Jesus as the Alpha and Omega

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

Jesus as the Alpha and Omega

Question: In Rev 22:12-13, Jesus Christ, the one who is "coming quickly", says of himself, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end". In Rev 1:17-18, Jesus, the one who "became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever", refers to himself as the first and the last. Rev 21:6, in speaking of God, says, "...I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end ...". God is also referred to as the "first" and the "last" in Isa 44:6 and Isa 48:12. How can this be since by definition of these words there can only be one first and one last?

Reply: Revelation 22:12-13 does not have Jesus speaking, but his Father, God. In fact, this verse is speaking of Jehovah in Isaiah 40:10, but referring to his son, the Arm of Jehovah.

"Behold, the Lord Jehovah will come as a mighty one, and his arm will rule for him: Behold, his reward is with him, and his recompense before him." ASV

I am not alone in this. The following references agree with me by noting the relevance of Isaiah 40:10 to Revelation 22:12 in the marginal references:

· The Nestle-Aland Greek Text (27th edition).
· The Jerusalem Bible.
· The New American Bible.
· The New American Standard Bible (1973, reference edition)

Compare that with Isaiah 53:1, 5, "Who hath believed our message? and to whom hath the arm of Jehovah been revealed?...But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." [see also John 12:38]

Here, along with Is 40:10, we have the "arm of Jehovah" as being the Messiah and differentiated from his Father, Jehovah. Remember, Jehovah is the Father (Is 64:8), which, according to Trinitarian theology, the Son cannot be. When you take the entire book of Revelation into consideration, the conclusion that Jesus is the Lord God is not even possible.  Jesus cannot be the very God who is *his* God (Rev. 1:6; 3:2; 3:12).  The Father's superiority to Christ is shown in the very first verse of Revelation, where Christ is described as one who was *given* knowledge by God.  Then come the aforementioned verses where the Father is described as Christ's God.  Finally, in recognition of this, in chapter 15 vs 3 we find Christ joining Moses as they sing a song of *praise* to his God and Father, who Christ himself calls "the Almighty."

But why do they both bear the title "first and the last, beginning and the end?"
How have others in the past viewed this?:

"Principium Christus, quia ipse inchoavit perficienda; finis Christus, quia ipse perficit inchoata"; [that is] "Christ is the beginning, because he himself commenced the work to be accomplished; Christ is the end, because he accomplished the work begun."--(Fulgentius (the Latin Father), Ad Transimundum, Lib. II. c. 5; in Migne's Patrol. Tom. LXV. vol. 250, C. [as quoted by Snedeker, ibid])

The First and the Last
"Attend well to the comfortable words of your heavenly Master, whom God has appointed to be the original Lord, the continual Preserver, and at last the righteous Judge of mankind"--(Thomas Pyle, M.A., Paraphrases on the Acts, the Epistles, and the Revelation, New edit. Oxford, 1817 [quoted in Concessions, by John Wilson])

"...the first, that is, chief in dignity, having much greater power than any one before possessed...the last, that is, the most despised of men, Isa. liii. 3; having been betrayed, mocked, beaten, scourged, and even condemned to be punished as a slave"--(Hugo Grotius, Annotationes ad Vetus et Novum Testamentum. [quoted in Concessions])

"Christ is called, in the Apocalypse, chap. i. 17, the first and the last; and this expression, if taken in the same sense as that in which it is used, Isa. xli.4; xliv.6; xlviii. 12, may denote Christ's eternal Godhead.  Yet it is not absolutely decisive; for the meaning of chap. i.17 may be, "Fear not; I am the first (whom thou knewest as mortal), and the last (whom thou now seest immortal), still the same, whom thou knewest from the beginning."  The same explanation may be given of chap. ii. 8, where the expression, the first and the last, again occurs, and is used in connection with Christ's resurrection from the dead.--(J.D. Michaelis: Introduction to the New Test., vol. iv. pp. 539-40. [as quoted in Concessions])

All of these examples show that there have even been trinitarians who have not viewed these titles as denoting any ontological oneness of identity between Christ and the Father.  The last example, by Michaelis, is especially interesting, because he realizes that the title "first and last" was being applied to Christ in reference to his death and resurrection. This is how I view it, though in a slightly different manner, namely, that Christ is the first to be resurrected by the Father directly, and last to be so resurrected. All references to Jesus as being the "first and the last" have this limitation. Let us take a look?  "I am the first and the last, and the Living one; and I was dead" Rev 1:17,18. "These things saith the first and the last, who was dead, and lived [again]" Rev. 2:8. "Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead" Rev 1:5. See also Romans 14:9 and Col 1:18.

I suspect it is because of this limitation that made some unscrupulous scribe add the words Alpha and Omega at Rev 1:11. The Good News Bible inserts the name Jesus at Rev 22:12 to make it appear that Jesus is again the Alpha and Omega. So you see, they can only make Jesus the Alpha and Omega if they distort scripture to do so. Incidentally, Hebrews 3:1 calls Jesus an APOSTLE, whereas
elsewhere in the Bible it refers to some of his followers. Does that make them the same person or equal because the share the same title? Of course not. - metatron3@gmail.com

This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here

Visit a local listing for this book here

The Unreasonable, Unscriptural, Impossible Trinity Doctrine by John S. Hawley

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

The Unreasonable, Unscriptural, Impossible Trinity Doctrine By John Savage Hawley 1900

...There are three distinct objections to the doctrine of the Trinity.

1st. It is unreasonable,

2nd. It is unscriptural!

3rd. It is impossible!

The claim that there are "three persons in the Godhead" is the invention of men whose aim was only to make religion complex, intricate, and mysterious. Jesus never said anything about three persons in the Godhead. If it were true, He was one of the persons and must have known it. He was silent as to the composition of the "Godhead." Every text that might be said to support such a teaching is ambiguous, while there are numerous texts to prove that He believed in one Heavenly Father, one only God!

"As my Father hath taught me, I speak these things."

"My Father is greater than I."

"The words that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself; but the Father that dwelleth in me, He doeth the works."

And He taught us to pray to "our Father."

The doctrine of the Trinity invites the ridicule of many earnest, thinking men. Here is a specimen of this from the pen of a man alike distinguished for intelligence, honesty, and wit. "According to the faith, each of these three persons is God. Christ is his own Father and his own son. The Holy Ghost is neither father nor son, but both. The son was begotten by the father, but existed before he was begotten, just the same before as after. Christ is just as old as his father and the father is just as young as the son. The Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and the Son, but was equal to the Father and Son before he proceeded, that is to say before he existed, but he is of the same age of the other two, and is their equal in power and glory. So it is declared that the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and that these three Gods make one God.

"According to the celestial multiplication table, once one is three, and three times one is one, and according to theological subtraction, if we take two from three, three are left. The addition is equally peculiar, if we add two to one, we have but one. Each one is equal to himself and the other two. Nothing ever was, nothing ever can be, more perfectly idiotic or absurd than the dogma of the Trinity.

"How is it possible to prove the existence of the Trinity?

"Is it possible for a human being who has been born but once, to comprehend, or to imagine the existence of three beings, each of whom is equal to the three?

"Think of one of these beings as the father of one, and think of that one as half human and all God, and think of the third as having proceeded from the other two and then think of all three as one, think that after the father begot the son the father was still alone, and after the Holy Ghost proceeded from the father and the son, the father was still alone, because there never was and never will be but one God.

"At this point absurdity has reached its limit."

Trinity is inevitably a target for just such derision; and the great trouble is, people are apt to infer that this is ridiculing religion, when in fact it only applies to an absurd dogma.

If the doctrine of the Trinity belonged to the Chinese or the Hindus, we should consider this quotation as droll and amusing, but, at the same time, logical and correct. But, as it is the property of Christian theology, it will be characterized as sacrilege, or blasphemy, or infidelity, or all three together, according to the bias of the reader.

Theology, however, does not appraise Trinity quite as highly as an asset, as it did twenty-five years ago, It is steadily decreasing in value and before many more years have passed, it will be placed in the divinity museum, along with ghosts and goblins, witchcraft and mythology...

Complex and inharmonious dogmas, doctrines and small theories, are only stumbling-blocks to the heathen, and obstacles to the spread of Christianity. The pure, simple, unembellished teachings of Jesus—goodness, kindness, and love—would be far better.

This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here

Visit a local listing for this book here

The Trinity and Ancient Sex Worship by Otto Augustus Wall

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

The Trinity and Ancient Sex Worship by Otto Augustus Wall

From Sex and Sex Worship (Phallic Worship): A Scientific Treatise on Sex, Its Nature amd Function, and its Influence on Art, Science, Architecture and Religion, 1920

The earliest form of religion in Babylonia appears to have been a sort of fetichism, or Shamanism, which was similar to that which is still believed in by the Samoyeds and the subarctic tribes of Siberia. According to this belief the world swarmed with spirits or demons, to which diseases and disasters were due and against which protection was sought in various mascots and charms. The cherubs, the winged bulls and other creatures of that kind, which guarded the entrances, doors or windows to the houses, were charms used to protect against these demoniac agencies, just like we ourselves use such charms on our own churches and houses.

The introduction of sex worship and of sex symbols was a later development, not only in Babylon, but in probably all religions which adopted such ideas. The phallic worship was introduced from barbarous people, as for instance from Accadia, Phoenicia, etc., and although some authors speak of it as inculcating noble ideas and "divine acts," such was not really the case, but phallic worship and especially phallic festivals everywhere seem to have been a degeneration from these forms of religion.

In Asia Minor several people worshipped Asher, Ami and Hoa which personified or symbolized the penis, and the right and the left testicles. This was probably the first "trinity" that was worshipped anywhere, and from this were derived
other forms of trinities, not so distinctly or coarsely sexual.

In Babylon, in quite early times, they worshipped a trinity consisting of "Na," the sky, "Ea," the earth, and "Mulge," the underworld. The underworld of those days, however, was not yet the "hell" of more modern religions, but more like the "hades" of the Greeks.

The ancient Egyptians believed in a Supreme Being at once father and mother (similar to the hermaphrodite gods already considered); from this idea originated the worship of deities in triads—father, mother, and son: Osiris, Isis and Harpokrat, for instance.

The Egyptian religion extended over a period of more than 5000 years during which it underwent many changes; also, different districts or provinces, or even cities, had different cults and different dialects, so that the names of the gods and goddesses seem dissimilar although they may well have meant the same deities. The result is a great confusion in formulating in our times a consistent theory of Egyptian mythology or religion. Yet we know that many deities were worshipped in sets of three, three being a sacred number.

Only Osiris (father), Isis (mother) and Horns or Harpokrat (son) were worshipped in every part of Egypt. Pta or Phtah was also generally considered to be the actual creator or demiurge. Thoth assisted Osiris in judging the souls of the dead, and he had a wife, Ma-t, the goddess of truth; they were worshipped as a couple. Ra was the Supreme God.

Then there were various triads, whose worship was local; we will consider them in a tabulated list:

These were the "Holy Families" of Egypt; they were worshipped more devoutly than the other deities, and their influence on more modern ideas and religions will become apparent farther on.

It is not necessary here to consider the other deities, although some had very distinct sexual significance, as for instance Suben, goddess of maternity, etc.

The ancient Phoenicians worshipped as a triad or Trinity, the Sun, Moon and Earth. The Greeks and Romans had the triad of the Fates or Parcae, already considered (p. 390), who symbolized Past, Present and Future. The Norsemen or Scandinavians had a similar triad; they were three maidens, Urd, Verdandi and Skuld, who also symbolized Past, Present and Future; they sat under the Iggdrasil tree in Asgard and determined the fates of gods and men. The Trimurti, or Hindu Trinity, was an inseparable trinity of Brahma (middle), Vishnu (right), and Siva (left). The syllable Om is the symbol for this trinity. It is explained that the letter 0 is a combination (or intermediate sound) of the vowels a and u = 0. A stands for Brahma, U for Vishnu, and M for Siva. [In old alphabets u and v were alike in shape.] This trinity in India is however mainly the object of philosophical belief, for the masses worship Siva alone.

The Padma Purana (a sacred book) says: "In the beginning of Creation the great Vishnu, desirous of creating the world, produced from the right side of his body himself as Brahma; then in order to preserve the world he produced from the left side of his body Vishnu; and in order to destroy the world he produced from the middle of his body the eternal Siva. "Some worship Brahma, others Vishnu, others Siva; but Vishnu, one, yet threefold, creates, preserves and destroys; therefore, let the pious make no distinction between the three."

The conception of Siva was evolved from Indra, the god of the raging storm, for which reason Siva is usually represented dark blue, of the color of the storm-cloud.

In India the male triangle is sometimes used as a symbol for this trinity.

In ancient Mexico and Central America a trinity was also worshipped: Tohil, the thunder; Avihix, lightning; and Gagavitz, the thunderbolt.

The Bible does not contain the word "Trinity;" but the early Christians commenced at an early period to philosophize about it, and God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost were accepted as members of this triad. The idea of God the Father was the old Biblical god of the Jews; in the year 325 the Council of Nice affirmed the divinity of Jesus as Christ, and in the year 381 the Council of Constantinople added the doctrine of the divinity of the Holy Ghost. From this the theory of the Trinity was deduced, which is that these three are not separate but together constitute only one God—or Unity. The Trinity in Unity was declared to be an article of faith by the Church. One sect of Christians, however, maintained for some time a belief in Tritheism, or in Three Gods, separate one from another, like an Egyptian triad.

After the Reformation of Luther, Unitarianism became common; this sect believes that God the Father is the only and a unipersonal God, as opposed to Trinitarianism, or the belief in the Trinity.

In ecclesiastical art and symbolism, a representation of the trinity was common, in the form of the sacred triangle.

About the year 400, Arius taught that there was a time when, from the very nature of son-ship, the son did not exist, because a father must be older than his son. But the Church, at the Council of Nicaea, decreed that those who say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, and that before he was begotten he was not, and that he was made out of nothing and is created, or changeable or alterable, be cursed or anathematized. This established the Trinity as an article of faith.

The Sabellians, a Christian sect, taught that the Trinity was to be understood as meaning three manifestations or attributes of the same god; in other words, the Sabellian god was formulated in the shape of man as defined by the Greek philosopher Plato, who taught that man consisted of body, soul and spirit; the Greeks thought that Mother Earth gave man his body, the moon gave him the soul, and the sun the spirit.

But it seems likely, that if human thought had not been so thoroughly imbued with the trinity of the phallus, the other triads and the trinity might never have been considered or evolved at all. The phallus was a trinity, acting as one impregnating unit, although composed of three separate and differently-functioned parts.

The John 1:1 Contradiction by William Greenleaf Eliot 1853

This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here

Visit a local listing for this book here

The John 1:1 Contradiction by William Greenleaf Eliot 1853

 The strongest support of the Trinitarian doctrine concerning Christ, and, as it appears to most readers, the greatest difficulty in the way of Unitarians, is found in the introduction to the Gospel of John; to which I now ask your attention for a few minutes. It is an obscure and difficult passage of Scripture. But its obscurity arises, chiefly, from our failing to consider the object which the Apostle had in view, and the circumstances under which he wrote. Upon these it chiefly depends what meaning shall be given to the word Logos, and therefore to the whole passage in question. It is commonly supposed that his object was to declare that Jesus Christ was God, the second person of the Trinity. The Logos is taken as another term for Christ, as if the Apostle had said, “In the beginning was Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ was with God, and Jesus Christ was God.”

This explanation is thought by those who receive it to remove all difficulty, and to make the whole passage plain. But it is only because they are accustomed to it, and do not perceive the force of the words used. In fact it expresses a direct contradiction, which cannot itself be explained, except by saying that the terms used have no distinct or intelligible meaning. When we say that James is with John, we cannot take a plainer way of saying that James and John are two separate beings. To say that James is with John and that James is John, is a contradiction in terms. Why does not the same hold true of God and of Christ. If by the Logos we understand a personal existence distinct from God, we may say that the Logos was with God, but not at the same time that the Logos was God. To say one is to deny the other. We shall not, therefore, escape the difficulty of the passage by adopting the Trinitarian theory. We may not be quite satisfied with our own explanation, and some parts of it may continue to perplex us, but we cannot receive an explanation which so evidently contradicts itself.

Secondly, we cannot adopt it, because it also contradicts the Apostle's repeated assertions concerning Christ, and his plain statement of the object with which his Gospel was written. There is none of the Gospels which is so full in its declarations that Christ is the son of God, not God himself, and it is in this Gospel that we find record of Christ's most distinct denial of the Divine attributes. At its close, the Apostle informs us what his general purpose had been, as follows (John xx. 31): “These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, believing, ye might have life through his name.” Would he have so stated his purpose, if his real object had been to prove that Christ was himself the Infinite God, whose Son he declares him to be, and by whom he was anointed? Let me also remind you of his words, in this same first chapter which is supposed to teach that Christ is God: “No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” This is the true doctrine, in accordance with which we should explain the introductory sentences now under consideration.

The Eternal Sonship One of the Greatest Absurdities of the Church

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

The Eternal Sonship One of the Greatest Absurdities of the Church by Rev. F.H. Burris A.M. 1874

"Eternal generation is eternal nonsense." Professor Nathaniel Emmons

There certainly is not a place in his [Jesus] testimony, or in the Bible, where by the Father is not meant the everlasting Jehovah. To this we do not think that any one will take exception. Nor is there a place where Christ ever taught that there is a Son who was born from eternity, or that there are three persons in one God, or that such a division of the Deity is possible. On the contrary, he asserts the truth of the first and great commandment, that "the Lord our God is one Lord," while to the young man who calls him good Master, he replies, "there is none good but one, that is God."

But if he never destroyed the unity of the Godhead by dividing it into persons, each one of whom is perfect Deity; and if, as we shall see hereafter, no other inspired writer ever did, then why should we believe that such a doctrine is true? If the Bible does not declare it, and if the Christian church never taught it until it became corrupted, why should we teach it? The doctrine of a Son by "eternal generation," and of a Trinity of persons from eternity, was not received and taught as the faith of the church until the fourth century; and that the church had already lost its purity and its spiritual power, and that it did, from that time, become more and more corrupt, is a fact in history known to all. Nor has it to-day the power which it once had, nor will it ever have again until it acknowledges and worships one God instead of three.

Christ has said that the Father was God; but he never said that any one else was. He tells us that the Son is a man, and he calls him the Son of man, and also the Son of God; but he never said that the Son himself was God. And we agree with Doctor Adam Clark, that the doctrine of the eternal sonship of Christ is a self-contradiction, and one of the greatest absurdities that the Christian church ever taught.

This learned commentator, speaking of this subject, in his note on Luke 1:35, says: "I reject this doctrine for the following reasons: 1st. I have not been able to find any express declarations in the Scriptures concerning it. 2d. If Christ be the Son of God, as to his divine nature, then he cannot be eternal; for Son implies a Father; and Father implies, in reference to Son, precedency in time, if not in nature, too. Father and Son imply the idea of generation; and generation implies a time in which it was effected, and time also antecedent to such generation. 3d. If Christ be the Son of God as to his divine nature, then the Father is of necessity prior, consequently superior to him. 4th. Again, if this divine nature were begotten of the Father, then it must be in time; i. e., there was a period in which it did not exist, and a period when it began to exist. This destroys the eternity of our blessed Lord, and robs him at once of his Godhead. 5th. To say that he was begotten from all eternity is, in my opinion, absurd; and the phrase eternal Son is a self-contradiction. Eternity is that which had no beginning, nor stands in reference to time. Son supposes time, generation, and a father; and time also antecedent to such generation. Therefore the conjunction of these two terms, Son and eternity, is absolutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite ideas." (Clark's Com., vol. 5, p. 361.)

From this it will be seen that Doctor Clark, though he believed in a Trinity of persons, did not believe in the eternal Sonship of our Lord; nor do we believe that his arguments on this subject have ever been answered, or ever can be. And if it is absurd to say that the Deity in Christ was a Son born from eternity, is it not equally absurd to say that this divine nature was again born of a woman? That God the Son, who was begotten by the Father from eternity, and who, though begotten, was yet equal with him, was after this begotten again in time, and was born of Mary? Is it not, in fact, a monstrous doctrine to say that the Deity can be born of any one? If he can be, or if one person of the Deity can be born of another person, then God is not the one, undivided, self-existent, independent and eternal Being which we have taught that he is, and which the Scriptures declare him to be; nor is that part or person which was begotten and born, equal to the one by whom it was begotten. If we say that the one born is not equal, we deny his divinity; and if we contend that, though dependent, he is yet equal, we must bury forever our reason, and, at the same time, reject the teachings of the Bible.

Further, if we say that the Father is God, and that the Son is God, and that the one was begotten by the other, we either assert that the Son was begotten by himself, and is his own Father, and that the Father is his own Son; or else we believe in a plurality of Gods, and that one is inferior and subordinate to the other. For Christ has not only taught that the Son is dependent upon the Father, but that he is also in subjection to him. The Father commands, and the Son obeys. He is a man of sorrows doing the will of the Father, pleading with him earnestly in prayer, and obedient even unto death. The Father loves him because he keeps his commandments, and is ever submissive to his will; and lest it might be said that the subjection of the Son to the Father was only during the days of his humiliation on earth, the Scriptures teach (1 Cor. 15: 28) that it will be eternal.

Then if the Son is God, we must admit that there are at least two Deities, and that one is subordinate to the other. But if we say that the Son is a man, and that, while the Father is the divinity of our Lord, the Son is his humanity, then we have but one God, who is the Father of us all, and one Lord Jesus Christ, in whom, as the church teaches, there are two perfect natures — perfect God and perfect man. Whereas, on the supposition of three persons, only one of whom became incarnate, there is in Christ only a part of the Deity. He would have in him the whole nature of man, and only a part of the nature of God; or else he is a man in whom dwells only one of three Deities. And if this is unreasonable, as it is unscriptural, why should we believe it? Why not accept the testimony of Christ, and say that the Father is God, and that the Son, who labors and learns, prays and obeys, and suffers and dies, is the man in whom the Father dwells? Why insist that the Deity in Christ was the Son, when he declares it to be the Father, and has never spoken of any one else? To claim that there are two when he only speaks of one, and when all, in fact, agree that there is but one, would seem to do violence to our reason that we might reject the truth of God.

We close this part of the evidence with one more quotation from our Lord's testimony, which is certainly a very remarkable one, but upon which we will make no comment at present: "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said ye are Gods? If he called them Gods, unto whom the Word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, thou blasphemest, because I said, I Am The Son of God?"

This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here

Visit a local listing for this book here

The Mysteries of Christmas, by Alvan Lamson

My Kindle book, The Dark History of Christmas, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only $1.99

 Visit here for a description

Alvan Lamson on Christmas

With Epiphany celebrated on the 6th of January, as observed at the conclusion of the last chapter, was united the festival of the birth of Christ (Christmas), at the time we first hear of it; that is, in Egypt. The first traces of it are obscure in the extreme. Clement of Alexandria, a learned Father of the Church, whom nothing seemingly escaped, and who flourished at the beginning of the third century, does not expressly mention it. His testimony, however, is important, as showing the ignorance of Christians of that period, even the best informed of them, of the time of Christ's birth. Both the day and the year were involved in uncertainty; and Clement seems to speak with no little contempt of those who undertook to fix the former. "There are those," he says, "who, with an over-busy curiosity, attempt to fix, not only the year, but the day, of our Saviour's birth; who, they say, was born in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus, on the twenty-fifth of the month Pachon"; that is, the twentieth of May. He adds soon after, "Some say that he was born on the twenty-fourth or twenty-fifth of the month Pharmuthi"; that is, the nineteenth or twentieth day of April; both parties selecting the spring as the season of the nativity. [Strom., lib. i. c. 21, pp. 407,408, ed. Oxon. 1715. It has been inferred, however, from a statement made by Clement relating to the interval between the birth of Christ and the death of Commodus, that he himself supposed the day of the nativity to have been the 18th of November.] And here Clement leaves the matter. The inference is plain. The day of the nativity was unknown. Whatever notice was taken of the event, was taken at the festival of the Baptism. A few, prying into the subject with vain solicitude, pretended to assign the day: but they differed; only agreeing that it was in April or May. In regard to the precise year of the Saviour's birth, our common or vulgar era, by the general consent of the learned, places it from three to five years (four is generally assigned) too late.

At the period when we discover the first trace of Christmas, it was thus celebrated on the 6th of January, having been superadded to the feast of the Baptism. About the middle of the fourth century, we hear of its celebration at Rome on the 25th of December; the day being determined, it is asserted, — though not on evidence which is perfectly conclusive, — by Julius, Bishop of Rome. This, we believe, is the earliest notice of it as a distinct festival; certainly the earliest which is clear and undisputed. It was soon after introduced into the East; where, according to the testimony of Chrysostom, who was Priest of Antioch, and afterwards Bishop of Constantinople, it was before unknown. "It is not yet ten years," says he, in his Homily on the Nativity, about the year 386, "since this day was first made known to us. It had been before observed," he adds, "in the West; whence the knowledge of it was derived." It is clear, from this testimony, that the present time of celebrating the birth of the Saviour was a novelty in the East very late in the fourth century; and, from the manner in which Chrysostom expresses himself, the conclusion seems irresistible, that, before that time, there was no festival of the kind observed in the Syrian Church. He does not allude to any. He does not say that the question was about the day merely; as he naturally would have said, if it had been so. "Some affirmed," he says, "and others denied, that the festival was an old one, known from Thrace to Spain." "There was much disputing," he adds, "on the subject, and much opposition was encountered in the introduction of the festival." [On the subject of the use which has been made of ChrysOatom's reasoning, and the fallacies involved in the argument employed to show that the real date of the Saviour's birth was known in his day, see a notice of Dr. Jarvis's "Chronological Introduction to the History of the Church," in the Christian Examiner, fourth series, vol. iii. pp. 412-414.] This, it must be recollected, was in one of the chief cities in the East, near the end of the fourth century. The Christians of Egypt, at a much later period, are found celebrating the nativity on the old 6th of January. [It is a circumstance worthy of note, that, while the festival of the Baptism extended itself from East to West, that of Christmas travelled from West to East. We have not overlooked the testimony of Augustine, at the end of the fourth century : but he is too late a writer to be an authority for any early tradition; and, though he mentions the festival of the Nativity, he does not ascribe to it the same importance as to the two older festivals of Easter and Whitsunday.]

Various reasons have been assigned for the selection of the 25th day of December by the Romans. It was clearly an innovation. The day had never been observed as a festival of the nativity by Christians of the East, where Christ had his birth. It is certain, however, that some of the most memorable of the Heathen festivals were celebrated at Rome at this season of the year; and these the Christians were fond of attending, and could be the more readily withdrawn from them if they had similar feasts of their own occurring at the same season. It is certain, too, that many of the ceremonies and observances of the Pagan festivals were transferred to those of Christians. [Thus, during the Roman Saturnalia, or feast of Saturn, holden in memory of the golden age of equality and innocence under his reign, and kept in the time of the Caesars from the 17th to the 23d of December (seven days), "all orders were devoted to mirth and feasting"; friends sent presents to each other; slaves enjoyed their liberty, and wore "caps as badges of freedom"; wax tapers were lighted in the temples; and jests and freedom, and all sorts of jollity, prevailed.] Whether this, and much else connected with the establishment of Christian festivals, happened by design or accident, is a point we shall not stop formally to discuss. It has been argued, that the winter solstice (the 25th of December in the Roman calendar) was chosen from a beautiful analogy, — the sun, which then begins to return to diffuse warmth and light over the material creation, presenting a fit emblem of the rising of the Sun of Righteousness to cheer and bless the world by his beams. The festival of the birth of the Sun (natalis Solis invicti), — a figurative expression, denoting his turning at the tropic, — one of the most celebrated festivals among the Romans, observed at this period, had probably as much to do in determining the time of the Christian festival as the bare analogy alluded to; which, however, served well for rhetorical and poetic illustration. We find the Christian poet, Prudentius, soon after making use of it for this purpose. The fixing of the birth of the Saviour at the winter solstice, when the days begin to increase, which would place that of John at the summer solstice, when they begin to decrease, also gratified the love of a mystical interpretation of the language of Scripture. It gave, as it was discovered, to the affirmation, "He must increase, but I must decrease," a deep-hidden meaning. In the absence of evidence, however, we will not undertake to affirm for what reasons the Romans adopted the 25th of December as the day of the festival of the Nativity.

The sum of the whole is, that, besides the weekly festival of Sunday, there are two annual festivals (those of the Resurrection of Christ and the Descent of the Spirit, or Easter and Whitsunday), or rather one festival of fifty days, including both, which dates back to an indefinitely remote period of Christian antiquity; that the festival of the Baptism of Jesus came next, and, last, that of his Nativity; that this last was wholly unknown for some centuries after the apostolic age; that it is not alluded to by any very ancient Christian writer, by Justin Martyr or Tertullian; that it was unknown to the learned Origen, near the middle of the third century; that Clement of Alexandria does not mention the festival, and speaks of the vain labor of some antiquaries who attempted to fix the date of the Saviour's birth, who agreed in nothing except in placing it in the spring months of April or May; that the festival was first celebrated in January, in connection with the festival of the Manifestation; that Chrysostom, who represents the opinions of the Oriental Church, was ignorant, if not of the festival itself, yet certainly of the present period of its celebration, near the end of the fourth century; and, finally, that the festival came from the West, and not, like all the more ancient festivals, from the East.

The true explanation of the origin of both the more ancient festivals (Easter and Whitsunday) is, that they were Jewish feasts, — continued among the Jewish Christians, and afterwards, it is impossible to say when, adopted by the Gentile believers; Christ having consecrated them anew, the one by his death and resurrection, and the other by the outpouring of the Spirit upon the Apostles. Neither of them was instituted by Christians; neither of them originated in purely Christian ideas, as is shown by the testimony of Origen, already referred to, and in confirmation of which we might adduce a multitude of passages from the early Christian writers to the same point. But there was in existence among the Jews no festival on which Christmas could be ingrafted; and this, and the fact that it was not customary in the early ages to celebrate the birthdays, but only the deaths, of distinguished individuals, accounts for its late origin. The "Natalia" of the martyrs were kept on the anniversary of their death, — their birth into an immortal existence.

We have no complaint to make of the selection of the 25th of December, as the day for commemorating the birth of the Saviour. It is as good as any other day; it being understood, as we suppose it is, by every one even moderately acquainted with the writings of Christian antiquity, that the true date of the nativity is irrecoverably lost. ["I do not believe," says Beausobre (t. ii. p. 692), "that the evangelists themselves knew it. It is evident that St. Luke, who tells us that he began to be about thirty years of aye, when he was baptized, did not know his precise age."] For ourselves, we like this festival of Christmas, and would let it stand where it is, and where it has stood ever since the days of Chrysostom at least, — a period of more than fourteen centuries. It matters not in the least that we are ignorant of the real date of the Saviour's birth. We can be just as grateful for his appearance in the world as we could be, did we know the precise day or moment of his entrance into it. Of what consequence is it for us to know the particular day, or even the year, when this light first shone upon the earth, since we know that it has arisen, and we enjoy its lustre and warmth? Of just as little consequence, for all practical purposes, as for the voyager on one of our majestic rivers to be informed of the exact spot in the remote wilds on which the stream takes its rise, since his little bark is borne gayly on by its friendly waters; or for any of us, if our affairs have been long prosperous, to be able to tell how or when, to the fraction of a minute, our prosperity commenced. If we have been in adversity, and light has broken in upon our gloom, and continues to shine upon us, it imports little whether or not we can fix on the exact point of time at which the clouds began to break and scatter. Just so with this Star of Bethlehem, which "shines o'er sin and sorrow's night": the exact moment at which its beams began to be visible over the hills and valleys of Judea is not a subject about which we need perplex ourselves. No royal historiographer was present to chronicle the Saviour's birth; yet, if his spirit be in our hearts, we can, if we approve the observance, commemorate his advent, with all the kindlings of devout affection and gratitude, — at our homes, or in our houses of worship, where we have so often met to seek comfort and strength from his words, — on any day which the piety of past ages has set apart for so holy a purpose.

One further remark we would make. We see, in the order in which the festivals arose, important testimony to the truth of Christian history. It could hardly have been different, the facts being supposed true. Christmas could not have preceded in its origin the other festivals founded on the events of the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus, without which there could have been no spiritual Christianity. It must almost of necessity follow them, and grow up from obscure beginnings, as it did, out of the gratitude and love of Christians, making it difficult to trace its origin. All this, we say, was natural, and confirms the truth of Christian history. Reading the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of Paul, one would have been surprised to find a festival of the birth of Christ existing from the first. But we are not surprised at finding that the resurrection (without which, according to the Apostle, his preaching and the faith of Christians would be vain) and the descent of the Spirit (which was, in truth, the beginning of spiritual Christianity) were both early celebrated, as we know they were. It was Christ risen and glorified of which these old believers chiefly thought,—the Redeemer from sin, the Leader in the way of immortality, sitting at the right hand of God, — not the infant Christ.

With respect to the uncertainty of the date of Jesus's birth, Dr, Milman, Dean of St. Paul's, London, thus expresses himself: "The year in which Christ was born is still contested. There is still more uncertainty concerning the time of the year, which learned men are still laboring to determine. Where there is and can be no certainty, it is the wisest course to acknowledge our ignorance, and not to claim the authority of historic truth for that which is purely conjectural. The two ablest modern writers who have investigated the chronology of the life of Christ — Dr. Burton and Mr. Greswell — have come to opposite conclusions: one contending for the spring, the other for the autumn. Even if the argument of either had any solid ground to rest on, it would be difficult
(would it be worth while?) to extirpate the traditionary belief so beautifully embodied in Milton's hymn: —

'It was the winter wild
When the Heaven-born child,' &c.

Were the point of the least importance, we should, no doubt, have known more about it."

The reflection of the learned Dean is judicious. The day and the year, as before said, matter not. We are not so much Christians of the "letter" as to think them of any importance. Let them not be contended about. Let Christmas stand, where it has so long stood, to be observed in honor of the "Heaven-born child." As intelligent Christians, however, it is well to know the "historic truth," and not put certainty for uncertainty in a matter of this sort.

There is no Trinitarianism connected with any of the ancient festivals. Nothing could be further removed from Trinitarianism than the simple ideas on which the Easter festival was founded, — "dead, buried, and, the third day, rose again." "The Logos doctrine" (introduced by the learned converts who came fresh from their Heathen studies), associated in thought with the death and resurrection of Jesus, evidently occasioned some embarrassment in the minds of the Fathers who received it; believing, as they generally did for a long time, that the whole Christ suffered. The simple faith of the early believers was not attended with any difficulties of this sort.

The effusion of the Spirit, or the "pouring it out," as the very terms exclude personality, is not a Trinitarian idea; and the observance of the festival of Pentecost, therefore, in early times, affords no evidence of the Trinitarianism of those times, but was quite compatible with the opinion which Gregory Nazianzen, late in the fourth century, says was entertained by some in his day, — that the Spirit was simply "a mode of divine operation"; some others calling it "God himself"; some, "a creature of God"; and some not knowing what to believe on the subject. It made no difference, so far as the celebration of this festival was concerned, which of these views prevailed.

As to Christmas, — the birth-festival, — that, no more than the festival of the Resurrection or the festival of the Spirit, recognizes a Trinity. It would be difficult to extract the Trinity from the angelic song, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will to men." We may, therefore, add these three festivals — two of them earlier, and one later — to the monuments of Christian antiquity already referred to, as bearing no testimony to the ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trinity.

After what has been said in the foregoing pages, we are prepared to re-assert, in conclusion, that the modern doctrine of the Trinity is not found in any document or relic belonging to the Church of the first three centuries. Letters, art, usage, theology, worship, creed, hymn, chant, doxology, ascription, commemorative rite, and festive observance, so far as any remains or any record of them are preserved, coming down from early times, are, as regards this doctrine, an absolute blank. They testify, so far as they testify at all, to the supremacy of the Father, the only true God; and to the inferior and derived nature of the Son. There is nowhere among these remains a co-equal Trinity. The cross is there; Christ is there as the Good Shepherd, the Father's hand placing a crown, or victor's wreath, on his head; but no undivided Three, — co-equal, infinite, self-existent, and eternal. This was a conception to which the age had not arrived. It was of later origin.

My Kindle book, The Dark History of Christmas, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only $1.99

 Visit here for a description

For a list of all of my digital books and disks click here

The Supremacy of the Father in the Early Church

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

The Supremacy Was Always Ascribed to the Father Before the Council of Nice, by Joseph Priestley

We find upon all occasions, the early Christian writers speak of the Father as superior to the Son, and in general they give him the title of God, as distinguished from the Son; and sometimes they expressly call him, exclusively of the Son, the only true God; a phraseology which does not at all accord with the idea of the perfect equality of all the persons in the Trinity. But it might well be expected, that the advances to the present doctrine of the Trinity should be gradual and slow. It was, indeed, some centuries before it was completely formed.

It is not a little amusing to observe how the Fathers of the second, third and fourth centuries were embarrassed with the Heathens on the one hand, to whom they wished to recommend their religion, by exalting the person of its founder, and with the ancient Jewish and Gentile converts (whose prejudices against Polytheism, they also wished to guard against) on the other. Willing to conciliate the one, and yet not to offend the other, they are particularly careful, at the same time that they give the appellation of God to Jesus Christ, to distinguish between him and the Father, giving a decided superiority to the latter. Of this I think it may be worth while to produce a number of examples, from the time that the doctrine of the divinity of Christ was first started, to the time of the council of Nice; for till that time, and even something later, did this language continue to be used. Clemens Romanus never calls Christ, God. He says, "Have we not all one God, and one Christ, and one spirit of grace poured upon us all?" which is exactly the language of the apostle Paul, with whom he was in part contemporary.

Justin Martyr, who is the first that we can find to have advanced the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, says He who appeared to Abraham, and to Isaac, and to Jacob, was subordinate to the Father, and minister to his will.4 He even says, that the Father is the author to him both of his existence, and of his being powerful, and of his being Lord and God.6

"All the evangelists," says Irenains, "have delivered to us the doctrine of one God,...and one Christ, the Son of God;'" and invoking the Father he calls him the only God (solus et verus Deus); and according to several of the most considerable of the early Christian writers, a common epithet by which the Father is distinguished from the Son, is, that he alone is (AUTOQEOS) or God of himself.

Origen, quoted by Dr. Clarke, says, "Hence we may solve the scruple of many pious persons, who, through fear lest they should make two Gods, fall into false and wicked notions....We must tell them that he who is of himself God, (AUTOQEOS) is that God (hO QEOS) (as our Saviour, in his prayer to his Father says, that they may know thee, the only true God;) but that whatever is God besides that self-existent person, being so only by communication of his divinity, cannot so properly be styled (hO QEOS) that God, but rather (QEOS) a divine person." The same observation had before been made by Clemens Alexandrinus, who also calls the Son a creature, and the work of God? Origen also says, "According to our doctrine, the God and Father of all is not alone great; for he has communicated of his greatness to the first-begotten of all the creation" (PRWTOTOKOS PASHS KTISEWS).

Novatian says that "the Sabellians make too much of the divinity of the Son, when they say it is that of the Father, extending his honour beyond bounds. They dare to make him, not the Son, but God the Father himself. And again, that they acknowledge the divinity of Christ in too boundless and unrestrained a manner," (effrenatius et effusius in Christo divinitatem confiteri). The same writer also says, "The Son to whom divinity is communicated is, indeed, God; but God the Father of all is deservedly God of all, and the origin (principium) of his Son, whom he begat Lord."

Arnobius says, "Christ, a God, under the form of a man, speaking by the order of the principal God." Again, "then, at length, did God Almighty, the only God, send Christ."

Such language as this was held till the time of the council of Nice. Alexander, who is very severe on Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, who was an Arian, says, in his circular letter to the bishops, "the Son is of a middle nature between the first cause of all things, and the creatures, which were created out of nothing." Athanasius himself, as quoted by Dr. Clarke, says, "the nature of God is the cause both of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and of all creatures." He also says, "There is but one God, because the Father is but one, yet is the Son also God, having such a sameness as that of a son to a father."

Lactantius says, "Christ taught that there is one God, and that he alone ought to be worshipped; neither did he ever call himself God, because he would not have been true to his trust, if, being sent to take away gods (that is, a multiplicity of gods) and to assert one, he had introduced another besides that One...Because he assumed nothing at all to himself, he received the dignity of perpetual priest, the honour of sovereign king, the power of a judge, and the name of God."

Hilary, who wrote twelve books on the doctrine of the Trinity, after the council of Nice, to prove that the Father himself is the only self-existing God, and in a proper sense the only true God (quod solus innascibilis et quod solus verus sit) after alleging a passage from the prophet Isaiah, quotes in support of it the saying of our Saviour, "This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." Much more might be alleged from this writer, to the same purpose.

Lastly, Epiphanius says, "Who is there that does not assert that there is only one God, the Father Almighty, from whom his only begotten Son truly proceeded?"

Indeed, that the Fathers of the council of Nice could not mean the Son was strictly speaking equal to the Father, is evident from their calling him God of God, which in that age was always opposed to God of himself (AUTOQEOS) that is, self-existent or independent; which was always understood to be the prerogative of the Father. It is remarkable that when the writers of that age speak of Christ as existing from eternity, they did not therefore suppose that he was properly self-existent. Thus Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, says, "We believe that the Son was always from the Father; but let no one by the word always be led to imagine him self-existent (AGENNHTOS)."

On these principles the primitive fathers had no difficulty in the interpretation of that saying of our Lord, "my Father is greater than I." They never thought of saying, that he was equal to the Father with respect to his divinity, though inferior with respect to his humanity; which is the only sense of the passage that the doctrine of the Trinity in its present state admits of. For they thought that the Son was in all respects, and in his whole person, inferior to his Father, as having derived his being from him.

Tertullian had this idea of the passage when he says, "the Father is all substance, but the Son is a derivation from him, and a part, as he himself declares, the Father is greater than I.'" It is also remarkable, as Mr. Whiston observes, that the ancient fathers, both Greek and Latin, never interpret Phil. ii. 7, to mean an equality of the Son to the Father. Novatian says, "He, therefore, though he was in the form of God, did not make himself equal to God (non est rapinam arbitratus equalem se Deo esse), for though he remembered he was God of God the Father, he never compared
himself to God the Father, being mindful that he was of his Father, and that he had this, because his Father gave it him."

It also deserves to be noticed, that notwithstanding the supposed derivation of the Son from the Father, and therefore their being of the same substance, most of the early Christian writers thought the text "I and my Father are one," was to be understood of an unity or harmony of disposition only. Thus Tertuilian observes, that the expression is unum, one thing, not one person; and he explains it to mean unity, likeness, conjunction, and of the love that the Father bore to the Son?. Origen says, "let him consider that text, all that believed were of one heart and of one soul, and then he will understand this, "I and my Father are one." Novatian says, one thing (unum) being in the neuter gender, signifies an agreement of society, not an unity of person, and he explains it by this passage in Paul, "he that planteth and he that watereth are both one." But the fathers of the council of Sardica, held A.D. 347, reprobated the opinion that the union of the Father and Son consists in consent and concord only, apprehending it to be a strict unity of substance; so much farther was the doctrine of the Trinity advanced at that time.

This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here

Visit a local listing for this book here

Learn New Testament Bible Greek - 200 PDF Books to Download

Only $6.99 - You can pay using the Cash App by sending money to $HeinzSchmitz and send me an email at theoldcdbookshop@gmail.com with your information. You can also pay using Facebook Pay in Messenger

Books Scanned from the Originals into PDF format

For a list of all of my books click here - Contact theoldcdbookshop@gmail.com for questions

Books are in the public domain. I will take checks or money orders as well. 

Contents (created on a Windows computer):

A First Greek Reader by W.G. Rushbrooke M.L. (over 250 pages)

A First Greek Writer by with Exercises and Vocabularies by A.Sidgwick M.A. 1880 (over 250 pages)

The Greek Testament Roots in a Selection of Texts by GK Gillespie

A Greek Grammar by William W. Goodwin 1900 (over 500 pages)

Grammar of Septuagint Greek by FC Conybeare

A Grammar of the New Testament Diction by George Benedict Winer 1860

A Grammar of the New Testament Greek by Alexander Buttman 1878

A Grammar of the Idioms of the Greek Language by George Benedict Winer 1840

The Greek Tenses in the New Testament by P Thompson 1895

How to Learn to Read the Greek New Testament by William Penn 1874

Greek Lessons shewing how useful and how easy it is for every one to learn Greek by William Henry Morris 1874

Grammar of New Testament Greek Volume 1 by JH Moulton 1906

Grammar of New Testament Greek Volume 2 by JH Moulton 1906

Grammar of New Testament Greek by F. Blass 1898

The Use of the Infinitive in Biblical Greek by Clyde Votaw 1896

Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament by Samuel G Green 1876

Notes on New Testament grammar by Ernest Be Witt Burton 1904

New Testmant Greek in a Nutshell by James Strong

A Treatise on the Syntax of the New Testament Dialect, with an appendix, containing a dissertation on the Greek article by Moses Stuart 1835

A Grammar of the New Testament Dialect by Moses Stuart 1841

Etymology of Latin and Greek by C Halsey 1887

An introduction to Greek and Latin Etymology by John Piele 1875

An introduction to the Greek of the New Testament by G Cary 1878

Key to the elements of New Testament Greek by HPV Nunn 1915

A Short Syntax of New Testament Greek by HPV Nunn 1912

The Elements of New Testament Greek by HPV Nunn 1914

Syntax of the moods and tenses of the Greek verb by WW Goodwin 1890

Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek by Ernest De Witt Burton 1893

Historical and Linguistic Studies in Literature Related to the New Testament, Volume 1 1903

Essays in Biblical Greek by Edwin Hatch 1889

An Explanation of the Greek Article by John Jones 1827

Beginner's Greek book by HW Smyth 1906

A companion to the Greek Testament and the English version by P. Schaff

An introduction to the Old Testament in Greek by Swete/Thackeray 1914

Greek Syntax with a Rationale of the Constructions by James Clyde 1870

A Greek and English lexicon to the New Testament. To this is prefixed a Greek grammar - John Parkhurst 1809

A Greek Grammar to the New Testament, and to the Common Or Hellenic Diction by W Trollope 1842

A Brief Introduction to New Testament Greek Samuel G. Green, D.D 1913

The Interlinear Literal Translation of the New Testament by Newberry/George Berry

Biblico-theological lexicon of New Testament Greek by Hermann Cremer 1882

The Doctrine of the Greek Article by Thomas Middleton 1833

Clue: a guide through Greek to Hebrew Scripture by Edwin Abbott

Exercises on the Syntax of the Greek Language by W Neilson 1834

A brief Greek syntax and hints on Greek accidence by Frederic William Farrar 1867

Grammatical Analysis of the Hebrew, Chaldee, and Greek Scriptures by Robert Young 1885

What Do I learn from Scripture by John Nelson Darby

Introduction to the Study of the Gospels by BF Westcott 1882

The First Part of Xenophon's Memorabilia to Socrates 1831

Pronunciation of ancient Greek by F. Blass 1890

Scientific names of Latin and Greek derivation by Walter Miller 1897

Philological Introduction to Greek and Latin for students by F Baur 1879

Old Testament Septuagint Greek & English Interlinear with Strong's Numbering System

The Greek Aorist by Andrew Bell

Greek Testament lessons, consisting chiefly of the Sermon on the mount, and the Parables
by John Hunter Smith - 1884

Greek Testament studies: or, A contribution towards a revised translation of the New Testament
1870

Join my Facebook Group

A Practical Guide to the Greek Testament: Designed for Those who Have No Knowledge of Greek - 1900

A Greek Grammar for Schools and Colleges by Herbery W. Smyth Ph.D 1916 (over 500 pages)

A Greek Grammar for the Use of Schools and Colleges by W.D. Geddes M.A. (over 270 pages)

Greek Reader with Notes and Lexicon by John J. Owen D.D. 1868 (over 350 pages)

A Practical Introduction to Greek Prose Composition by Thomas Kervercher Arnold 1899 (over 150 pages)

A Key to the Exercises in Kuhner's Elementary Grammar of the Greek Language by Charles W Bateman 1864 (over 100 pages)

Aspects of Speech in the Later Greek Epics by George Wicker Elderkin 1906 (over 50 pages)

Exercises in the Composition of Greek Iambic Verse by Herbert Kynaston M.A. 1879 (over 200 pages)

Fifth Greek Reader - Part 1 Selection from Greek Epic and Dramatic Poetry by Evelyn Abbot M.A. 1875 (over 350 pages)

First Greek Grammar by W. Gunion Rutherford B.A. 1880 (over 150 pages)

First Greek Reader by John E.B. Mayor M.A. 1868 (over 400 pages)

First Steps to Greek Prose Composition by Blomfield Jackson M.A. 1875 (over 50 pages)

Greek Prose Composition fur Use in Colleges by Edward H. Spieker Ph.D 1904 (over 250 pages)

Hints and Cautions on Attic Greek Prose Composition by the Rev. Francis St John Thackeray M.A. 1876 (over 150 pages)

Introduction to Greek Prose Composition with Exercises by A. Sidgwick M.A. 1880 (over 250 pages)

New Greek Delectus by Henry Musgrave Wilkins M.A. 1880 (over 200 pages)

Old Greek Stories - 3rd Reader Grade by James Baldwin 1895 (over 200 pages)

Pronunciation of Ancient Greek W.J. Purton B.A. 1890 (over 150 pages)

Specimens of Greek Dialects being a Fourth Greek Reader by W. Walter Merry M.A. 1875 (over 400 pages)

Stories of Herodotus in Attic Greek 1882

Syntax and Synonyms of the Greek Testament by William Webster MA 1864

Stories in Attic Greek by the Rev. Francis David Morice M.A. 1883 (over 200 pages)

Tales from Herodotus with Attic Dialectical Forms by G.S. Farnell M.A. 1895 (over 150 pages)

The Old Testament in Greek By Alan England Brooke  (Numbers and Deuteronomy) 1911

Plus, you get the following works at AT Robertson:

A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research 1914

Syllabus for New Testament Study - A Guide for Lessons in the Class-room 1915

A Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament for Students Familiar with the Elements of Greek 1909

Types of preachers in the New Testament 1922

Commentary on Matthew 1911

The Student's Chronological New Testament: Text of the American Standard Revision 1904 by A.T. Robertson

The Divinity of Christ in the Gospel of John 1916

Epochs in the life of Jesus 1907

Five times Five points of Church Finance 1885

The Glory of the Ministry - Paul's Exultation in Preaching 1911

Making Good in the Ministry; a sketch of John Mark 1918

Studies in the New Testament - a handbook for Bible classes in Sunday schools, for teacher training work, for use in secondary schools, high schools and colleges 1915

The new citizenship; the Christian facing a new world order 1919

The Pharisees and Jesus: the Stone lectures for 1915-16, delivered at the Princeton Theological Seminary 1920

Practical and Social Aspects of Christianity; the Wisdom of James 1915

Paul's joy in Christ - Studies in Philippians 1917

A Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ based on the Broadus Harmony in the Revised Version 1922

Keywords in the teaching of Jesus 1906

The Teaching of Jesus concerning God the Father  Volume 3 - 1904

Archibald Thomas Robertson (November 6, 1863 – September 24, 1934) was an American theologian, born at Cherbury near Chatham, Va. He was educated at Wake Forest (N. C.) College (M. A., 1885) and at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky. (Th. M., 1888), where he was thereafter instructor and professor of New Testament interpretation.

Plus You Get:
100 Interesting & Rare Older Greek Testament Texts Etc on DVDROM Plus Related Books

The New Testament in the original Greek
by Fenton John Anthony Hort, Brooke Foss Westcott 1898

The Greek Testament - Vol2, with various readings [&c.], prolegomena, by Henry Alford - Bible - 1877

The Greek Testament Vol. 4: With a Critically Revised Text, by Henry Alford  - 1878

The Greek Testament: with the readings adopted by the revisers of the Authorized Version 1881

The Critical English Testament - being an Adaptation of Johann Albrecht Bengel's Gnomon, with Numerous Notes, showing the precise results of Modern Criticism and Exegesis 1873 by William Blackley Volume 1

The Critical English Testament - being an Adaptation of Johann Albrecht Bengel's Gnomon, with Numerous Notes, showing the precise results of Modern Criticism and Exegesis 1873 by William Blackley Volume 2

The Critical English Testament - being an Adaptation of Johann Albrecht Bengel's Gnomon, with Numerous Notes, showing the precise results of Modern Criticism and Exegesis 1873 by William Blackley Volume 3

Tregelles Greek New Testament Volume 1 1856
Tregelles Greek New Testament Volume 2 1856
Tregelles Greek New Testament Volume 3 1856
Tregelles Greek New Testament Volume 4 1856
Tregelles Greek New Testament Volume 5,6 1856

Tregelles Greek New Testament Prolegomena

Von Soden's Greek Testament 1913

Bengel's Novi Testamenti 1850

The Expositor's Greek Testament
by William Robertson Nicoll - 1903

A Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version
by Philip Schaff - 1883 - 616 pages

The New Testament Greek Text with Critical Apparatus by Eberhard Nestle 1904


A Practical Guide to the Greek Testament: Designed for Those who Have No Knowledge of Greek - 1900

Companion to the Greek Testament
by Arthur Charles Barrett - Testament (New) - 1878

Collectanea evangelica: or, Selections from the Greek Testament, consisting of the 4 Gospels Arranged in Chronological Order
by Nathan Covington Brooks - 1849 - 200 pages

Greek Testament studies: or, A contribution towards a revised translation of the New Testament
1870

A Key to the Greek Testament: Part the First, Comprehending the Text of the Gospel of John w/An Interlineary Translation
(Hamiltonian System) 1824

The Englishman's Greek Concordance of the New Testament by George V. Wigram - 1870 - 1000 pages

Greek Testament lessons, consisting chiefly of the Sermon on the mount, and the Parables
by John Hunter Smith - 1884

The Greek Testament roots in a selection of texts by George Knox Gillespie - 1858

A Critical Greek and English Concordance of the New Testament
by Charles Frederic Hudson, Ezra Abbot, Thomas Sheldon Green - 1885 - 716 pages

 
The Critical Handbook of the Greek New Testament
by Edward Cushing Mitchell - 1896 - 270 pages

The New Testament: Translated from the Greek Text of Tischendorf
by Constantin von Tischendorf - 1869 - 570 pages

The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament
by Charles John Ellicott, Edwin Palmer  - 1882 - 78 pages

The Greek Testament with English Notes - Page i
by Bible. N.T. Greek - 1837
TBS GREEK TESTAMENT, WITH ENGLISH NOTES, Uj:. CRITICAL,.PHILOLOGICAL, AND
EXEGETICAL, SELECTED AND ARRANGED FROM THE BEST COMMENTATORS, ANCIENT AND MODERN, ...

The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by American Bible Society - 1880 - 380 pages

The New Testament: Trnslated from the Original Greek
by H. T. Anderson - 1866 - 408 pages

The Old Testament in Greek, according to the text of Codex Vaticanus by Henry St. John Thackeray, Norman McLean, Alan England Brooke 1911

Sources of New Testament Greek: Or, The Influence of the Septuagint
by Harry Angus Alexander Kennedy - 1895 - 172 pages
 
Contributions to the Criticism of the Greek New Testament by Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener - 1859 - 80 pages

A Plea for the Received Greek Text: And for the Authorized Version of the New Testament by Solomon Caesar Malan - 1869 - 212 pages
 
Introduction to the Study of the Gospels
by Brooke Foss Westcott - 1882 - 476 pages

Essays in the History of Religious Thought in the West
by Brooke Foss Westcott - 1891 - 397 pages

The gospel of the Resurrection: thoughts on its relation to reason and historyby Brooke Foss Westcott - 1866
 
Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., D.C.L.: Sometime Bishop of Durham
by Arthur Westcott - WESTCOTT, BROOKE FOSS, BP. OF DURHAM,1825-1901 - 1903

 
The Gospel According to St. John: The Authorized Version
by Brooke Foss Westcott - Bible - 307 pages

The Epistle to the Hebrews: The Greek Texts with Notes and Essays
by Brooke Foss Westcott 1892 - 504 pages

The English Bible: History of the Translation of the Holy Scriptures
by Hannah Chaplin Conant - 1856 - 466 pages

Novum Testamentum Ad Exemplar Millianum, Cum Emenationibus Et Lectionibus ...by William Greenfield, John Mill, Jo. Jac. Griesbach 1829 - 565 pages

Novum Testamentum graece
by Constantin von Tischendorf - 1877 - 1056 pages

Novum Testamentum Graece
by Johann Jakob Griesbach - 1810

He Kaine Diatheke =: Novum Testamentum textûs Stephanici A.D. 1550
by Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, Robert Estienne - 1887 - 598 pages

Corrections of the copies of the New Testament portion of the Vatican ...by H Heinfetter

The Greek Testament with English Notes Volume 2
by The Rev. Edward Burton, D. D.

The words of the New Testament, as altered by transmission and ascertained by Modern Criticism
by William Milligan, Alexander Roberts - 1873

A Full Account and Collation of the Greek Cursive Codex Evangelium 604 by Herman Charles Hoskier 1890

The Critical Handbook of the Greek New Testament
by Edward Cushing Mitchell 1896

A harmony of the four Gospels in Greek, according to the text of Tischendorf ...by Frederic Gardiner - Bible - 1873 - 268 pages

The New Testament: Translated from Griesbach's Text
by Samuel Sharpe, Jo. Jac. Griesbach - 1862 - 412 pages

Novum Testamentum Graece Volume 2
by Johann Jakob Griesbach - 1810
 
The Four Gospels: Translated from the Greek Text of Tischendorf
by Nathaniel Smith Folsom, Constantin von Tischendorf - 1871

The Emphatic Diaglott: Containing the Original Greek Text of Greisbach Bible - 1870

Critical notes on the authorised English version of the New Testament by Samuel Sharpe - 1856

A Monotessaron; Or, The Gospel of Jesus Christ, According to the Four ...by John S Thompson, Jo. Jac. Griesbach - 1828

The Holy Gospels: Translated from the Original Greek: the Spurious Passages ...by George William Brameld - Bible - 1863 - 138 pages

The critical Greek and English New Testament: consisting of the Greek text and Parallel English Text 1859 - 624 pages

The New Testament: Newly Tr. (from the Greek Text of Tregelles & Critically ...Rotherham 1893 - 490 pages

A History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament
by Marvin Richardson Vincent - 1899 - 185 pages

The English Revisers' Greek Text: Shown to be Unauthorized
by George Whitefield Samson - Bible - 1882 - 132 pages

Novum Testamentum Graece (Greek New Testament)
by Karl Lachmann - 1846

Novum Testamentum graece
by Buttman - 1878
 
The Epistle to the Ephesians: Translated from the Greek, on the Basis of the Common English Version by American Bible Union 1857 (KJV, Revised Version and Greek Text in parallel columns with critical notes underneath)

The New Testament: Tr. from the Sinaitic Manuscript Discovered by Tischendorf by HT anderson 1918

The New Testament of the Authorized Version with various readings from three celebrated manuscripts by Tischendorf

Novum Testamentum Graece Volume 1 1869 by Ezra Abbot 1869

Novum Testamentum Graece Volume 2 1869 by Ezra Abbot 1871

Novum Testamentum Graece Volume 3 1869 by Ezra Abbot

Novum Testamentum Graece Volume 3:2 1869 by Ezra Abbot

Novum Testamentum Graece Volume 3:3 1869 by Ezra Abbot

Greek Septuagint Bible in a 1318 page PDF (Acrobat) file

Codex Sinaiticus Greek Manuscript in a 295 page PDF (Acrobat) file

Codex Vaticanus Greek Manuscript in a 285 page PDF (Acrobat) file

Erasmus' 1516 Greek Text with Latin Text on opposing page, 554 page PDF (Acrobat) file

Erasmus' 1522 Greek Text, 316 page PDF (Acrobat) file, WITH the Johannine Comma at 1 John 5:7.

Elzevir's Greek New Testament Textus Receptus (Received Text) 1633, 457 page PDF (Acrobat) file (about 900 original pages.

Origen's Hexapla - 1875 - text and notes in Latin

Plus You Get:

The Greek Testament with English notes by ST Bloomfield, Volume 1 1854

The Greek Testament with English notes by ST Bloomfield, Volume 2 1854

Tregelles on the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament - article in Bibliotheca Sacra 1855

Article on Buttman's Greek New Testament in Bibliotheca Sacra 1858

Modern Editions of the Greek Testament, Article in the National Review 1864

The Greek Vulgate - Article in The Journal of Sacred Literature 1852

The Text of Luke 2:22, article in the Harvard theological Review Volume 14 1921

The Critical Principles of Westcott and Hort, Article in The Catholic Presbyterian, Volume 8 1882

An Introduction to the Greek of the New Testament by GL Cary 1879

Notes Critical and Explanatory on the Greek text of Paul's Epistle, Text of Tischendorf, with a constant comparison of the text of Westcott and Hort (first 570 pages only) by JR Boise 1896

Some Recent English Theologians, Lightfoot, Westcott, Hort, Jowett, Hatch - Article in The Contemporary Review, Volume 71 (1897)

The Westcott and Hort Text Under Fire, article in Bibliotheca Sacra 1921

Tischendorf's Greek Testament, Article in the Quarterly Review 1895

The Oxford Debate on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament 1897

The Text of Holy Scripture, Article in the Catholic World 1922

The Acts of the Apostles, being the Greek text as Revised by Drs. Westcott and Hort by Thomas E Page 1886

Novum Testamentum by John Mill 1814

A Concordance to the Greek Testament according to the texts of Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf, and the English revisers by WF Moulton 1897

The Revisers Greek text - a critical examination of certain readings, textual and marginal, in the original Greek of the New Testament adopted by the late Anglo-American revisers by SW Whitney 1892

Novum Testamentum Graecum - Wettstein 1751 (Volume 1)

Visit A Tribute to my Beloved Dog Teddy