 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
St. Chrysostom (407 A.D.) did not use Second John, Third John, Second Peter, Jude, and Revelation (Westcott, Canon, p.438), all of which are in the Bible now. He included the Wisdom of Jesus (Westcott, Canon, p. 438), a book which is not now in the Bible.
He rejected the Epistle of James, Second Peter, Second John, Third John, Jude, and Revelation (Westcott, Canon, p. 438), all of which are now in the Bible.
He rejected Second John, Third John, Second Peter, Jude and Revelation (Ibid., note 2).
There are three great manuscripts of the Greek Bible extant, the Sinaitic, the Vatican, and the Alexandrine. They are the high courts of appeal in all cases of disputed texts, and their lists are, therefore, very important.
The Clermont Codex is a Latin manuscript now in the Imperial Library at Paris, and dating from the fifth to the eighth century, contains a list of the books read in the African Church in the third century (Davidson, The Canon of the Bible, p. 145). The New Testament omits Philippians, First Thessalonians, and Second Thessalonians, which are not in the Bible, and inserts the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul, and the Revelation of Peter, which are not now in it (Westcott, Canon, 555). The Epistle which is now called "to the Hebrews" is there called the Epistle to Barnabas (Ibid., 557).
In 419 A.D. another council was held at Carthage., and St. Augustine's list was again ratified (Davidson, The Canon of the Bible, p. 199)
The reader would err greatly did he suppose that in these assemblies one or two hundred gentlemen sat down to discuss quietly and dignifiedly the questions which had come before them for settlement. On the contrary, many of the bishops were ignorant ruffians, and were followed by crowds of vicious supporters who stood ready on the slighest excuse to maim and kill their opponents. The most shocking scenes that occur in the political conventions in the worst districts of our great cities and other nations are as nothing compared with what history tell us was common in these Christian councils. Dr. Phillip Schaff says:
"Together with abundant talents, attainments, and virtues, there were gathered also at the councils ignorance, intrigues, and partisan passions, which had already been excited on all sides by long controversies preceding and now met and arrayed themselves, as hostile armies, for open combat" (History of the Christian Church, by P Schaff, D.D., ii. 346).
Dear ones, this is who these supposed "Divine Revelations" were later canonized and today we are told the "Holy Spirit" decided for us what books were to be "authoritative" for faith and practice. It seems more likely "might made right!"
Dean Milman, the celebrated historian says:
"It might have been supposed that nowhere would Christianity appear in such commanding majesty as in a council, which should gather from all quarters of the world the most eminent prelates and the most distinguished clergy; that a lofty and serene piety would govern all their proceedings, and profound and dispassionate investigation exhaust every subject; that human passions and interest would stand rebuked before that awful assembly; that the sense of their own dignity as well as the desire of impressing their brethren with the solemnity and earnestness of their belief would at least exclude all intemperance of manner and language…History shows that melancholy reverse. Nowhere is Christianity less attractive, and if we look to the ordinary tone and character of the proceedings, less authoritative, than in the councils of the church. It is in general a fierce collision of two rival factions, neither of which will yield, each of which is solemnly pledged against conviction. Intrigue, injustice, violence, decisions on authority alone, and that the authority of a turbulent majority, decisions by wild acclamation rather then by sober inquiry, detract from the reverence, and impugn the judgments, at least of the later councils….rejoicing at the damnation imprecated against the humiliated adversary….the degeneracy is rapid from the council of Nicea to that of Ephesus, where each party came determined to use every means of haste, maneuver, court influence, bribery, to crush his adversary; where there was an encouragement of, if not an appeal to the violence of the populace, to anticipate the decrees of the council; where each had his own tumultuous foreign rabble to back his quarrel; and neither would scruple at any means to obtain the ratification of their anathemas through persecution by the evil government. (H.H. Milman, D.D., History of Latin Christianity, New York, 1871, p 226).
Gregory of Nazianzus, the Christian father, speaks of them as "assemblies of cranes and geese" (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, ii. 347). Utterly disgusted, he decline to have anything to do with them, saying:
"To tell the truth, I am inclined to shun every collection of bishops, because I have never yet seen that a synod came to a good end, or abated evils instead of increasing them. For in those assemblies (and I do not think I express myself too strongly here) indescribable contentiousness and ambition prevail….Therefore I have withdrawn myself, and have found rest to my soul only in solitude" (Ep. Ad. Procop., 55 old order, Schaff, Hist. Christ. Church, ii. 347).
The third general council of the church, which was held at Ephesus in 431 A.D., was marked by "shameful intrigue, uncharitable lust of condemnation, and coarse violence of conduct" (Schaff, Hist. Christ. Church, ii. 348). Both factions came with armed escorts, as if going to battle (Ibid., ii. 723-725), and were followed by great mobs of the ignorant rabble, slaves and seamen, the lower populace of Constantinople, peasants, and bathmen, and hordes of women, prepared for violence; the city was patrolled by troops (Ibid., i. 242), and Nestorius and John of Antioch had armed body guards to protect them from the violence of Cyril's party (Ibid., p. 242). The two bands fought in the streets and much blood was shed (Ibid., p. 242). At the reading of the imperial decree such a tumult arose that all the contending bishops were ordered under arrest (Ibid., i. 242).
An effort was made immediately after to hold a council in Constantinople, and such was the fear of a riot that it had to be adjourned to the suburban district across the Bosporus (Ibid., i. 242).
In August 449 A.D., there met in Ephesus a synod which occupies a notorious place in the scandals of church history, and which, from the fraud and violence by which everything was carried, and the odious character of its proceedings, has received the name of the "Robbers Council." Dioscorus presided with brutal violence (Schaff, Hist. Christ. Church, ii. 738), protected by soldiers. The fear of personal injury was so great that Flavian and his friends, composing one faction, hardly dared to open their lips, while Theodoret was excluded entirely. A communication, presented from Eusebius, was received by the crown with cries of "Let Eusebius be burnt; let him be burned alive. As he has cut Christ in two, so let him be cut in two" (Ibid., p. 738). Three delegates from Rome were so terrified, that they did not venture to read an epistle which they bore from Leo (Ibid., p. 738 ff.). The subject of the canon was, of course, not the only one discussed by councils. In fact, in many councils it was not referred to. Dioscorus and his party wished Flavian and his friends to sign a confession of that that Christ had but one nature. Flavian refused to do so. At a given signal the doors were thrown open, a band of soldiers and an armed mob rushed in, and the terrified bishops of the Flavian party were compelled, by blows and at the point of the sword, to sign (Mosheim, Eccl. Hist., Bk. 2, Cent. 5, pt. 2, ch. v). Where before there had been two parties there was now not alone a majority, but almost unanimity (Milman, Hist. Latin. Christ., i. 288). The decree having been signed, Dioscorus was no longer able to control his anger, and he struck the vanquished Flavian (Ibid., i. 289). Thus encouraged, a crown of infuriated monks set upon the unfortunate bishop of Jerusalem, crying "Kill him! Kill him!" and they beat and kicked him, and inflicted such injuries that death ensued shortly after (Ibid., i. 289, Scaff, Hist. Christ. Church., ii. 739). Dean Milman remarks, significantly, that this was not the last council defiled by blood (Milman, Hist. Latin. Christ., i. 289).
Another council, called to meet in Nicea in 451 A.D., was so unruly that it had to be summoned to Chalcedon, across the straits from Constantinople, where the emperor could reach it with his troops and compel order (Schaff, Hist. Christ. Church, ii. 742). It is known as the Council of Chalcedon. The proceeding were continually interrupted by yells and tumult (Ibid., ii. 743), and even the laymen were compelled to remind the bishops of their clerical dignity (Ibid., ii. 743). "At Chalcedon," says Dr. Philip Schaff, "the introduction of the renowned expositor and historian Theodoret provoked a scene which almost involuntarily reminds us of the modern brawls of Greek and Roman monks at the holy sepulchre under the restraining influence of the Turkish police. Theodoret's Egyptian opponents shouted with all their might: 'Away with him, this teacher of Nestorius.' His friends replied with equal violence: 'They forced us (at the Robber Council) by blows to subscribe, away the Manichaeans, the enemies of Flavian, the enemies of the faith. Away with the murderer Dioscorus. Who does not know his wicked deeds?' The Egyptian bishops cried again: 'Away with the Jew, the adversary of God, and call him not bishop.' To which the original bishops answered: 'Away with the rioters, away with the murderers! The orthodox man belongs to the council.'" The military had to interfere to quell the proceedings (Schaff, Hist. Christ. Church, ii. 348).
At the council held at Constantinople in 785 A.D., the soldiery burst into the chamber and dispersed the affrighted bishops because they did not approve of the bishop's enactments (Milman, ii. p. 345); and the second council of Nicea (787 A.D.) denounced this council of Constantinople as a synod of fools and madmen (Ibid., ii. 346).
There is one curious fact to which I can not refrain from calling attention. No Christian historian, whether Mosheim, Milman, Schaff, or any other, has ever perceived, apparently, the grotesque absurdity of an assembly attempting to decide by vote a fact in the past. Men vote on questions which have yet to be decided, and thus make them facts; as whether this man or that man shall be president, or this law or that shall be in force; but not on those which are already decided. The reader needs to understand that this is just a small representation of the character of the Church councils. If one is honest with oneself then it is almost impossible to read these proceedings and pretend that the Holy Spirit had anything to do the the results of such violent proceedings let alone believe the decisions made as to what was "inspired" have any credibility whatsoever!
Jerome (420 A.D.) included in his New Testament Hebrews and Revelation on the authority of the ancient writers, and not of the existing custom (Davidson, The Canon of the Bible, p. 190 ff., showing that in his time these books were frequently rejected. That seems almost ridiculous in light of what you have learned by reading the above accounts. In another work he gave the Epistle of Barnabas at the end of a canonical list, and he expresses the doubts in existence to Philemon, Second Peter, Jude, Second John, and Third John (Davidson, p. 190 ff.), of which, today, no doubts are entertained. The First Epistle of Clement, which is not now in the Bible, was, he says, read in some churches ( ).
Jerome and St. Augustine were the men most influential in determining the canon of the New Testament (Davidson, Canon, p. 233). The Catholic Church has followed the latter, and Luther and the reformers followed the former. As to their qualifications for deciding the canon Prof. Davidson has said:
"Both were unfitted for critical examination of such a topic. Augustine was a gifted spiritual man, lacking learning and independence. Tradition dominated all his idea about the difficult or disputed books.....His judgment was weak, his sagacity moderate, and the absence of many-sidedness hindered a critical result. Jerome, again, was learned but timid, lacking the courage to face the question fairly or fundamentally and the independence necessary to its right investigation. Belonging as he did to both churches, he recommended the practice of one or the other. He, too, was chiefly influenced by tradition" (Davidson, The Canon of the Bible, p. 200).
The Apostolic Constitutions are a collection of rules, mainly for the guidance of the clergy. They date from the firth century, and are not to be attributed to the Apostles, their names being another of the many similar endeavors to give authority to books by foreign great names to them. The canons in the Apostolic Constitutions (Apostolic Constitutions, II, 57) omit from the New Testament James, First Peter, Second Peter, First John, Second John, Third John, Jude and Revelation (Ibid., VIII, xlvii. 85). This is the more remarkable from the fact that the canon prescribes with great particularity and minuteness how services in church should be conducted, and what books be read! It also omits Revelation, and included the First Epistle of Clement, the Second Epistle of Clement (an acknowledged forgery), and the Clementine Constitutions (Ibid.). No one ever hears of these books being included in the New Testament now. It is a noteworthy fact that this and the preceding list, contradictory as they are, are both in the same book no less!
It would seem to me than "any thinking believer" and "truth-seeker" would have a hard time accepting the decisions of such men as shown about anything, but let us continue for we have yet much to share before we can draw any concrete conclusion. Next, we look at the 6th century.
