 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
22 Subjects (abstracts): Robert Taylor; The Formation of the New Testament; The Canon of the New Testament; Adolph Harnack History of Dogma; Apologetics;
'Taylor's [Robert Taylor 1784 - 1844], conclusion is: "As we see Protestantism to be a mere modification or reform of Popery, so Popery was nothing more than a similar modification or reform of Paganism. It is absolutely certain that the pagans were in possession of the whole Gospel story many ages before its JEWISH ORIGIN WAS PRETENDED [see: #7, 188-191; Addendum D; etc.]; and it was not until the first error had been committed of suffering the people to become acquainted too intimately with the contents of the sacred books that it became necessary to invent a chronology, and to 'give to airy nothing a local habitation and a name.'"' [see 43., 83., 84., 102., 216., 354., etc.]. [See: #1, 6, 43. (repeated: see 460)]. from: #3, 68, 357.: H. Cutner [1881 - 1969], The Devil's Chaplain Robert Taylor (1784-1844), The Pioneer Press, c. 1950, 41. • • • from: The Formation of the New Testament, Robert M. Grant, Harper & Row, 1965. "The gradual development of the canon, in our view, was primarily the achievement of gentile Christianity, although of course THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO NEW TESTAMENT IF AN OLD TESTAMENT HAD NOT ALREADY EXISTED. Among the earliest Christians there was no New Testament; their Bible consisted of the Old Testament alone. One of the principal problems which the Church had to confront during the second century was the relation between this Bible and the Christian gospel expressed in oral traditions and in writings. Gentile Christians insisted upon the superiority of the gospel to the predictions and prefigurations which they found in the Old Testament, and this insistence finally led to the formation of the New Testament as a collection of books which could be viewed as 'scripture'." [12].
• • • from: The New Testament Canon, Harry Y. Gamble, Fortress, 1985. 'The Problem of Even a cursory glance at its contents reveals that what we know as "the New Testament" is not a book at all in the usual sense but a collection of early Christian writings, twenty-seven in all. It is a collection, moreover, which has historically been set apart as possessing a distinctive and indeed unique authority for the faith and practice of the Christian church. As a fixed collection of religiously authoritative literature, the NT constitutes the canon of Christian scriptures.1' [11]. [(6/98) See: A Short History of the Bible, Being a Popular Account of the Formation and Development of the Canon, Bronson C. Keeler, reprint: The Book Tree (see 375), 1997 (1881) [a Classic!]].
"Ironically, the more fully the individual documents of the NT have been understood, the LESS INTELLIGIBLE the NT as a whole has become, both historically and theologically." [13]. 'The History of The New Testament Canon Since the ancient church left no record of how and why the NT was formed, the history of the canon must be reconstructed on the basis of sparse and fragmentary evidence and with a measure of conjecture. There are, generally speaking, three types of useful evidence. The first consists of the use of early Christian documents by Christian writers of the second through the fifth centuries. From the frequency and manner of their citations of and allusions to early Christian writings, it is possible to infer the value they attached to them. Uncertain and unsatisfactory as this procedure often is, such evidence is the best we have up to the end of the second century.1 The second type of evidence is comprised by explicit discussions and judgments, either by individual writers or by ecclesiastical councils, about documents whose authority is either accepted or rejected. This evidence is very helpful but, with a few exceptions, belongs mostly to the FOURTH AND FIFTH CENTURIES. The third sort of evidence is provided by the contents of ancient manuscripts of the NT, together with some "scriptural aids" (concordances, prologues, etc.) variously included in them. This evidence, too, comes mostly from the FOURTH CENTURY and later, since not many [how many?] extensive manuscripts [references?] have been preserved from the earlier period.' [23].
[See: #6, 173 (Constantine, "new copies of the Bible"); #13, 321 (4th century)]. • • • from: The Canon of the New Testament, Bruce M. Metzger, Oxford, 1987. [a Classic!] [a "Must See" book!] [Note: of course, much Christian apologetics!]. "Introduction The recognition of the canonical status of the several books of the New Testament was the result of a long and gradual process, in the course of which certain writings, regarded as authoritative, were separated from a much larger body of early Christian literature. Although this was one of the most important developments in the thought and practice of the early Church, history is virtually silent as to how, when, and by whom it was brought about. Nothing is more amazing in the annals of the Christian Church than the absence of detailed accounts of so significant a process." ["1"]. [See: #1, 10, 82., 11, 83., 12, 93. (repeated: see 462, 463)]. "8As von Harnack [Adolph von Harnack 1851 - 1930] has pointed out (The Origin of the New Testament [New York, 1925], p. 5), there were four possibilities open to the Church: [1] the Old Testament alone, [2] an enlarged Old Testament, [3] no Old Testament, and [4] a second authoritative collection." [7]. "According to Harnack, the canon constituted one of the three barriers (the other two were the creed and the bishopric) which the Church erected in its struggle with heresy [competition], particularly Gnosticism. The process involved essentially the competition of many books and the survival of those most useful to the Church. Harnack described the role of the Church in canonization as one of selection; Zahn [Theodor Zahn 1838 - 1933], on the other hand, emphasized the idea of growth." [24]. "Harnack continued to give attention to problems of the canon....Among the theories advocated is the view that the origin of the New Testament is to be found in prophetic-apocalyptic literature; that Marcion [died c. 160] was 'the creator of the Christian Bible'; and that the Muratorian Canon [see Appendix IV (305-307)] was an official document of the Church at Rome." [27]. "Harnack...developed the thesis that Marcion was the first to construct a formal canon of Christian Scripture and that the Church followed his lead, eventually adopting four Gospels and thirteen Epistles of Paul [Ecclesiastical Corporation! (see #4, 116, 123, 124, 129)], in addition to other books as well.48" [98].
"When people are curious, they usually take steps to satisfy their curiosity; so we should not be surprised that MEMBERS OF THE EARLY CHURCH DREW UP ACCOUNTS OF WHAT THEY SUPPOSED MUST HAVE TAKEN PLACE [see #2, 62-63 (Witnesses)].4 Among such apocryphal gospels, produced in the second, third, and following centuries, are the Protevangelium of James, the Infancy Story of Thomas, the Arabic Infancy Gospel, the Armenian Gospel of the Infancy, the History of Joseph the Carpenter, the Gospel of the Birth of Mary, and several other similar gospels which refer to the early years of Jesus' life, while the Gospel of Nicodemus (otherwise known as the Acts of Pilate5) and the Gospel of Bartholomew refer to his visit in Hades. In general, these gospels show far less knowledge of Palestinian topography and customs than do the canonical Gospels—which is what one would expect from the circumstances and date of the composition of such books." [166-167]. [footnote] "27On the embarrassment felt by the Fathers at the presence of discrepancies among the canonical Gospels, see Helmut Merkel, Die Widersprüche zwischen den Evangelien; Ihre polemische und apologetische Behandlung in der alten Kirche bis zu Augustin (Tübingen, 1971). In the latter part of the second century Celsus [2nd century]' sharp eyes detected a considerable number of real and imagined contradictions in the Gospels, which later antagonists of the Church, such as Porphyry [c. 232 - c. 303], Hierocles [born c. 275], the Emperor Julian [c. 331 - 363 (Emperor 361 - 363)], and certain Manichees, adopted and amplified." [200]. "The most celebrated theologian of the fourth century, Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296—373), had been educated probably at the catechetical school of his native city. He assisted at the Council of Nicea (325) as a deacon and as secretary of his bishop Alexander, and there gained fame by his disputes with the Arians....Athanasius appears to be the first prelate who took advantage of his position at the head of an extensive and important diocese to deal with the question of the Biblical canon....Of the forty-five...festal epistles that Athanasius wrote from A.D. 329 onwards,4 the Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle of 367 is particularly valuable, for it contains a list of the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments.5 In the case of the Old Testament, Athanasius excludes the deuterocanonical books,6 permitting them only as devotional reading. The twenty-seven books of the present New Testament are stated to be the only canonical ones.... THE YEAR 367 MARKS, THUS, THE FIRST TIME THAT THE SCOPE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON IS DECLARED TO BE EXACTLY THE TWENTY-SEVEN BOOKS ACCEPTED TODAY AS CANONICAL." [210, 211, 212].
"The discovery some years ago [1945-6] at Nag Hammadi [Upper Egypt ("some 60 miles below Luxor on the Nile.")] of several dozen texts from the early Church, such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, the Epistle of Peter to Philip, and the Apocryphon of John, has greatly increased the number of candidates for possible inclusion in a revised form of the canon...How far, for example, does the Gospel of Thomas (which, of all the tractates in the Nag Hammadi library, seems to be closest to the New Testament) meet the criteria of apostolicity and orthodoxy, however narrowly or broadly one defines these elusive standards? ....the evaluation of modern readers will no doubt corroborate that of the early Church, namely, that in the Gospel of Thomas the voice of the Good Shepherd [see #7, 196-197 (shepherd)] is heard in only a muffled way, and that it is, in fact, often distorted beyond recognition by the presence of supplementary and even antagonistic voices." [271-272]. "attempts at the time of the Reformation to set aside certain books that proved to be awkward or embarrassing in ecclesiastical controversy should make us exceedingly wary in assessing our own motives and standards in evaluating the canonical status of the several books in the New Testament. How easily an individual can err in these matters is shown by the untenable judgements of Luther [1483 - 1546] on the Epistles of James, of Jude, to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse [Revelation]—judgements that originated in his inability to appreciate the Christian message conveyed by these books and in his one-sided preference for others." [273]. "it is legitimate to ask the question why the New Testament should have to be consistent in all its parts. Why should all the writers have to think alike on all subjects in order to be included in the canon? ....the differences that exist among the books of the New Testament, and even within the several writings of the same author, are not so much the cause of divisions in the Church today as reflections of theological pluralism [compare: heresy] within the primitive Christian communities themselves.26" [278, 279].
[more amusement!]. "In most discussions of the canon of the New Testament little or no attention is paid to the basic question whether the canon should be described as a collection of authoritative books or as an authoritative collection of books." [282]. [solution: delete the word authoritative]. "the canon is invested with dogmatic significance arising from the activity of canonization. In one case the Church recognizes the inherent authority of the Scriptures; in the other she creates their authority by collecting them and placing on the collection the label of canonicity." [Authority! (Presumption!)] [283]. "The knowledge that our New Testament contains the best sources for the HISTORY OF JESUS [see #3, 41-104] is the most valuable knowledge that can be obtained from study of the early history of the canon. In fact, whatever judgment we may form of the Christianity of the earliest times, it is certain that those who discerned the limits of the canon had a clear and balanced perception of the gospel of Jesus Christ." [287]. Excursus: from: Dictionary of the New Testament, Xavier Léon-Dufour, Tr. Terrence Prendergast, Harper & Row, 1980 (c1975 France). 'Jesus Christ 1. Gk. I_sous, from the Heb. Yéshûa', Yehôshûa': "Yahweh saves." A name borne before Jesus of Nazareth [see #20, 405 (no Nazareth!)] by Joshua*1 and, probably, by Barabbas.*2 It is through the name* of Jesus of Nazareth that man is to be saved.3 The compound name "Jesus Christ" extols the name of a person (Jesus) as well as a functional title (Gk. Christos: "the Anointed* One"), thereby inseparably uniting THE HISTORIC [SIC!] PERSON and the object of faith; frequent in the Acts of the Apostles, the designation is rare in the gospels.4 1Nm 27:18-23. 2Mt 27:16f. 3Acts 4:12; Phil 2:9-11. 4Mt 1:1, 18; 16:21; Mk 1:1; Jn 1:17; 17:3 _.' [246].
1 Ex 17:8-13; Nm 11:28; 13:16; Sir 46:1; Acts 7:45; Heb 4:8 _.' [253]. — — — Excursus: from: The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Edited by Colin Brown, Paternoster, 1976 (1971 German). "Christ is derived via the Lat. Christus from the Gk. Christos, which in the LXX [Septuagint (first Greek translation of the Old Testament, c. 250 - c. 150 B.C.E.)] and the NT is the Gk. equivalent of the Aram. mešîhÆ'. This in turn corresponds to the Heb. mÆšîah and denotes someone who has been ceremonially anointed for an office". [334]. 'Among Palestinian Jews and also among the Jews of the dispersion the name Jesus was fairly widely distributed in the pre-Christian period and in the early part of the Christian era. According to Aristeas 48 f. (2nd cent. B.C.; more exact dating disputed), it was borne by two of the Palestinian scholars who were engaged on the translation of the Heb. Pentateuch into Gk. in Alexandria. We are probably led further back still, chronologically, by Jesus ben Sirach, the author of the Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus ["Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach" (c. 180 B.C.E.) (Ox. Bible with Apocrypha, 1965, 128)]) in the Apocrypha (cf. Sir. 50:27). The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus [c. 37 - c. 100 C.E.], who lived in the 1st cent. A.D. and came from a Palestinian priestly family, names no fewer than 19 bearers of the name Jesus [see #3, 73-75] in his voluminous writings in Gk. These come both from the ancient and the recent history of his people and about half were contemporaries of "Jesus the so-called Christ" [Forgery! (see #3, 73-76)] whom he also mentions (Ant. 20, 9, 1).' [331]. — — —
"In various forms...[Greek word ("Christ")] occurs 529 times altogether in the NT,235 379 of these being in Paul [Ecclesiastical Corporation (see #4, 116, 123, 124, 129 (105-151)] alone, 22 in 1 Pt., 37 in Luke's writings (Lk. 12 and Ac. 25), 19 in the Johannine material, the others distributed among the rest of the books. It is striking how small a share of the total use is to be found in the Synpt. Gospels, 7 instances in Mk., 12 in Lk. and 17 in Mt., cf. 19 in Jn. From...[Greek word ("Christ")] also comes the term...[Greek word] "Christians" for believers in Christ (® 536, 35 ff.) and in the post-apost. period we also find...[Greek word (Christianism ["Christianity"])] to denote their faith and fellowship ® 576, 7 ff.; 577, 15 ff." [See: #2, 22-23 (Propaganda)]. "originally NONE OF THE DOCUMENTS NOW INCLUDED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT HAD THE TITLES TO WHICH WE HAVE BECOME ACCUSTOMED in the headings of the different books in traditional English versions....Only after several Gospels or several Epistles had been collected together was there need for separate designations in order to distinguish one from another." [302]. Excursus: from: #1, 4, 29.: Edgar J. Goodspeed, Famous "Biblical" Hoaxes Originally entitled, Modern Apocrypha, Baker, 1956 (1931), vi-vii. "the five books of Moses were the divisions into which the Greek translators in the third century B.C. broke up the inordinate length of the Hebrew Torah, substituting what the Greek publishing world regarded as scrolls of practical length--twenty-five to thirty feet....In breaking the Hebrew Torah up into five such convenient units the GREEKS gave names to each scroll--Genesis, Exodos, Levitikon, Arithmoi, Deuteronomion--aptly indicative of the contents of each."
• • • from: Adolph Harnack [1851 - 1930] History of Dogma, Russell and Russell, Vol. 2, 1958. [See: 414 (Harnack)]. 'Addendum.—The results arising from the formation of a part of early Christian writings into a canon, which was a great and meritorious act of the Church,1 [see footnote 1, below] notwithstanding the fact that it was forced on her by a combination of circumstances, may be summed up in a series of antitheses. (1) The New Testament, or group of "apostolic" writings formed by selection, preserved from destruction one part, and undoubtedly the most valuable one, of primitive Church literature; but it caused all the rest of these writings, as being intrusive, or spurious, or superfluous, to be more and more neglected, so that they ultimately perished.2' [see footnote 2, below]. [footnote] "1No greater CREATIVE ACT can be mentioned in the whole history of the Church than the formation of the apostolic [pseudonymous!] collection and the assigning to it of a position of equal rank with the Old Testament." [footnote] "2]The history of EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS in the Church which were not definitely admitted into the New Testament is instructive on this point. The fate of some of these may be described as tragical. EVEN WHEN THEY ["EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS"] WERE NOT BRANDED AS DOWNRIGHT FORGERIES, THE WRITINGS OF THE FATHERS FROM THE FOURTH CENTURY DOWNWARDS WERE FAR PREFERRED TO THEM." [62]. PAGE 430 "(6) The Fact of the New Testament being placed on a level with the Old proved the most effective means of preserving to the latter its canonical authority, which had been so often assailed in the second century. But at the same time it brought about an examination of the relation between the Old and New Testaments, which, however, also involved an enquiry into the connection between Christianity and pre-christian revelation. The immediate result of this investigation was not only a theological exposition of the Old Testament, but also A THEORY which ceased to view the two Testaments as of equal authority and SUBORDINATED THE OLD TO THE NEW. This result, which can be plainly seen in Irenaeus [c. 130 - c. 200 (St.)], Tertullian [c. 160 - c. 220], and Origen [c. 185 - c. 254], led to exceedingly important consequences.1 It gave some degree of insight into statements, hitherto completely unintelligible, in certain New Testament writings, and it caused the Church to reflect upon a question that had as yet been raised only by heretics, viz., what are the marks which distinguish Christianity from the Old Testament religion? An historical examination imperceptibly arose; but the old notion of the inspiration of the Old Testament confined it to the narrowest limits, and in fact always continued to forbid it; for, as before, appeal was constantly made to the Old Testament as a Christian book which contained all the truths of religion in a perfect form. Nevertheless the conception [whose?] of the Old Testament was here and there full of contradictions.1" [footnote] "1....If the New Testament had not been formed, the Church would perhaps have obtained a Christian Old Testament with numerous INTERPOLATIONS....The creation of the New Testament preserved the purity [sic!] of the Old, for it removed the need of doing VIOLENCE to the latter IN THE INTERESTS OF CHRISTIANITY." [64-65]. "In practice it continued to be the rule for the New Testament to take a secondary [to the Old Testament] place in apologetic writings and disputes with heretics.1" [footnote] '1We must not, however, ascribe that to conscious mistrust, for Irenaeus and Tertullian bear very decided testimony against such an idea, but to the acknowledgment that it was impossible to make any effective use of the New Testament Scriptures in arguments with educated non-Christians and heretics. For these writings [New Testament] could carry no weight with the former ["educated non-Christians"], and the latter ["heretics"] either did not recognise them or else interpreted them by different rules. Even the offer of several of the Fathers to refute the Marcionites from their own canon must by no means be attributed to an uncertainty on their part with regard to the authority of the ecclesiastical canon of Scripture. We need merely add that the extraordinary difficulty originally felt by Christians in conceiving the Pauline Epistles, for instance, to be analogous and equal in value to Genesis or the prophets occasionally appears in the terminology even in the third century, in so far as the term "divine writings" continues to be more frequently applied to the Old Testament than to certain parts of the New.' [66].
[footnote] "2The Catholic Church had from the beginning a very clear consciousness of the dangerousness of many New Testament writings, in fact she made a virtue of necessity in so far as she set up a theory to prove the unavoidableness of this danger. See Tertullian [c. 160 - c. 220], de praescr. passim, and de resurr. 63." [65]. [footnote (not referenced above)] "3To a certain extent the New Testament disturbs and prevents the tendency to summarise the faith and reduce it to its most essential content. For it not only puts itself in the place of the unity of a system, but frequently also in the place of a harmonious and complete creed. Hence the rule of faith [which?] ["(Regula Fidei)....statements of Christian belief which circulated in the 2nd-cent. Church...." (Ox. Dict. C.C., 1997)] is necessary as a guiding principle, and even an imperfect one ["rule of faith"] is better than a mere haphazard reliance upon the Bible." [65-66]. • • • from: The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford, 1974. "Apologetics. The defence of the Christian faith on intellectual grounds by trained theologians and philosophers [Apologists]. Historically this work began with the presentation of the case for Christianity to non-Christians by the 2nd-cent. *Apologists.... the scope of Christian apologetics falls into three parts: (1) to show that it is more reasonable [sic!] to have a religion than not; (2) to show that Christianity can give a more rational [sic!] account of itself than any other religion; (3) to show that it is more reasonable [sic!] to profess orthodox Christianity than any other form. It is not generally claimed that the essential truth of Christianity is certainly demonstrable by purely logical or scientific methods, but it is maintained that it is possible to show by these means ["purely logical or scientific methods"] that its acceptance is entirely [sic!] in accordance with the demands of reason." [73].
from: New Testament Apocrypha, Wilhelm Schneemelcher, Gospels and Related Writings, James Clark & Co, Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991 (c1990 Tübingen). "General Introduction... The concept 'NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA' IS PROBABLY FORMED ON THE ANALOGY OF THAT OF THE 'OLD TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA'. The latter designation is generally given to the writings of which Luther [1483 - 1546] says that 'while they are not regarded as being on an equality with Holy Writ, they yet make useful and good reading'." [9]. "the 'prophetic-apostolic principle'. 'THE OLD TESTAMENT WAS WRITTEN BY PROPHETS [WRITERS!], THE NEW BY APOSTLES [WRITERS!]....'" [28]. [See: #15, 338 (Apostles)]. "It is clear from all kinds of quotations and references in early Christian writers that there was a considerable number of apocryphal gospels. Sometimes quotations are given from these works, but elsewhere only the title is mentioned. We may also suspect in some statements in the Church literature that the gospel named by the author concerned never [?] actually existed (e.g. the gospels of Cerinthus, Apelles, Bardesanes). Some gospels which were formerly known only by name [see preceding 3 lines] have come to light in recent decades through papyrus and manuscript discoveries (e.g. the Gospel of Peter, the Coptic Gospel of Thomas), and are included in the present collection." [92]. — — —
'Our long acquaintance with the canonical sources has, to a degree, predisposed us to regard the apocryphal, or "hidden," traditions as evidence of the simplicity of the first age of Christian believers. This preference for canonical stories presupposes that the tales of God's supernatural dealings with the world as recorded in the Bible are somehow truer than the ones that were excluded from the canon, a view which many biblical scholars and historians today find, at best, a SENTIMENTAL ATTACHMENT TO FAMILIAR MYTHS. If the episodes above [from apocryphal stories] possess the incredible sound of the unfamiliar, the stories of Jesus feeding the five thousand (or four thousand), crossing the sea of Galilee on foot (a shallow lake it was, quipped the philosopher Porphyry [c. 232 - c. 303]), changing water to wine at his mother's behest, raising the dead, and casting out a legion of demons at Gadara hardly constitute a sober report against which to measure the accuracy of noncanonical texts.' [10-11] 'It was once said by a German church historian [possibly: Adolph von Harnack 1851 -1930] that the theological problem for the church in the second century was not in getting people to believe that Jesus was God, BUT IN CONVINCING THEM THAT HE [JESUS] WAS A MAN [see: 410 (Sandmel); 422 (Grant)]. The apocryphal or "secret" gospels shed considerable light on the seriousness of that problem.' [11]. "In dealing with the issue of the canon, therefore, the bishop-teachers of the second and third centuries had one eye on consensus (which meant on each other) and another on rival teachers, heretics, and pagans. The greatest spur to forming a canon other than the rivalry itself was the need to assert clearly to the pagan world [more rivalry!]—a world of religio-philosophical sophistication where precedent, antiquity, and historical groundedness mattered considerably—what body of literature should be considered definitely Christian. The answer was fairly simple: that literature which was commissioned by Christ, dictated through the spirit, written by apostolic men, and EXPLAINED BY THEIR SUCCESSORS. Such logic did not, of course, quell the pagan criticism of the new faith, nor stem the proliferation of dissident opinion (heresy), but the logic itself was perfectly sound." [22-23]. 'With respect to attribution, the [apocryphal] books resemble Jewish midrashim and the Old Testament apocrypha. TO SECURE AUTHORITY OR CREDIBILITY, THEY ARE WRITTEN UNDER THE HONORARY NAME OF AN APOSTLE OR SOME OTHER PROMINENT FIGURE. Put flatly, THEY ARE FORGED, but then SO ARE MANY [ALL!] OF THE CANONICAL NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS—and for just the same reason. Thus we possess "gospels" attributed to James, Peter, Bartholomew, Mary, and Nicodemus; Acts of Peter, Paul, John, Andrew and Thomas, and Pontius Pilate; apocalypses of Peter, Paul, and Thomas. The list is as impressive as the ascriptions are unconvincing.' [24-25].
'in the infancy legends the incidence of the commonplace increases: Zechariah, the husband of Mary's cousin Elizabeth and Joseph's literary "twin," is a laughingstock because he cannot father sons; Elizabeth goes through a period of depression because her husband seems to have deserted her; Mary's parents, Joachim and Anna, despite their promises to God, cannot bear the thought of parting with the two-year-old prodigy God has given them; Joseph openly feels betrayed that Mary has become pregnant by another man in his absence; and the young Jesus grieves publicly by his pseudo-father's beside at Joseph's death. These "human" touches are not prominent in the canonical sources, and their increase in the apocrypha can be explained only by looking to the audience for whom the accounts were composed. On the whole, they were the average Christians of the third and fourth centuries, whose everyday concerns and values found an echo in the tribulations of the family of Jesus.' [36-37]. [earlier "soap operas"!]. 'much of what we find in gospels written in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries [and second and third centuries] would seem to suggest an interest in the "ENTERTAINMENT VALUE" of the story form, and it is that value, finally, which determines the survival of the apocryphal tradition in the Middle Ages [compare: the canonical tradition, to the present].' [39]. 'Luther, who later became a critic of the apocryphal books as "Latin fictions," himself had become a monk "at the summons of St. Anne, mother of Mary."' [40]. 'Oscar Cullmann has said that IN ANTIQUITY, THE MIDDLE AGES, AND THE RENAISSANCE, THE APOCRYPHAL INFANCY NARRATIVES "EXERCISED MORE INFLUENCE ON LITERATURE AND ART THAN THE BIBLE ITSELF."' [40].
[Endnote] '14. ...the Book of James (Protevangelium), written in the early second century (>150 C.E.) was popular with Ebionite (Jewish) Christians, the Greek fathers, and in the Syrian, Coptic, and Armenian churches because of its high regard for Mary's virginity and the "theory" it advances that Jesus' brothers, mentioned in the gospels, were in fact Joseph's sons by a previous marriage. Condemnation of the gospel came from Jerome, who argued that the brothers were, in fact, cousins. The church historian Eusebius [Eusebius of Caesarea c. 264 - 340] (Church History 3.3) doubts the authenticity of 2 Peter (which was finally included in the NT canon) and notes disputes about the Epistle to the Hebrews ("which is spoken against as not being Paul's in the Roman church"), but commends the use of the Acts of Paul (apocryphal) and the Shepherd of Hermas as being good for instruction.' [177]. [Endnote] "23. Luther, however, uses the story of hell's harrowing in Ein feste Berg and was proudly influenced by monastic RENDITIONS of apocryphal stories." [178].
[See: #17, 360-362 (FICTION AS HISTORY)].
from: Encyclopaedia Biblica, "Old-Christian Literature", W.C. van Manen [1842 -1905], Adam and Charles Black, Vol. III, MCMII. "the books of the NT were originally COINCIDENT with what subsequently came to be described as Old-Christian literature. They ["books of the NT"] form part of it ["Old- Christian literature"]—an essential and highly interesting and important—nay, the most important part. The old distinction between canonical and non-canonical books as regards this literature must be abandoned; NT Introduction and Patristic must no longer be separate studies, they must be amalgamated in that of Old-Christian literature. In principle this has been recognised at various times during the course of the nineteenth century, and especially within the last decades, under the influence of a growing interest in the examples of Old-Christian literature which had not attained canonicity". [3473]. — — — from: Ancient Christian Gospels, Their History and Development, Helmut Koester, 1990. 'My Study of the gospel traditions in the Apostolic Fathers had brought me to the conclusion that gospel materials that were not dependent upon the canonical writings might indeed have survived well into the second century. But I was also aware of the PREVAILING OPINION, which saw ALL APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS AS WORKS THAT CAME INTO EXISTENCE AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE CANONICAL WRITINGS. Attempts to discover in apocryphal materials pre-canonical traditions regularly met with severe criticism.... The publication of the Gospel of Thomas [from the Nag Hammadi discovery, 1945-6 (see 426)] in the year 1959 marks the beginning of a change. Equally important, however, was the rediscovery of Walter Bauer's Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum, which had been published in 1934. The appearance of a second edition of this epochal work thirty years after its original publication and four years after the death of its author1 as well as the publication of an English translation2 ["2Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971)."] signified a fundamental change in the climate of scholarship. It seemed as if almost two millennia of discrimination against those whom the Fathers of the church had labelled as "heretics" would come to an end.' [xxix-xxx].
from: History of the First Council of Nice, A World's Christian Convention, A.D. 325: With a Life of Constantine [280? - 337 (Emperor 306 (312) - 337)], Seventh Edition, Dean Dudley [1823 - 1906], Attorney at Law, and Member of Various Historical Societies, New York, Peter Eckler, 1925 (c1886). [a Classic!] [a "Must See" book!]. [See (Constantine): #6, 171-174 #8, 208; #10, 239; #13, 324; #16, 354; #20, 397]. "INTRODUCTION. The words Council, Synod, and Convention are synonymous. There were many Councils held in Christendom before that of Nice [Nicaea A.D. 325]; but they were not Ecumenical, that is, general or universal. At the first Councils the bishops probably represented only their several churches, but they gradually assumed more extensive powers, and claimed to represent larger districts.... In this history of a single Council we shall obtain a glimpse of the condition of the Christian Church of that day, Constantine, the great emperor of Rome, being decidedly the most conspicuous figure in the picture." ["3"]. "IT IS STRANGE NO PUBLIC PRAYERS WERE OFFERED AT THE COUNCIL. Another canon forbids the election of a eunuch to the office of bishop. To degrade manhood was deemed by some the best way to exalt their religion." [5]. 'NO MENTION IS MADE OF THE BIBLE BEING READ PUBLICLY IN THE MEETINGS OF THE "GREAT AND HOLY SYNOD," as it was called. St. Jerome [c. 342 - 420] said that he had heard from one of the fathers that the book of Judith was approved at Nicaea. But no other early writer mentions it. Historians often remark that the fathers had a way of interpreting Scripture different from ours, in these days. Constantine [280? - 337], in his "Oration to the Saints," speaks of the Garden of Eden as being located in some other world; and this was the belief of Tertullian [c. 160 - c. 220] and several other Christian writers, as Tatian [died c. 185], Clement of Alexandria [c. 150 - c. 215], Origen [c. 185 - c. 254], Jerome [c. 342 - 420], &c. We can't help mistrusting the sincerity of some of the early Greek converts, who, immediately upon espousing the new religion, began to write books and sign the names of celebrated apostles or martyrs to their devout productions. The Epistle to the Hebrews, ascribed to Paul, is one of these. But it was so well done that many were willing to accept it as inspired. All the best critics say it cannot be Paul's writing, although it seems to contain his [Ecclesiastical Corporation! (see #4, 116, 123, 124, 129)] ideas, expressed by some other author.' [5-6]. PAGE 440 'The Apocalypse [Revelation] is another doubtful book. Modern criticism even rejects portions of the four evangelists. It would be remarkable that an unlettered Galilean, should have introduced into his book the Platonic "LOGOS," [see #15, 338 (Logos)] that is, "WORD," just as the great philosopher used it, and LAID THE VERY BOTTOM FOUNDATION OF THE NICENE CREED. Does any one nowadays undertake to prove that John, the disciple of Jesus, wrote that book, or even dictated it? Then there was a work called the Shepherd of Hermas, that many early Christians took to be inspired; but they couldn't tell who was the author. IT WAS MADE TO SELL TO THE FAITHFUL, SIMPLE SOULS, who looked only at the surface of such works. THE STORY PLEASED THEM, being in saintly style, although a rather low style.' [6]. "The Nicene fathers argued that the pagan religion was derived from the poets; and, therefore, was not of divine origin. But how could they deem that an objection, seeing that the prophets of the Old Testament were nearly all poets? And the most ancient religious books of various nations were sacred poems. It seems to me that faith and hope, which are considered the principal parts of religion, are peculiarly poetical themes. They are not scientific deductions, or historical facts. All men have capacity to enjoy them, whereas but few can comprehend or appreciate a logical argument, or even understand what is sufficient evidence to establish great theological dogmas. Most people must, therefore, necessarily found their belief upon the statements and practice of others [see #4, 146 (Schopenhauer)]; and SUCH THEORIES WILL BE CHOSEN, AS ARE PLEASING AND FLATTERING, whether in works of poetry or prose, provided they have been approved by custom and beloved forefathers. This DISPOSITION IN MANKIND [Homo sapiens—behavior!] accounts for the tenacity with which many absurd principles are retained in institutions that have come down to us from the dark ages. It is the duty of science to dispel and discourage such things." [7]. "Whether Jesus taught the doctrine of an eternal hell for punishment in the after life, is a question among doctors of divinity. Origen [c. 185 - c. 254] denied it. The Roman Catholic Church has adopted purgatory in imitation of the sheol, hades or tartarus. That [Catholic] church has many doctrines, forms and rites similar to those of the older religions [see: Robert Taylor, 421; Augustine, 460]. Jesus seems to have considered doing good deeds and living a pure life the true way to worship God." [End of Introduction] [8].
This decree for the general observance of Sunday* [see below] appears to have been issued A.D. 321, before which time both "the old and new Sabbaths" were observed by Christians. Gibbon [Edward Gibbon 1737 - 1794] says he called the Lord's Day "Dies solis," that is, the Day of the Sun, or Sun'sday. "This day," he said, "should be regarded as a special occasion for prayer." And he [Constantine] gave his soldiers the following form of prayer to use: "We acknowledge thee the only God; we own thee as our King, and implore thy succor. By thy favor we have gotten the victory: through thee are we mightier than our enemies. We render thanks for thy past benefits, and trust thee for future blessings. Together we pray to thee, and beseech thee long to preserve to us, safe and triumphant, our Emperor Constantine and his pious sons." He encouraged celibacy, of the old virgin stamp, having a great veneration for it.' [19-20]. '*It was not generally called "Sunday" before this time; probably, never so called. Constantine had claimed Apollo, the sun-god, as his patron, and even after becoming a Christian he stamped Apollo's image on one side of his coin, and the initials [? (complex)] of Christ on the other.' [20]. [See: #2, 20-22, 38-39 (Numismatics); #13, 263 (Numismatics); #20, 403 (Apollo and Christ)]. 'In a great oration addressed by him [Constantine] to the Assembly of the Saints, he declares that Providence rules all things like fate; that justice is ever done, and that men receive here what they merit from Heaven's almighty ruling hand. His precise words are,— "The events which befall men are consequent upon the tenor of their lives. Pestilence, sedition, famine, and plenty are all regulated with reference to our course of life."* [see below ("300,000 men", etc.)] In regard to the philosophers, who search into the secrets of nature, he [Constantine] remarks, that they often obscure the truth, when the subject of their reasoning surpasses their powers. So Socrates [469 - 399 B.C.E.] played constantly with the subtleties of controversy. And Plato [c. 428 - c. 348 B.C.E.], although he was sound in asserting that the word (logos) is God, and also the Son of God, yet he errs by introducing a plurality of gods. Pythagoras [6th century B.C.E.] lied when he said that his knowledge came directly as a revelation [see #4, 146 (Schopenhauer)] from God, for he received it from the Egyptian priests. "The soul of man is eternal," says Constantine; "but all things which had a beginning must have an end." The coming of Christ, he asserts, was predicted by the prophets, the sibyls, and sublime poets. Even Virgil [70 - 19 B.C.E.] refers to the Christians, where he sings,- "Behold a new, a heaven-born race appears."' [21-22]. [See (Virgil): #3, 65].
'The principal faults of this founder [Constantine] of the Christian power in Rome were, according to Mosheim [Johann Lorenz Mosheim 1694 - 1755], Gibbon [Edward Gibbon 1737 - 1794] and other historians, very similar to those of our English sovereign Henry VIII. [1491 - 1547], founder of the Protestant ascendency in Great Britain. He was wilful, voluptuous, and self-conceited. His heart was capable of extreme cruelty, as shown by his acts toward several of his near relatives.* Even a son, named Crispus, fell a victim to his jealous resentment.† He assumed that he was born to reign, and held his commission from God. The flattery of the prelates might have augmented this conceit; for it was sometimes excessively fulsome. Eusebius [Eusebius of Caesarea c. 264 - 340] says, that on one occasion a Christian orator asserted, in the emperor's presence, that he would share the Empire of Heaven with Christ in the world to come. See Life of Constantine, book IV. chap. 48; English translation of 1845'. [23]. '*Gibbon says, that, after Constantine had put his wife's father [Maximian] to death, in Gaul, he gained a victory over the Franks and Allemanni, and gave their chiefs to be devoured by wild beasts in the public ampitheatre of Treves. Another historian says, a great number of the French youth were also exposed to the same cruel and ignominious death. "Yet," says Gibbon, "his reign in Gaul, excepting his destruction of Maximian [c. 250 - 310 (conspired against Constantine; apparently, compelled to suicide) (father of Maxentius, and Fausta)], seems to have been the most innocent and even virtuous period of his life."' [23]. '†JULIAN CHARGED HIS UNCLE, CONSTANTINE, who was also the father of his wife, with being "A VOLUPTUARY, A PROFLIGATE AND A MURDERER." Dean Stanley says, he put to death five of his near relatives, one being his wife, Fausta, and one, an eleven-year old son of Licinius and his wife Constantia, Constantine's half-sister.' [23]. "Constantine favored the Arians very much in some parts of his life, being under the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia [died c. 342], by whom he was baptized and other Arian courtiers." [23-24].
The spear of the soldier was ever in his hand, and a helmet on his head, studded with jewels, and bound round with the Oriental diadem. He wore it on all occasions. His robe, of imperial purple or scarlet, was made of silk, richly embroidered with pearls and flowers, worked in gold. He took much care of his hair, at last wearing wigs of false hair, of various colors. His beard was shorn like that of the early Caesars. His appetite was voracious, gluttonous. His wit was crisp and dry. He never lost his presence of mind.— Stanley [Arthur Penrhyn Stanley 1815 - 1881 ("dean of Westminster", etc. [Cam. Bio. Dict.])]." [24]. "Other writers say that Fausta [second wife of Constantine] was the instigator of the murder of her stepson, Crispus. And they say Constantine so much repented of his cruelty, that he had her killed soon after, by being suffocated in a boiling hot bath. Philostorgius [c. 368 - c. 439] says the emperor murdered two wives, and that his three sons, who succeeded him were the sons of an adulteress. He declares that Fausta was innocent. Helena [c. 255 - c. 330 (St.)], the aged mother of Constantine, lamenting the fall of Crispus, soon revenged it; and Fausta was accused of adultery with a slave.* Her condemnation quickly followed; although she and Constantine had been husband and wife for twenty years, and had four daughters † and three sons, viz., Constantine, Constantius, and Constans, who became heirs to the Roman empire." [25-26]. 'Mosheim says, "Constantine's life was not [sic!] such as the precepts of Christianity required." He put to death his own son, and his wife Fausta, on a groundless suspicion, and cut off [authored the deaths of] his brother-in-law Licinius and the unoffending son of Licinius, contrary to his plighted word. Nevertheless, the Greek Church has canonized him, and adores the memory of St. Constantine.' [26]. "HE [Constantine] WAS TAUGHT by the bishops that God sent his only Son to be crucified for the benefit of mankind; therefore a sovereign might order his son to be sacrificed for the good and peace of society. Under the influence of such fanaticism, he perhaps committed all his bloody crimes without feeling their real enormity. But his character and influence cast a dark shade over the Christianity [see #5, 162-163 (The Dark Side of Christian History)] which he established." [27-28].
Which I translate,— "The golden times of Saturn, who'd restore? Hosius [c. 256 - 357/8 (Bishop of Córdoba)], the emperor's counsellor in the West, came to Rome about that time with Helena [mother of Constantine], and relieved him of his deep distress, by assuring him that THERE ARE NO SINS SO GREAT, BUT IN CHRISTIANITY THEY MAY FIND FORGIVENESS. The emperor has been charged with a great many crimes besides these, which are proved. He was said to have sought absolution from the pagan priests, and even had an infant sacrificed and its entrails examined at the suggestion of a Jew. Many suspicions and legends against him are quoted at length by both heathen and Christian historians.' [28].
†The Roman Catholic Church recognizes twenty [21?] General Councils,—the first A.D. 50, the second, 325, at Nicaea, and the last, 1870; but there was no general council held in the year 50, according to the best authorities, so that the Council of Nice was unquestionably the first that was ever convened, and certainly it is the most celebrated in the whole history of the Christian Church. ECUMENICAL COUNCILS
"†Of the ten persecutions, the first [a popular story, but questionable] was that of Nero, A.D. 64; the second, of Domitian, A.D. 95; the third of Trajan, 107; the fourth of Adrian, 118; the fifth of Caracalla, 212; the sixth, of Maximin, 235; the seventh, of Decius, 250; the eighth, of Valerian, 257; the ninth of Aurelian, 274; and the tenth, and most severe, was begun on Christmas [see #13, 271-286, 307-327] Day, A.D. 303, under DIOCLETIAN, when the emperor ordered the doors of the Christian church of Nicomedia to be barred, and then burnt the edifice with every soul within, the number being six hundred [(?) see 447-448, 450 (Diocletian)]. Nicomedia, the chief city of Bithynia, was then the seat of the imperial court, Constantinople not being made such until A.D. 328." [53]. [See: #13, 322-323 (Delehaye)].
[1997 edition: some problems (size, readability, "spins", etc.). Consult, and compare, earlier editions. Compare, for example: "apologetics".]. [Diocletian] "Diocletian (Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus) (245—313), Roman Emperor from 284 to 305....Endowed with immense energy, great gifts of organization, and a mind dominated by logic, he made it his main purpose to stabilize and reform the Empire....On 1 May 305 he formally abdicated at Nicomedia, compelling his reluctant colleague Maximian to take the same step. He lived his last years in retirement at his large palace at Spalato [Salona] (Split)." [483]. "For the greater part of his [Diocletian] reign the Christians seem to have enjoyed the tranquility which had been theirs since the Rescript of Gallienus [Roman Emperor 253 - 268] (260). Only the *Manichees were repressed, by an edict of c. 298 (dated 31 March but without the year), as a sect lately originating in Persia. It was in 303 that the Great *Persecution broke out. An edict issued at Nicomedia on 23 Feb. enjoined the demolition of churches and the burning of Christian books. Some incidents which followed (fires in the palace at Nicomedia, reports of unrest at Melitene and in Syria) led to further edicts. The next two were directed solely against the clergy. The punishment inflicted for resistance was imprisonment, torture, and, in some cases, death. A fourth edict issued early in 304 enjoined sacrifice to the gods on all subjects. The persecution brought a considerable number of martyrs. Its severity varied in different parts of the Empire acc. to the changing fortunes of the Imperial rulers in the next decade. Its final collapse was due to *Constantine's defeat of Maxentius [Roman Emperor 306 - 312] at the *Milvian Bridge on 28 Oct. 312 and the 'Edict of *Milan' [Fiction!] [see #6, 173; #8, 206] (q.v.) early in the next year." [483].
"Diocletian apparently believed that the piety of the old religion was essential for divine protection, and that men were not entitled to set up their private judgement against traditional wisdom. On the latter principle he banned *Manichaeism c. 298. The execution of the centurion Marcellus in Mauretania for refusing to participate in official cults prob. took place in 298. In 299 he took steps to purge the army and court of Christians, but only in 303, perhaps under the influence of *Galerius [(d. 311) Roman Emperor 305 - 311, with Constantius Chlorus (father of Constantine), joint ruler Roman Empire], did he issue edicts of general persecution. The first, in 303, was designed to avoid bloodshed: churches were to be demolished and the Scriptures seized and burnt, Christians were not to assemble, those of high rank were to lose their social and legal privileges, and sacrificing was required as a precondition of bringing legal suits. Then the Christians were held to have sought his life; and further edicts ordered first the incarceration of the clergy, and then their punishment on refusal to sacrifice; finally sacrifice was enjoined on all subjects. A fearful persecution ensued throughout the empire [?], though only the first edict was given effect in the W., and in Gaul and Britain Constantius Chlorus [(c. 250 - 306) Roman Emperor 305 - 306 (father of Constantine (280? - 337))] was content merely to pull down the churches." [1258]. "Christian emperors, from Constantine [Emperor 306 (312) - 337] onwards, placed the Church in an increasingly privileged position; the anti-Christian policy of *Julian [Emperor 361 - 363], Constantine's only pagan successor, hardly amounted to persecution; and FROM THE TIME OF *THEODOSIUS I [Emperor 379 - 395] THE STATE WAS TO COERCE PAGANS INTO CONVERSION, WITH MORE FERVOUR AND SUCCESS THAN IT ["THE STATE"] HAD SHOWN IN SUPPRESSING CHRISTIANITY." [1258]. [See: #18, 374 (McCabe)]. ["THE ARMENIANS WERE THE FIRST NATION TO EMBRACE CHRISTIANITY OFFICIALLY. They were converted by *Gregory the Illuminator, who was consecrated bishop by the Metropolitan of Caesarea in Cappadocia ["cen. modern Turkey"] in 314, and who baptized their king Tiridates III (or IV) (reigned 298 —? 330)." (Ox. Dict. C.C., 1997, 106)].
Excursus: from: A Classical Dictionary; J. Lempriere, D.D., The Eighteenth Edition, Corrected. T. Cadell, Strand; and W. Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh. 1837. [1788 to 1994] ["ix" to xxxii] [note: quotation marks omitted]. A Chronological Table, Before Christ.*
The world created in the 710th year of the Julian period 4004 The deluge — — — 2348 The tower of Babel built, and the confusion of languages 2247 Celestial observations are first made at Babylon — 2234 The Kingdom of Egypt is supposed to have begun under Misraim, 2188 [Note: Lemprière's [John Lemprière 1765? - 1824] Classical Dictionary, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984 (1788), begins the "Chronological Table" with: "Probable date of the Trojan War...c. 1200-1100 [B.C.]"]. A.D. The Tenth persecution against the Christians, which continues 303 ten years — — — 319 The Western Empire is destroyed by Odoacer, king of the Heruli, who assumes the title king of Italy.... 476 ....Fall of the Eastern Empire.... 1453 PAGE 449
"DiocletiÆnus, Caius Valerius Jovius [birth date, and death date, not given]....His cruelty...against the followers of Christianity has been deservedly branded with the appellation of unbounded tyranny and insolent wantonness. After he had reigned 21 years in the greatest prosperity, he publicly abdicated the crown at Nicomedia, on the First of May A.D. 304, and retired to a private station at Salona ["three or four miles to the north-east of Spalato" (R. Munro, 1900)]. Maximian, his colleague, followed his example, but not from voluntary choice; and when he some time after endeavoured to rouse the ambition of Diocletian, and persuade him to reassume the imperial purple, he received for answer, that Diocletian took now more delight in cultivating his little garden, than he formerly enjoyed in a palace, when his power was extended over all [sic!] the earth. He lived nine years after his abdication in the greatest security and enjoyment at Salona, and died in the 68th year of his age. Diocletian is the first sovereign who voluntarily resigned his power: a philosophical resolution, which, in a later age, was imitated [somewhat] by the emperor Charles the fifth [1500 - 1558 (Holy Roman Emperor 1519 - 1556)] of Germany." [End of entry] [256]. '*Stanley says [sources?],—"All eyes were fixed on Constantine. He cast round one of those bright glances of which he was master; and then, after a momentary self-recollection, addressed them in a short speech," &c. This suggestion about the "bright glance" might be a little improved [more conjecture (storytelling)] by adding that he slightly winked one eye to Pamphilus [c. 240 - 310 (St.)], his future historian. Stanley further records that the emperor spoke in Latin, because that was the court language; but very few of the HEARERS could understand him, as they WERE MOSTLY GREEKS.' [65]. PAGE 450 *In the discussions of the [Nicene] Creed, there were curious scenes, according to some writers. One reports that St. Nicholas [(?) 300 - 399], the red-faced bishop of Myra, whom we sometimes call "Santa Claus," got so enraged at Arius, that he slapped him on the jaw. And when a song was repeated out of Thalia, the bishops kept their eyes fast shut and stopped their ears. When the Arian Creed [see second draft, below], signed by 18 bishops was produced, the other 100 bishops tore it in pieces and ejected Arius from the Council. His book, Thalia, was burnt on the spot, and so many copies were soon destroyed, that it became a very rare work. THE WHOLE CHRISTIAN WORLD HAS ALTERED THE NICENE CREED, in some respects, in order to make it conform to common sense, as Stanley thinks. The statement of Athanasius is, that "Arius was anathematized, and his Thalia condemned." He was then banished into Illyricum, by the emperor, who sent edicts to all parts of his empire denouncing him and his doctrines, and even threatening those who should dare to speak well of the exiled bishops, or to adopt their sentiment. The concealment of any of his writings was made a capital crime, as Constantine's epistles will unmistakably prove.' [69-70]. 'Arius [d. 336] and Euzoius ["bishop of Caesarea in the later half of the 4th century."] came, and presented [when Arius was recalled from exile in Illyricum] to the emperor their declaration of faith. It was as follows:—"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, and in the Lord Jesus Christ his Son, who was made of Him before all ages; God the Word, by whom all things were made, which are in the heavens and upon the earth; who descended, became incarnate, suffered, rose again, ascended into the heavens, and will again come to judge the living and the dead. We believe, also, in the Holy Spirit, in the resurrection of the flesh, in the life of the coming age, in the kingdom of the heavens, and in one Catholic Church of God extending over the whole earth."' [71]. [This second draft ("spin") "worked"! Constantine granted Arius a full pardon [71]].
Thalia means "The Banquet." Only fragments of this work are extant, and they are in the works of Athanasius. Thalia was partly in prose and partly in verse. Athanasius quotes passages, as follows: "God has not always been Father; later he became so. The Son is not from eternity; He came from nothing. When God wished to create us, He first created a being which He called the Logos [see #15, 338 (Logos)], Sophia, and Son, who should create us as an instrument...." "The Logos does not perfectly know the Father. He cannot entirely understand his own nature. The substance of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are entirely different, the one from the other. "These three persons are, in their essence, thoroughly and infinitely dissimilar. "God is ineffable, and nothing (therefore not even the Son) is equal to or like Him, or of the same glory. "This eternal God made the Son before all creatures, and adopted Him for His Son. The Son has nothing in his own nature akin to God, and is not like to Him in essence." —Clark's Hefele. Sentences from Athanasius. Athanasius [c. 296 - 373 (St.)], in different parts of his works, above mentioned, expresses the following ideas, which will show how he was accustomed to argue certain points of doctrine, etc. Speaking of Arius, he says,—"He vomits forth the poison of impiety." "He trusts in the violence and menaces of Eusebius [apparently, "Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia" [died c. 342]]." "He puts forth the Thalia in imitation of the filthy Sotades." "He draws up a rescript of faith for Constantine, in which he conceals the venom of heresy, by usurping the naked words of Scripture." "He dies by a sudden, miraculous death, on the Sabbath day," and "His death is an argument against the Arian heresy." "Arius, the Sotadeän." "Arius, the Atheist." "Arius is like the serpent that deceived Eve." "The devil is the father of the Arian heresy." "The Thalia is of an effeminate style, being written in imitation of Sotades, an Egyptian poet." "Thalia is accustomed to be sung among tipplers." —See the complete extant works of St. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, edited by J.P. Migne, from which I translate.' [86]. |