (messengers), He has inherited (acquired by lot) a so much different name beyond (alongside of) them.

(LONT) being exalted as far above the angels, as the name he has inherited, is more excellent than theirs.

(Sawyer) being made as much greater than the angels as he has inherited a more excellent name than they.

(TCNT) having shown himself as much greater than the angels as the Name that he has inherited surpasses theirs.

(Clarke's Commentary on the Bible): "...So much better than the angels - ... The Jews had the highest opinion of the transcendent excellence of angels, they even associate them with God in the creation of the world, and suppose them to be of the privy council of the Most High; and thus they understand Genesis 1:26 : Let us make man in our own image, in our own likeness; "And the Lord said to the ministering angels that stood before him, and who were created the second day, Let us make man," etc. See the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel. And they even allow them to be worshipped for the sake of their Creator, and as his representatives; though they will not allow them to be worshipped for their own sake..."

(Vincent's NT Word Studies): "...Being made so much better than the angels (τοσούτῳ κρείττων γενόμενος τῶν ἀγγέλων) ...Τοσούτῳ - ὅσῳ so much - as. Never used by Paul. Κρείττων better, superior, rare in Paul, and always neuter and adverbial. In Hebrews thirteen times. See also 1 Peter 3:17; 2 Peter 2:21. Often in lxx. It does not indicate here moral excellence, but dignity and power. He became superior to the angels, resuming his preincarnate dignity, as he had been, for a brief period, less or lower than the angels (Hebrews 2:7). The superiority of Messiah to the angels was affirmed in rabbinical writings. He hath by inheritance obtained (κεκληρονόμηκεν) More neatly, as Rev., hath inherited, as a son. See Hebrews 1:2, and comp. Romans 8:17. For the verb, see on Acts 13:19, and see on 1 Peter 1:4. More excellent (διαφορώτερον) Διάφορος only once outside of Hebrews, Romans 12:6. The comparative only in Hebrews. In the sense of more excellent, only in later writers. Its earlier sense is different. The idea of difference is that which radically distinguishes it from κρείττων better. Here it presents the comparative of a comparative conception. The Son's name differs from that of the angels, and is more different for good. Than they (παρ' αὐτοὺς) Lit. beside or in comparison with them. Παρα, indicating comparison, occurs a few times in Luke, as Luke 3:13; Luke 13:2; Luke 18:4. In Hebrews always to mark comparison, except Hebrews 11:11, Hebrews 11:12..."

(Robertsons Word Pictures In The NT): "...Having become (genomenos). Second aorist middle participle of ginomai. In contrast with on in Heb_1:3. By so much (tosoutōi). Instrumental case of tosoutos correlative with hosōi (as) with comparative in both clauses (kreittōn, better, comparative of kratus, diaphorōteron, more excellent, comparative of diaphoros). Than the angels (tōn aggelōn). Ablative of comparison after kreittōn, as often. Than they (par' autous). Instead of the ablative autōn here the preposition para (along, by the side of) with the accusative occurs, another common idiom as in Heb_3:3; Heb_9:23. Diaphoros only in Hebrews in N.T. except Rom_12:6. Hath inherited (keklēronomēken). Perfect active indicative of klēronomeō (from klēronomos, heir, Heb_1:2), and still inherits it, the name (onoma, oriental sense of rank) of “Son” which is superior to prophets as already shown (Heb_1:2) and also to angels (1:4-2:18) as he now proceeds to prove. Jesus is superior to angels as God’s Son..."

(Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary):  "...Being made . better-by His exaltation by the Father (Heb 1:3, 13): in contrast to His being "made lower than the angels" (Heb 2:9). ... He is "the Son of God" is a sense far exalted above that in which angels are called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 38:7)..."

[NOTE]: Nearly all of the above argue for a trinitarian view in the surrounding context of these comments.