The Ancient Swastika and the Cross by R. Sewell 1881

Notes on the Ancient Swastika by R. Sewell M.R.A.S. 1881

See also Symbology & Ancient Symbolism - 100 Books on DVDrom and Is the Cross a Pagan Symbol? 70 PDF Books on DVDROM

The attention of readers of the Indian Antiquary bas lately been drawn to the question of the origin of that mysterious Aryan symbol, the Swastika, in a paper last year by the celebrated Orientalist, Mr. Edward Thomas; in another article on the subject written by the Rev. S. Beal; and by Mr. Thomas's enlarged essay on the subject in the Numismatic Chronicle (N.S. Vol. XX. pp, 18-48).

Whether Mr. Thomas's sun-theory be really the right one or not, I leave to each student of auch matters to decide for himself. But while any doubt whatever remains among the learned, I think no harm can be caused by gathering together a few notes on the heterogeneous theories that have been put forward to account for the symbol and explain its meaning. I only pretend to have collected
a very few of these extremely diverse elucidations. Others may be able to furnish us with further examples of the ingenuity displayed by writers in presence of the swastika; and the exhibition may be amusing if it does not prove instructive.

This Kindle Book is now available on Amazon

Visit a listing for this book on this blog by clicking here.

In 1854 General Cunningham, writing in his Bhilsa Topes, goes into the question of this symbol very early in the work. After remarking on the religion of the Aryans he takes up the doctrine of the Swastikas as opposed to that of the Brahmans, and states that "the Swastikas derived their name from their peculiar symbol tho swastika, or mystic cross, which was a symbol of their belief in Swasti. This term is a compound of _su_ 'well,' and _asti_, 'it is'; meaning 'it is well', or, as Wilson expresses it, 'so be it'; and implying complete reignation under all circumstances." In a note he says:- "The Swasti of Sanskrit is the suti of Pali; and the mystic cross or swastika is only a monogrammatic symbol formed by the combination of the two syllables su + ti = suti." Without entering on a lengthy discussion on the theory that the symbol had its origin in a combination of letters of an alphabet dating from perhaps not very long before the third century B.C., it will be quite sufficient to point to the Hissarlik discoveries of Schliemann for a proof that the symbol existed, perfect and complete, ages before the alphabet of Asoka was in use in India, so far as we know. The earliest of the settlers on that historical spot, whose remains are found in strata of debris 40 to 46 feet below the ruins of the Hellenic inhabitants of the seventh century B.C., used the Swastika in its most modern form as their favourite sacred symbol. Further comment on he monogrammatic theory would seem to be
needless.

In the sixth chapter of his _Troy and its Remains_ Schliemann devotes considerable space to the subject of the Swastika, showing how apparently universal was its use amongst several of the
earliest races of Asia and Europe "at a time when Germans, Indians, Pelasgians, Celts, Persians, Slavonians and Iranians still formed one nation and spoke one laugnage," (p. 102), and he quotes at length from the work of M. Emile Burnouf, _La Science des Religions_, on the question of its origin. "The swastika represents the two pieces of wood which were laid crosswise upon one another before the sacrificial altars, in order to produce the holy fire agni, and whose ends were bent round at right angles and fastened by means of four nails, so that this wooden scaffolding might not be moved. At the point where the two pieces of wood were joined, there was a small hole, in which a third piece of wood, in the form of a lance (called Pramantha), was rotated by means of a cord made of cow's hair and hemp, till the fire wa s generated by friction."..."The pramantha was afterwards transformed by the Greeks into 'Prometheus,' who, they imagined, stole fire from heaven, so as to instil into earth-born man the bright spark of the soul." Dr. Schliemann further states that M. E. Burnouf "adds that the Greeks for a long time generated fire by friction, and that the two lower pieces of wood that lay at right angles across one another were called stauros, which word is either derived from the root stri, which signifies 'lying upon the earth,' and is then identical with the Latin sternere, or is derived from the Sanskrit word stavara, which means 'firm, solid, immoveable.' Since the Greeks had other means of producing fire, the word stauros passed into simply in the sense of 'cross.'" He concludes with the remark that from the remotest times the different forms of the swastika "were the most sacred symbols of our Aryan forefathers."

For a list of all of my disks, with links click here

In January 1870 there appeared an interesting article in the Edinburgh Review summarising some of the opinions which had found favour regarding this "Pre-Christian Cross," and giving the writer's own view in the matter very strongly expressed. After pointing out the universality of the cruciform emblem amongst the earliest known races of the world, and stating, somewhat boldly, that "the marvellous rook-hewn caves of Elephanta and Elura, and the stately temples of Mathura and Tirupati in the East, may be cited as characteristical examples of one laborious method of exhibiting it; and the megalithic structures of Callernish and New-grange in the West, of another," -(rather a confusion here, surely!)-the reviewer goes on to give his very decided opinion as to the origin of the symbol: "The aureole or disc encircling the heads of gods and saints, and signifying perfection, was primarily intended to represent the solar orb; but in the course of time, as Sabean worship travelled beyond the region of its source, and extraneous influences were brought to bear upon it, the same symbol reappears with an infinitude of scarcely distinguishable additions internally and externally. . . . When divided into four equal segments. . . it was the symbol of the primeval abode of man, the traditional Paradise of Eden."

The Rev. W. Haslam (The Cross and the Serpent, 1849) held that the cross symbol was, from the beginning of things, given directly from Heaven to man as a perpetual type or prophecy of the death of Christ. "The cross was conceived when the redemption of man was designed or ever the tempter was changed into the form of the gliding serpent . . . . It was revealed with the prophecies and transmitted with them as a part of the prediction, in its more material form, from generation to generation. . . . The Cross was known to Noah before the Dispersion, and even before the Flood; and I will venture yet further, and say, the cross was known to Adam; and that the knowledge of it as a sacred sign, was imparted to him by the Almighty."

How pale seems the sun-theory o£ Mr. Ed. Thomas, and how absolutely contemptible the practical and mundane Greek-coin-punch-marks origin suggested by Mr. Westropp, before the magnificence of such a notion as this!

Mr. Brinton (Myths of the New World) holds that "the arms of the cross were designed to point to the cardinal points, and represent the four winds, the rain-bringers. . . . As the emblem of the winds who dispense the fertilising showers, it is emphatically the tree of our life, our subsistence, and our health. It never had any other meaning in America., and if, as has been said, the tombs of the Mexicans were cruciform, it was perhaps with reference to a resurrection and a future life as portrayed under this symbol, indicating that the buried body would rise by the action of the four spirits of the world, as the buried seed takes on a new existence when watered by the vernal showers."

Many writers have ascribed the origin of the Swastika symbol to a modification of the crux ansata of the Egyptians, or the mystic and ubiquitous tau; while Mr. Haslam's prophetic hypothesis has received support from its being imagined that the crux ansata itself typified the victory of the cross over the world.

Dr. Inman, as with everything else, supposes that the Egyptian tau is a phallic symbol, and that the Swastika is simply a conjunction of four such symbols pointing to one centre. Every varied form of the cross, and every junction of cross and circle, however diversified, is explained by him to have a mystical signification implying union of the two great powers of Nature!

Dr. J. G. Muller (Geschichte der Amerikanischen Urreligionen, p. 497), speaking of the cross venerated amongst the Indians of America as a god of rain, writes:-"It is just the simpleness of its form which renders an interpretation difficult, because it admits of too many possibilities. All attempts thus far made....unite in the conception of the fructifying energy of Nature. Hence it appears in connection with sun-gods and the Ephesian goddess, and it is also the fitting symbol of the rain-god of tropical lands, whom it represents, as stated by the natives." He appears to lean towards the phallic origin of the pre-Christian cross as the theory most reasonable to be accepted. And to this view also Professor Max Muller seems to incline.

Mr. Baldwin, in his Ancient America (New York, 1879, p. 186), alludes to the symbol as a proof of a former union between the old world and the new. "Religious symbols are found in American ruins which remind us of those of the Phoenicians, such as figures of the serpent, which appear constantly, and the cross, supposed by some to represent the mounting of the magnetic needle, which was among the emblems peculiar to the goddess Astarte.

Mr. Hodder M. Westropp gives in the Indian Antiquary, vol. VII, 18'78, p. 119, his views on the origin of the Greek archaic cross, stating that it appears to him "to be evidently derived from the punch-marks on early Greek coins," and that it is different from the swastika in the fact that the arms are turned to the left instead of to the right. The swastika, he thinks, cannot possibly be older than the sixth century B.C., "as Buddha died about 540 B.C." But Schliemann's description of the finding the whorls, and the illustrations appended to his _Troy and its Remains_, show that many of these whorls were found more than 40 feet below the earliest Greek remains, and that both forms, turning left and turning right, were in common use.

The above are only a few of the theories on the origin of this symbol which appear to have been entertained amongst recent writers. It would be interesting to collect others. For the present, let students of Archmology choose for themselves. By and by, no doubt, further light will be thrown on the origin of archaic Indian Symbolism till much that is now dark enough becomes plain. For myself, I boldly range myself under Mr. Thomas's sun-standard; and I cherish the conviction that many of the signs and symbols venerated amongst the Indian races, both Buddhistic and Brahmanical, will hereafter be traced to an origin in a (so-called) "primeval" sun-worship, existent in Central or Western Asia prior to the migration of the Aryans, and possibly drawing much of its ceremonial from Chaldea, Assyria, and even Egypt.

See also Symbology & Ancient Symbolism - 100 Books on DVDrom and Is the Cross a Pagan Symbol? 70 PDF Books on DVDROM

This Kindle Book is now available on Amazon

Visit a listing for this book on this blog by clicking here.

For a list of all of my disks and ebooks click here

200 Books on the Biblical Canon & Lost Books of the Bible 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 digital 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):

The Forbidden Books of the original New Testament, Venerated by the Primitive Christian Church but After Violent Disputations Forbidden by the Bishops of the Nicene Council by Archbishop Wake 1863

Lilith, Adam's First Wife - Article in the Sunday Magazine 1884

The Lilith Legend, article in The Museum Journal 1912

The Lost and Hostile Gospels by S Baring Gould 1874

Mythical Elements in the Samson Story, article in the Monist 1907

Ecclesiastical Forgeries 1, article in The Christian Reformer 1839

Ecclesiastical Forgeries, article in The Christian Reformer 1839 (Disputed books, Melito's falsehood, forged chapter in Josephus)

Ecclesiastical Forgeries, article in The Christian Reformer 1839 (The Apocrypha, Book of Enoch)

Ecclesiastical Forgeries, article in The Christian Reformer 1839 (Character of Eusebius, Letters of Abgarus, Image of Edessa)

The Mythological Acts of the apostles by Agnes Smith Lewis 1904

Christology of the Book of Enoch, With an Account of the Book Itself and Critical Remarks upon it...article in The American biblical Repository 1840

How do I know what is the Bible? Article in Scribner's Monthly 1876

Old Testament legends, being stories out of some of the less-known apocryphal books of the Old Testament by MR James 1913

Controversy Regarding the Apocrypha, article in The Christian guardian 1825

Jewish and Christian Apocalypses by F Crawford Burkitt 1913

The Epistle of Jude, A Study in Marcosian Heresy, article in the Journal of Theological Studies 1905

Origin and history of the books of the Bible, both the canonical and the apocryphal by CE Stowe 1867

Pseudepigrapha: An Account of Certain Apocyphal Sacred Writings of the Jews and Early Christians by William J Deane 1891

The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament by RH Charles, Volume 1, 1913

The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament by RH Charles, Volume 2, 1913

The Apocrypha Greek and English in Parallel Columns 1871

The Bible Catholic, article in the Catholic Magazine and Register 1850

The Bible that was Lost and Is Found by John Bigelow 1912

The Ethiopians - Apocryphal Books of Enoch and Isaiah, article in The Foreign Quarterly Review 1840

The Books of the Apocrypha, their Origin, Teaching and Contents by W.O.E Oesterley 1915

The Life of Jesus Christ including His Apocryphal History from the Spurious Gospels & Unpublished Manuscripts 1818

The Oxyrhynchus logia and the Apocryphal Gospels by Charles Taylor 1899

The Protestant Church and the Apocrypha, article in The Treasury 1891

The Uncanonical Gospels and other Writings by Rev Dr Giles, Volume 1 1852

The Uncanonical Gospels and other Writings by Rev Dr Giles, Volume 2 1852

The Uncanonical Jewish Books by William John Ferrar 1918

The doctrine of God in the Jewish apocryphal and apocalyptic literature by Henry J Wicks 1871

The Unwritten Sayings of Christ - words of Our Lord not recorded in the Four Gospels by Charles George Griffinhoofe 1903

Two Lectures on the "Sayings of Jesus" recently Discovered at Oxyrhynchus by Walter Lock 1897

The Virgin Birth by Allan Hoben 1903 ("The Virgin Birth has a double attestation. The relation of the canonical story to the Gospel of James. Interpretation of the canonical accounts.)

Shepherd on Ecclesiastical Forgeries, article in the Quarterly Review 1853

Theological Essays on the Canon and Apocrypha 1878

The witness of Hermas to the four Gospels by Charles Taylor 1892

Barnabas, Hermas and the Didache, being the Donnellan lectures by JA Armitage 1920

The Old Testament Apocrypha, article in Union Seminary Magazine 1910

Roman Catholic and Protestant Bibles Compared by MW Jacobus 1903

The Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament by MR James 1920

A complete concordance to the Old and New Testament and Apocrypha by Alexander Cruden 1891

Demonology and devil-lore Volume 1 by Moncure Daniel Conway

Demonology and devil-lore Volume 2 by Moncure Daniel Conway 1879

(Madonnas — Adam's first wife — Her flight and doom — Creation of devils — Lilith marries Samael — Tree of Life — Lilith's part in the Temptation — Her locks — Lamia — Bodeima — Meschia and Meschiane — Amazons — Maternity — Rib-theory of Woman — Captivity of Woman.)
A Critical Commentary and Paraphrase on the Old and New Testament and the Apocrypha 1822 Volume 1

A Critical Commentary and Paraphrase on the Old and New Testament and the Apocrypha 1822 Volume 2

A Critical Commentary and Paraphrase on the Old and New Testament and the Apocrypha 1822 Volume 3

A Critical Commentary and Paraphrase on the Old and New Testament and the Apocrypha 1822 Volume 4

A Critical Commentary and Paraphrase on the Old and New Testament and the Apocrypha 1822 Volume 5

A Critical Commentary and Paraphrase on the Old and New Testament and the Apocrypha 1822 Volume 6

The Apocryphal New Testament by William Hone 1880

Coptic Apocryphal Gospels by F Robinson 1896

The Apocryphal Gospels and other documents relating to the history of Christ by B Harris Cowper 1867

The Book of Enoch, the Prophet - An Apocryphal Production, Supposed for Ages to Have Been Lost by Richard Laurence 1838

The Apocryphal and Legendary life of Christ by James De Quincey Donehoo 1903

The Value of the Apocrypha by Bernard Joseph Snell 1905

Canonical & Uncanonical Gospels, with a Translation of the Recently Discovered Gospel of Peter by William Emery Barnes - 1893

Books which Influenced our Lord and His Apostles, Being a Critical Review of Apocalyptic Jewish Literature by John EH Thomson 1891

Roman Misquotation - Certain passages from the Fathers, adduced in a work entitle "The faith of Catholics, Brought to the test of the Originals and their Perverted Character Demonstrated by Richard Pope 1840

2nd Maccabees and Purgatory, article in the Southern Presbyterian review (1847)

The doctrine of Purgatory and the practice of praying for the dead by

Four Notes on the Book of Enoch by FC Burkitt, article in the Journal of Theological Studies 1907

The Serpent in Genesis, article in The Unitarian Review and Religious Magazine "This book of Enoch was written by a genius. Dean Stanley calls it the Divina Comedia of its period. It seems to have created a sensation when first written, and is quoted by the early Fathers. It then disappeared for centuries, and was supposed to be irrecoverably lost."

The Use of the Apocrypha in the Christian church by William H Daubney 1900

INTERMEDIARIES IN JEWISH THEOLOGY (discusses Metatron, the angel in the Book of Enoch) article in The Harvard theological Review 1922

Outline of the neo-Hebraic apocalyptic literature by Moses Buttenwieser 1901

The Messages of the Apocalyptical Writers - the books of Daniel and Revelation and some uncanonical apocalypses, with historical introductions and a free rendering in paraphrase by Frank C Porter 1907

Religious development between the Old and the New Testaments by RH Charles 1914

The Gospel according to Peter, and the Revelation of Peter - Two Lectures by JA Robinson 1892

Wisdom of the Apocrypha by CE Lawrence 1910

A History of the Jewish people in the time of Jesus Christ, Volume 1 by Emil Schürer - 1886

A History of the Jewish people in the time of Jesus Christ, Volume 2 by Emil Schürer - 1886

A History of the Jewish people in the time of Jesus Christ, Volume 3 by Emil Schürer - 1886

A History of the Jewish people in the time of Jesus Christ, Volume 4 by Emil Schürer - 1886

A History of the Jewish people in the time of Jesus Christ, Volume 5 by Emil Schürer - 1886

Some account of the writings and opinions of Clement of Alexandria by John Kaye 1835

A Popular Account of the Newly-recovered Gospel of St. Peter by James Rendel Harris - 1893

The Newly-recovered Gospel of St. Peter by James Rendel Harris - 1893

The Oldest Church manual called The teaching of the twelve apostles - the Didachè and kindred documents in the original by Philip Schaff 1885

The General Delusion of Christians by John Lacy 1832

Frauds and Follies of the Fathers by Joseph Mazzini Wheeler 1882

The Diatessaron of Tatian and the synoptic problem by A Hobson 1904

Scripture History: with additions from the books of the Maccabees and Josephus by T Hallworth 1830

The silence of Josephus & Tacitus by William Benjamin Smith 1910

The Ancestry of Our English Bible by Ira Maurice Price 1920

The Extra-canonical Life of Christ by Bernhard Pick 1903

Wisdom and the Jewish Apocryphal Writings by W. B. Stevenson - 1903

The Genuine and Apocryphal Gospels compared by Samuel Butler 1822

Lectures upon the Ecclesiastical History of the First Three Centuries Volume 1 by Edward Burton 1839

Lectures upon the Ecclesiastical History of the First Three Centuries Volume 2 by Edward Burton 1839

A manual of the sects and heresies of the early Christian Church by Thomas Jackson - 1835

Coptic apocrypha in the dialect of upper Egypt by E.A. Budge 1913

The Earlier chapter of the First Book of Esdras, article in Journal of Sacred Literature 1863

A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, Volume 1 by James Hastings 1906

A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, Volume 2 by James Hastings 1906

Some New Coptic Apocrypha, article in Journal of Theological Studies 1905

The Apocalypse of Abraham and its Kindred, article in The Jewish Quarterly Review 1895

Article on the Penitence of Jannes and Jambres in Journal of Theological Studies 1901

The Uncanonical and Apocryphal Scriptures, being the additions to the Old Testament canon which were included in the ancient Greek and Latin versions; the English text of the authorized version, together with the additional matter found in the vulgate and other ancient versions 1884 by William R Churton



The canon of the Bible: its formation, history and fluctuations
by Samuel Davidson - 1880


How Do I Know What is the Bible, article in Scribner's Monthly 1877

A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament by Brooke Foss Westcott

The Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament, Collected, Translated and Discussed by MR James 1920

The Book of God in Light of the Higher Criticism by GW Foote (has a chapter on the Canon)

The Canon of the New Testament, article in THE BIBLICAL WORLD

The Apocrypha Problem and other articles in The Biblical Review 1916

Our Bible; its origin, character and value by Herbert Whillett 1917

2nd Maccabees and Purgatory, article in the Southern Presbyterian review (1847)

Seven Puzzling Bible Books by Washington Gladden 1897

Canon and Text of the Old Testament by Frants Buhl 1892

The Veracity of the Five Books of Moses argued from the undesigned coincidence to be found in them, when compared in their several parts by the Rev. J.J. Blunt 1835

The Canon of Holy Scripture with Remarks Upon King James's Version, the Latin Vulgate and the Douay Bible by Matthew H Henderson 1868

The veracity of the historical books of the Old Testament by the Rev. J.J. Blunt 1832

The Veracity of the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles by the Rev. J.J. Blunt

The Testimony of Nineveh to the veracity of the Bible by M Harvey 1854

A Companion to Biblical studies by William E Barnes 1916

The Bible Hand-book: An Introduction to the Study of Sacred Scripture by Joseph Angus - 1856

Undesigned Coincidences in the writings both of the Old and New Testaments - an argument of their veracity, with an appendix containing undesigned coincidences between the Gospels and Acts, and Josephus by the Rev. J.J. Blunt 1856

The Gnostic Heresies of the First and Second Centuries by Henry Longueville Mansel, 1875

The inspiration of the Scriptures by Alexander Carson 1853

The Theories of Inspiration of the Rev. Daniel Wilson proved to be erroneous by Alexander Carson 1830

The Inspired Word (The Canon of Scripture by Talbot Chambers 1888)

The Word of God Opened. Its Inspiration, Canon, and Interpretation By Bradford Kinney Peirce 1868

The Books of the Old and New Testaments proved to be canonical...with an account of the introduction and character of the Apocrypha by Robert Haldane 1830

The Origin of the Canon of the Old Testament by Gerrit Wildeboer - 1895

The Canon of the Holy Scriptures from the double point of view of science and of faith by Louis Gaussen 1862

History of the Canon of the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Church by Eduard Reuss 1887

The History of the New Testament Canon in the Syrian Church by Julius Bewer 1900

A New and Full Method of Settling the Canonical Authority of the New Testament, Volume 1 by Jeremiah Jones 1798

A New and Full Method of Settling the Canonical Authority of the New Testament, Volume 2 by Jeremiah Jones 1798

A New and Full Method of Settling the Canonical Authority of the New Testament, Volume 3 by Jeremiah Jones 1798

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Volume 1 by James Orr 1915

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Volume 2 by James Orr 1915

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Volume 3 by James Orr 1915

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Volume 4 by James Orr 1915

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Volume 5 by James Orr 1915

Remarks on the Apocryphal Books of Scripture, article in The Classical Journal 1826

Errata of the Protestant Bible - The truth of the English translations examined in a treatise showing some of the errors that are to be found in the English translations of the Sacred Scriptures used by Protestants by Thomas Ward 1876

Roman Catholic and Protestant Bibles compared by MW Jacobus 1908

THE BIBLE CATHOLIC OR SCRIPTURE TEXTS FOR CATHOLIC DOCTRINE, article in The Catholic magazine and register 1850

Protestant text book of the Romish controversy (Chapter 2 is on the Apocrypha) by James Todd 1879

A Book about the English Bible by Josiah Penniman 1919

The Apocryphal books of the Old and New Testament by HT Andrews 1908

Chapters include: I. THE OLD TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA, THE APOCRYPHA PROPER, THE HISTORICAL BOOKS, THE DIDACTIC BOOKS, THE RELIGIOUS ROMANCES, PROPHETIC WRITINGS, THE WIDER APOCRYPHA, APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE, THE NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA, NON-CANONICAL BOOKS WHICH WERE USED AS SCRIPTURE BY THE EARLY CHURCH, THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS

How the Bible Grew by Frank Lewis 1919

The Protestant Church and the Bible, article in the The Treasury magazine 1891

On the Canon of the Old Testament, article in The Quarterly Christian spectator 1838

Articles on the Canon in the Theological Lectures Magazine

Tobit and the Babylonian Apocryphal writings by Archibald Henry Sayce

The Douay or Catholic Bible, article in the Congregational Review 1867

The Old Testament Apocrypha - Article in the Union Seminary Magazine 1897

The canon of the Old and New Testaments ascertained;
by Archibald Alexander - 1831

The Bible Verified
by Andrew Webster Archibald - 1890 - 245 pages
CHAPTER I. THE CANON; OR, WHAT CONSTITUTES THE BIBLE?

The Origin And Authority Of The Biblical Canon In The Anglican Church
H. W. Howorth
Journal Of Theological Studies, 1906, pp.1-40. (in text format)

The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament
By B.B. Warfield
Pub. 1892, by the American Sunday School Union, Philadelphia, Pa. (in text format)

The Canon and the Text of the New Testament by Caspar Rene Gregory
Canonical & Uncanonical Gospels, with a Translation of the Recently Discovered Fragments, 1893, by W.E. Barnes

The Uncanonical Jewish Books: A Short Introduction to the Apocrypha by William John Ferrar 1918

The Uncanonical Writings of the Old Testament: Found in the Armenian Manuscripts of the Library of St. Lazarus 1901

The Canon and the Text of the New Testament by Alexander Souter

The Text and Canon of the New Testament
by Alexander Souter - 1913 - 250 pages

Canon Muratorianus: The Earliest Catalogue of the Books of the New Testament
by Lodovico Antonio Muratori, Samuel Prideaux Tregelles - 1867 - 105 pages

The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture: A Critical, Historical, and Dogmatic
by George Trumbull Ladd - 1883

The Historic Origin of the Bible: A Handbook of Principal Facts
by Edwin Cone Bissell - 1889 - 430 pages

The Bible: Its Meaning and Supremacy
by Frederic William Farrar - 1897 - 350 pages
... CHAPTER I THE BIBLE IS NOT ONE HOMOGENEOUS BOOK, BUT A GRADUALLY COLLECTED CANON.

Origin and Development of the Nicene Theology
by Hugh McDonald Scott - 1896 - 380 pages

The Facts about Luther
by Patrick F. O'Hare - 1916 - 360 pages

Catholic Pocket Dictionary and Cyclopedia: Containing a Brief Explanation
by James Joseph McGovern - 1906 - 290 pages

A Glossary of Liturgical and Ecclesiastical Terms
by Frederick George Lee - 1877 - 450 pages

English Bible Versions: With Special Reference to the Vulgate, the Douay, the Authorized and Revised Versions
by Henry Barker - 1907 - 370 pages

Origin and History of the Books of the Bible: Both the Canonical and the...
by Calvin Ellis Stowe - 1868 - 580 pages

A New and Full Method of Settling the Canonical Authority of the New Testament
by Jeremiah Jones - 1798

Twenty-five Agrapha: Or Extra-canonical Sayings of Our Lord
by Blomfield Jackson - 1900 - 70 pages

An apology for the Septuagint, in which its claims to biblical and canonical authority are briefly stated and vindicated
by Edward William Grinfield - 1850

The Books of the Old and New Testaments Canonical and Inspired: With Remarks on the Apocrypha
by Robert Haldane 1840 - 185 pages

The Dissonance of the Four Generally Received Evangelists
by Edward Evanson 1805 - 340 page

Canonical & Uncanonical Gospels, with a Translation of the Recently Discovered Gospel of Peter
by William Emery Barnes - 1893 - 110 pages

Introduction to the Canonical books of the Old Testament
by Carl Heinrich Cornill - 1907

The End of Religious Controversy
by John Milner - 1906 - 480 pages

Milner Refuted: Or Pious Frauds Exemplified in Dr. Milner's "End of Religious Controversy" by Charles Hastings Collette - 1856

Apocrypha of King James Version - 1896 - 170 pages

The Apocrypha: Greek and English, in Parallel Columns
1871 - 240 pages

Acta apostolorum apocrypha
by Constantin von Tischendorf - 1851 - 270 pages
Text in Greek; introductory material in Latin.

Apocrypha Sinaitica
by Margaret Dunlop Gibson - 1896 - 147 pages

The Value of the Apocrypha
by Bernard Joseph Snell- 1905 - 127 pages

The Arguments of Romanists from the Infallibility of the Church and the ...
by James Henley Thornwell - 1845 - 410 pages
At head of title: The Apocryphal books of the Old Testament proved to be corrupt additions to the Word of God.

Apocrypha Arabica by Margaret Dunlop Gibson - 1901

Roman Forgeries and Falsifications, Or, An Examination of Counterfeit OR Corrupted Record with Especial Reference to Popery
by Richard Gibbings - 1849 - 135 pages

A list of editions of the holy Scriptures and parts thereof
by Edmund Bailey O'Callaghan - 1861

A Protestant Dictionary: Containing Articles on the History, Doctrines ETC
by Charles Henry Hamilton Wright, Charles Neil - 1904 - 825 pages
The three additions made in the Apocrypha to the Book of Daniel are of no historical
value. ... The above-mentioned books are popularly "the Apocrypha.

The Ancestry of Our English Bible: An Account of ManuscriptS
by Ira Maurice Price - 1920 - 320 pages
... CHAPTER XII THE APOCRYPHA 98. The so-called apocryphal books cannot be overlooked
in any discussion of the antecedents of the English Bible.

The Evidences Against Christianity
by John Shertzer Hittell - 1857
Besides, we find that many books referred to it the Bible, are lost—and apparently
they were books divinely inspired : for we cannot-presume that an ...

An Inquiry Into the Scriptural Import of the Words Sheol, Hades, Tartarus
by Walter Balfour - 1825 - 340 pages
But as the Targums and the Apocrypha are appealed to in proof of this doctrine,
it might be deemed wrong in me altogether to overlook the argument...

Old Bibles: An Account of the Early Versions of the English Bible
by John Read Dore - 1888 - 395 pages
In the place where the Apocrypha ought to be, there is an address from the Synod
of Dort, ordering this portion of Holy Scripture to be omitted, ...

An abridgement of the Apocrypha
by Caroline Maxwell - 1828

The Difficulties of Romanism
by George Stanley Faber  - 1830 - 305 pages

On the canon of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament
by Christopher Wordsworth - 1848

The uncanonical and apocryphal scriptures, with introductions to the several books and fragments
edited by William Ralph Churton - 1884

The Bible of Bibles: Or, Twenty-seven "Divine Revelations
by Kersey Graves, Lydia M. Graves - 1879 - 440 pages

An Historical Account and Defence of the Canon of the New Testament by Sir William Davenant 1700

The Book of Enoch: Translated from the Ethiopic, with Introduction and Notes
by George Henry Schodde - 1882 - 270 pages

The suppressed Gospels and Epistles of the original New Testament of Jesus the Christ by William Wake and other Learned Divines

Plus you get the following Apocryphal/Extra-Biblical Books:

The Book of Joseph and Asenath, translated by E.W. Brooks 1918

The 3rd and 4th books of Maccabees by C.W. Emmett 1918

Jewish documents of the time of Ezra by A.E. Cowley 1919

The Letter of Aristeas by Henry St John Thackeray 1904

The Biblical antiquities of Philo by MR James 1917

Selections from Josephus 1919

Dionysius - the Areopagite, on the Divine names and the Mystical theology 1920

The library of Photius, Volume 1 1920

The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen 1855

The Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes 1919

The Genuine Epistles of the Apostolical Fathers, St. Clement, St. Polycarp, St. Ignatius, St. Barnabas, the Pastor of Hermas, and the Martyrdoms of St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp 1893

The Epistles of St. Cyprian 1844

The Writings of Cyprian, Volume 1, 1868

The Writings of Cyprian, Volume 2, 1868

A Translation of the Epistles of Clement of Rome, Polycarp and Ignatius and the Apologies of Justin Martyr and Tertullian 1851

A Homily of Clement of Alexandria, entitled: Who is the Rich Man that is being Saved 1901

St. Chrysostom On the Priesthood 1907

The Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles 1922

The Epistle to Diognetus by Justin Martyr (may be spurious/doubtful) 1908

The Epistle of the Gallican Churches, plus, Tertullian's address to martyrs and the passion of St. Parpetua 1900

The Catechetical oration of Gregory of Nyssa 1903

Join my Facebook Group

 gdixierose

Property Rights, Socialism and the Early Church Fathers

Buy my book: The Folly of Socialism (40 Chapters) for 99 cents on Amazon

Visit a local listing for this here

The Church Fathers on the Nature of Property by Henry Huntington Swain PhD 1897

For similar books click here.

The fathers of the early church were not economists. They could not even be said to be, in the modern sense of the term, social philosophers. They sought to reform society, but it was rather through the leavening influence of moral principles than by means either of elaborate "programs" or scientific study of the elements of social organization. Thus few of them have declared themselves unequivocally on the nature of property, and their views can be inferred only from their acts or pieced together from fragmentary allusions sparsely scattered through their writings.

With reference, first, to their acts, we have no evidence that any of them set about establishing any movement toward a change in the institution of private property. It may, perhaps, be alleged that certain heretical sects included community of property among their tenets. Such sects were freely denounced by the fathers, however. Indeed, we are dependent mainly on the testimony of their enemies for our knowledge of communistic tendencies among the heretics, and in some instances where independent evidence is available, the charge is found to be false. We must not therefore give too much weight to these reports, and the very fact that charges of communism are so freely hurled at heretical sects, is good evidence that those who made the charges were themselves opponents of communism.

Augustine, it is true, at one time formed, with some of his associates, a plan for a select communistic family of ten men; but, before the plan had very far matured, it was abandoned, on account of the wives which some had and others (including Augustine himself) "hoped to have." It would be utterly unwarranted to assume that this fanciful dream of an hour, devised apparently to enable a coterie of well-to-do friends to enjoy each other's society and escape the irksomeness of industrial exertion by living on the aggregate accumulations of former years, had its origin in any scruples about the institution of private property.

Nor is there evidence that the fathers themselves were disposed to disregard the "sacredness" of property rights. Augustine, after his conversion, reproaches himself bitterly for having, as a boy, committed a wanton but very petty act of thievery. In fact, this trifling lapse which, from the vividness with which it impressed itself upon his memory, must have been a rare if not a solitary instance, seems to have caused the saint much keener remorse than some of his early practices which, judged by modern standards of morality, seem flagrant.

In laying down a rule for convents, Augustine says: "Call not anything the property of one, but let all things be common property." And the establishment of monasteries is often taken as the chief indication of communism in the early church. It must be observed, however, that the monastic life is never urged as a general plan of life for mankind at large. It was never expected that any but a small fraction of society should belong to these communities. The monastic life was not more a renunciation ot private property than of all wealth beyond what was essential to the barest subsistence. The monastery was not so much a community of wealth as a community of poverty. Further, even for the bare pittance deemed necessary, the monastery was dependent on the outside world and the institution of private property. While aiming to withdraw so far as possible from contact with the world, the monastery was not primarily an industrial organization, but, by reason of the vows of poverty and celibacy, depended, both for economic support and for recruiting its numbers, on the successful maintenance of a wholly different system in the world at large.

But even in the earliest times complete community of property was not the inflexible rule of the convent. Jerome relates an instance of a monk leaving at his death a hundred pieces of money which he had earned by weaving linen. And though Jerome tells with approval of the burying of the money with its owner, there is no indication that the monk's error was in treating the money as private property, but in having regard for wealth at all. If the case had been otherwise, the money would have been turned over to the monastery instead of being destroyed. "Thy money perish with thee," he quotes, and tells how, in Egypt, it is a crime to leave after one a single shilling.

The frequent warnings of the fathers against riches, and their appeals to renunciation of wealth, cannot be taken as evidence of any peculiar views on the nature of property. Nowhere is it intimated in these quotations that the institution of private property is an injustice. It is always the notion that wealth is demoralizing to the owner, never that by holding it one wrongs his fellow-beings. "Let us therefore, brethren," says Augustine, "abstain from the possession of private property; or from the love of it, if we may not from its possession."

Many precepts of the fathers distinctly look to the holding of private property, and are meaningless without it. The following quotation from Rogers' "Catholic Doctrine of the Church of England," in reference to the biblical writers, is no less applicable to the fathers: "Against community of goods and riches be all those places (which are infinite) of Holy Scripture, that either condemn the unlawful getting, keeping, or desiring of riches, which, by covetousness, thievery, extortion, and the like wicked means, many do attain; or do commend liberality, frugality, free and friendly lending, honest labor, and lawful vocations to live and thrive. All which do show that Christians are to have goods of their own, and that riches ought not to be common."

Augustine himself so understands the Scriptures: "Why," he says, "do you reproach us by saying that men renewed in baptism ought no longer to beget children, or to possess fields and houses and money? Paul allows it"

One of the most striking passages in the writings of the early fathers which seem to oppose the institution of private property, is the following from Chrysostom: "Is not this an evil that you alone should have the Lord's property, that you alone should enjoy what is common? Is not the 'earth God's and the fullness thereof'? If then our possessions belong to one common Lord, they belong also to our fellow-servants. The possessions of one Lord are all common. . . . Mark the wise dispensation of God. That he might put mankind to shame, he hath made certain things common, as the sun, air, earth, and water, the heaven, the sea, the light, the stars; whose benefits are dispensed equally to all as brethren. . . . Other things then he hath made common, as baths, cities, market-places, walks. And observe, concerning things that are common there is no contention, but all is peaceable. But when one attempts to possess himself of anything to make it his own, then contention is introduced, as if nature herself were indignant that when God brings us together in every way, we are eager to divide and separate ourselves by appropiating things, and by using those cold words 'mine and thine.' Then there is contention and uneasiness. But where this is not, no strife or contention is bred. This state therefore is rather our inheritance, and more agreeable to nature. Why is it that there is never a dispute about a market-place? Is it not because it is common to all? But about a house and about property men are always disputing. Things necessary are set before us in common; but even in the least things we do not observe a community. Yet those greater things he hath opened freely to all, that we might thence be instructed to have these inferior things in common. Yet for all this we are not instructed."

For similar books click here.

The only other quotations in the writings of the fathers that seem distinctly to sanction community of property as a general practice are those which comment upon the conduct of the earliest converts at Jerusalem at the day of Pentecost as narrated in the Acts. Chrysostom, for example, says of this: "If the same were done now, we should convert the whole world even without miracles." And John Cassian attributes the abandonment of the pentecostal practice to the weakness of the newly-born faith of the Gentiles and cooling of the early fervor.

Now preliminary to any consideration of this matter, it is to be noted that the fathers very commonly held the notion of two distinct standards of the Christian life,—one practicable standard for all, and a higher ideal for which only a very few could be expected to strive. So, for instance, Jerome, constantly quoting "One thing thou lackest," urges the renunciation of property (though more mildly in his later letters), but emphasizes "If thou wilt be perfect." That these men seriously concerned themselves about any general change in the institution of private property, we have already seen to be an untenable position. Yet even ideals which are not considered practicable, may be a good indication of the real verdict of the reason and conscience on existing institutions. Consequently it is worth while to determine just what this pentecostal practice was which Chrysostom calls "an angelic life."1

It is quite common to assume that the church at Jerusalem was communistic, but careful reading of the very scant information which we have on the subject shows that the evidence to be adduced in favor of this hypothesis is very meager indeed.

Now what were the circumstances under which it is said that the disciples had all things common? Here was a great multitude assembled from all parts of the Roman world. They had come up to Jerusalem to attend the feast of the Passover, and had made some provision for that occasion, but they had already remained far beyond the time expected. Their resources were temporarily exhausted. Many of them, being at a great distance from their homes, were of course unable to earn the means of replenishing their stock of supplies. A great emergency was at hand. Heroic measures were necessary to meet it. And so we read, that "all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, as every man had need." That is, those who lived at Jerusalem and had property, sacrificed it to feed their unexpected guests, and if any among the strangers present had come provided with anything more than sufficed for their immediate needs, they likewise contributed. We have no need to assume that these contributions were used otherwise than to provide for the strangers and perhaps for some of the very poor who lived at Jerusalem. That the persons who contributed so liberally became thereby dependent on a common store for their own sustenance is not even implied. Indeed the very next verse precludes us from supposing that these generous souls sacrificed the whole of their property, for we find them "breaking bread from house to house" of the believers.

Now what expressions are used that are not equally applicable to the common practice in our own day in connection with great religious conventions where those in attendance are entertained by the residents? Is it any straining of language to say of such gatherings that they have all things common? Is not the delegate brought into the home and made to feel that, so long as he stays, everything the house affords is to be held in common? Are there not gatherings day by day where all meet together to enjoy the bounty of the local church, and no one says aught of the things which he possesses is his own, but they have all things common? Indeed are not all the conveniences and accommodations which the city affords placed at the free disposal of the guests?

The circumstances at Jerusalem were peculiar in two respects: (1) the multitude was overwhelming, in view of the limited numbers and resources of the resident Christians; (2) the occasion had not been anticipated, and therefore no systematic plans had been possible; consequently extreme measures were necessary. So, "as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made to every man, according as he had need." But this benevolence is seen to have been purely voluntary, and apparently brought in to prominent notice the comparatively few who made considerable contributions. Now it is noticeable that all these contributions were of "consumption goods" to relieve immediate wants. Not a single reference can possibly be twisted into an intimation that an industrial organization was established whereby all the members continued to obtain their living. There is no reason to doubt that those who had made these contributions continued to gain their livelihood as they had done before, namely, by individual exertions in connection with the general industrial system of the times. Nor is there the least evidence that their later acquisitions were ever turned into a common store. The occasion of Pentecost seems to have been a solitary experience, never repeated, so far as we have reason to believe, in the history of the Jerusalem church.

If the Jerusalem church were so radically different from the other churches (for the other apostolic churches are not alleged to have been communistic), it seems almost incredible that such a fact should receive no further notice in the Acts, and not the slightest allusion in any of the Epistles, although frequent mention is made of this church.

In commending the Jerusalem Christians at Pentecost, therefore, the early fathers do but stamp with their approval the same view of property implied in the teachings of Christ, the social theory of property, private property a social trust. As Latimer says: "They [goods] be ours upon the condition that we shall spend them to the honor of God and the relieving of our neighbors." "Things are not so common that another man may take my goods from me, for this is theft; but they are so common that we ought to distribute them unto the poor, to help them and to comfort them with it." "The rich man cannot say, 'This is mine alone, God hath given it unto me for mine own use.. . . For the rich man is but God's officer, God's treasurer. . . . And remember that thy riches be not thine own, but thou art but a steward over them."

Nor is there lack of passages in the writings of the earlier fathers expressly sanctioning this view. The AnteNicene Archelaus: "The centurion, a man exceedingly wealthy and well-dowered in worldly influence, possessed a faith surpassing that of all Israel; so that, even if there was any one who had forsaken all, that man was surpassed in faith by this centurion. But some one may now reason with us thus: It is not a good thing, consequently, to give up riches. Well, I reply that it is a good thing for those who are capable of it; but, at the same time, to employ riches for the work of righteousness and mercy is a thing as acceptable as though one were to give up the whole at once."

And Jerome, writing to Paulinus, says: "Your possessions are no longer your own, but a stewardship is entrusted to you." And Chrysostom says: "This wealth is not a possession, it is not property, it is a loan for use."

Chrysostom has left on record some notions in regard to special forms of property which may be worth a little notice. One of these illustrates the common prejudice of early times against wealth acquired through trade, and particularly gold and silver, the special instruments of the trader. "What then," he says, "did Abraham hold unrighteous wealth; and Job, that blameless, righteous, and faithful man, who 'feared God and eschewed evil'? Theirs was a wealth that consisted not in gold and silver, nor in houses, but in cattle. . . . The riches of Abraham, too, were his domestics. What then? Did he not buy them? No, for to this very point the Scripture says, that the three hundred and eighteen were born in his house. He had also sheep and oxen. Whence then did he send gold to Rebekah? From the gifts which he received from Egypt without violence or wrong." And yet the same Chrysostom says: "Is gold good? Yes, it is good for almsgiving, for the relief of the poor; it is good, not for unprofitable use, to be hoarded up or buried in the earth. . . . It was discovered for this end that it should loose cap

Private property in land seems to the worthy Chrysostom to involve some injustice, though he does not propose any radical change: "Tell me, then, whence art thou rich? From whom didst thou receive it? and from whom he who transmitted it to thee? From his father and his grandfather. But canst thou, ascending through many generations, show the acquisition just? It cannot be. The root and origin of it must have been injustice. Why? Because God in the beginning made not one man rich, and another poor. Nor did he afterwards take and show to one treasures of gold, and deny to the other the right of searching for it; but he left the earth free to all alike. Why, then, if it is common, have you so many acres of land, while your neighbor has not a portion of it? It was transmitted to me by my father. And by whom to him? By his forefathers. But you must go back and find the original owner."

Notwithstanding this past injustice, Chrysostom realizes that an attempt to upset existing tenures might aggravate the evil, and he hints pretty clearly at the doctrine of prescription, for he immediately adds: "But I will not urge this argument too closely. Let your riches be justly gained, and without rapine. For you are not responsible for the covetous acts of your father. Your wealth may be derived from rapine, but you were not the plunderer."

The grounds upon which the right of private property rests, do not seem to have claimed much attention from the fathers. But it is interesting to find that Augustine, in dealing with this matter, does not have recourse either to a "social contract" or to "natural and inalienable rights," but sees in property a creation of society, maintained for the good of society by its organized forces in government, and subject therefore to such modifications as the interests of society may demand. He says: "By what right does every man possess what he possesseth? Is it not by human right? For by divine right 'the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof.' ... By human right, however, one says, This estate is mine, this house is mine, this servant is mine. By human right, therefore, is by right of emperors....It is by right from him that thou possessest the land. Or take away rights created by emperors, and then who will dare say, That estate is mine, or that slave is mine, or this house is mine?"

For similar books click here.

The Doctrine of the Trinity is not a “plainly stated” doctrine of the Bible

Buy on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

The Doctrine of the Trinity is not a “plainly stated” doctrine of the Bible by W.B.H. Beach 1867

It is somewhat strange that my opponent(s)...should take the ground that the Trinity is plainly stated in the Bible. It is a remarkable assertion, to which I hardly think a dozen Trinitarians of any eminence, in our entire country, would affix their signatures.

And yet it is more remarkable that many believe the doctrine who admit that it is not once affirmed or stated in Scripture. To my mind it is a very important argument against this system, that the Bible does not some where state it as fully and explicitly as the Athanasian Creed. What if it can be extorted from Scripture by collection or inferences? Why is not a doctrine of such assumed (and if true, of real) importance, more than obscurely implied in REVELATION? Why was the important work of molding the fundamental doctrine of the religion of Heaven into its true form, passed by in neglect by the world's Great Teacher, and left for the uninspired bishops of the Romish Church?

Could not Jesus have stated the Doctrine of the Trinity as clearly as Athanasius? Would it not have been as easy for him, when Peter said to him, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” to have replied that he was the “Second person in the Trinity, very and eternal God,” as to have left him in ignorance about the Trinity? And was it not practising deception then to assure Peter that he had given him his true and full character? Was Jesus less anxious men should believe the Trinity than Athanasins? Or did not Jesus have as clear an idea as Athanasius of what would be a sufficient statement of the doctrine? And finally, if the doctrine is important to be believed, and it is important that it should have statement in order to be believed; was there any less importance in its being stated by Jesus to his disciples, than centuries afterwards by uninspired men?

All these questions are easily answered, and can be answered in only one way. They drive us to the conclusion that if the Doctrine of the Trinity is true, we should find it, not merely intimated, but “plainly stated” in the Scriptures; and if we do not at least once, somewhere, find it explicitly and concisely expressed in Scripture, it needs no further argument to prove that it is not a “radical doctrine of the Bible.”

Now, on this point, our brother has made a serious mistake, or the ablest Biblical critics of the world are in error. The truth is, as I am about to show you from Trinitarian authority, there is not one plain statement of the Doctrine of the Trinity in all God's holy Book—NOT ONE.

We will hear the testimonies of able and distinguished champions of this system in regard to this matter.

Says James Carlile: “The Doctrine of the Trinity is rather a doctrine of inferences, and of indirect intimation than a doctrine directly and explicitly declared.”

Says Bishop Hampden: “The doctrine of the Trinity is not dogmatically revealed to us in any express sentence” of the Bible.

Says George Waddington: “The sublime truths it (the Athanasian creed) contains are not expressed in the language of the Holy Scriptures.”

Says Bishop Horsely: “I meant not to assert that it (the Son's eternity) is so expressly declared in the Scriptures.”

Says John Henry Newman: “The doctrine of the Trinity has never been learned merely from Scripture.”

Says Richard Hooker: “Our belief in the Trinity is in Scripture no where to be found by express literal mention; only deduced out of Scripture by collection.”

Now these are but few of the many witnesses that might be introduced bearing similar testimony.

I affirm that it is the general belief, even among Trinitarians, that the doctrine of the Trinity is not once stated in the whole volume of Revelation.

There is a passage, found in 1 John 5:7 that has been supposed to favor the Trinity. “There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one.” I presume my brother will not take pains to inform you that this passage is a base forgery; for to many, especially to illiterate Trinitarians, this verse is of immense importance. The struggle that Trinitarians have had to give some appearance of authenticity to this passage shows how vastly valuable one plain scriptural statement of the Trinity would be to the doctrine. It is a confession that there is no other such statement. If there was another such passage in the Bible, another seeming effort to state the Trinity, Trinitarians would not hold to this as Scripture, against evidence that would banish any other verse from the Bible at once. For you will observe that this verse says nothing about the equality of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, nothing about the deity of Christ, nor the personality and deity of the Holy Ghost.

I hold, therefore, that the fact that Trinitarians are so unwilling to yield this partial statement of the Trinity, is proof that the doctrine is no where else even approximately asserted in the Bible.

Mr. Landis showed very plainly, by using this verse as a text, how loath he was to spare it; and yet he immediately remarks, “As the genuineness of this passage has been called in question, I shall not adduce it in the argument.”

But a scriptural forgery is a very fitting text for a sermon in defence of the doctrine of the Trinity, that can be supported only by scripture of that character, or by the gross perversion of genuine Revelation.

I shall devote more time to this passage than would be necessary, but that my opponent makes the remarkable assumption that the Trinity is plainly stated in the Bible, and because this must be the Scripture to which he refers.

There are the strongest evidences against the genuineness of this passage. And if it contained a statement of the Trinity, the most that could be claimed is, that this doctrine is stated in a passage of doubtful authenticity. And therefore the more the Trinitarian relies upon such proof, the more he betrays the weakness of his position, and his want of any unquestionably genuine Scripture which affirms his doctrine.

The testimony is overwhelming that this verse does not belong to the inspired Writings. The majority of critics of all denominations regard it an interpolation.

Albert Barnes, a Presbyterian Commentator, regards the passage spurious, and supports his position with the following arguments:
1. It is wanting in all Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament written before the sixteenth century.
2. It is wanting in the earliest versions, and indeed in a large part of all the versions of the New Testament made in all former times.
3. It is never quoted by the Greek Fathers in their controversies on the doctrine of the Trinity; and not referred to by the Latin Fathers till the end of the fifth century.
4. The internal evidence makes it morally certain that it can not be genuine.
5. It was probably placed in the margin of some Latin MS. when first written, expressive of the belief of the writer, and by some transcriber copied into the text on the supposition that it had been accidentally omitted, and its importance as support of the Trinity has kept it there.
6. The passage is now omitted in the best editions of the Greek Testament, and regarded as spurious by the ablest critics.

Dr. Adam Clarke considers it a forgery. He says: “It stands on no authority sufficient to authenticate any part of a revelation professing to have come from God. I am rather inclined to think it the work of an unknown bold critic, who formed a text from one or more MSS. in conjunction with the Vulgate, and who was by no means sparing of his own conjectural emendations.”

Neander, the eminent Church Historian, says:
The Doctrine of the Trinity “does not strictly belong to the fundamental articles of the Christian faith, as appears sufficiently evident from the fact that it is expressly held forth in no one particular passage in the New Testament; for the only one in which this is done,—the passage relating to the three that bear record in heaven,—is undoubtedly spurious.”

Dr. Davidson, an eminent Trinitarian, regards this passage as very suspicious, because it seems to favor Trinitarianism; the strongest evidence he could have given against the Trinity. For this was to assume that the system is so foreign to Revelation, that a passage that should seem to teach it contained so much evidence against its authenticity.

This conclusion, however, is eminently just. Those readings which afford Trinitarianism an appearance of support, “it is fair to conjecture,” as says Dr. Seiler, also a Trinitarian, “may have been altered through a zeal for orthodoxy.”

Thus men “get the Trinity from the Bible, as one may press cider out of cotton—after first having put cider in the cotton.” It is not strange that Trinitarians should find more readily than others, semblances of a Trinity in the Bible; for they know just where they put them. There is not a sentence or a word in Scripture that favors Trinitarianism, but that, as I affirm upon the highest Trinitarian authority, has been placed there by uninspired men, and evidently by the believers in this system.

So says Dr. Chalmers, an eminent Trinitarian:
“The only semblance of this doctrine in conjunct propositions, in the Bible, is in that verse of the three bearing record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; a passage which, by the generality of critics, is now admitted to have been the importation of a formal deliverance from some of the compends of Orthodoxy.”

Now place the assertion of brother Hickey by the side of the testimonies of these eminent Trinitarians I have quoted, and what is the conclusion?

Manifestly, our brother has made a serious mistake. Find it where else you may, THE TRINITY Is NOT IN THE BIBLE.

Do we need to multiply arguments against this doctrine, in view of the luminous fact that it has no mention on any page of Revelation, especially when we remember the doctrine is assumed to be so important that to reject it is to be lost forever? We have reason to expect the principle of faith upon which Salvation mainly depends, the cardinal truth of religion; to shine forth unmistakably clear from every page of the Sacred Records; but at the very least, it should be once somewhere explicitly declared, definitely and concisely stated, in Scripture.

For if the doctrine of the Trinity be true, its omission from the Bible is the omission of Christianity itself. Which will you believe;—that the Bible does not once state the really vital, the one infinitely essential principle of religion; or that this absurd doctrine is not mentioned in Scripture because it is utterly false?

If the Trinity be true, Romish Bishops have done us greater service than Jesus; —they, not he, gave us the true idea of God!

If the Trinity be true, the Athanasian Creed is more valuable to the world than the Bible; for it gives us what is wanting in the Bible, the knowledge of the true object of worship, and the principle of faith upon which salvation depends!

If the Trinity be true, we have a Book called Revelation, from which the great object of Revelation is omitted!

Then, Christian friends, is the Trinity true?

Buy: And the Word was a god: A New Book on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1  and The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and both are only 99 cents

Proskuneo/Homage in John Darby's Bible

What is the Meaning of Proskuneo?

From The Bible Treasury: Christian Magazine Volume 7, 1868-9 Edition

A correspondent sends a paper which censures J. N. Darby's translation on the ground that "when direct to God the Father, in every instance he has the word 'worship' in his New Translation in every
instance where the Lord Jesus is worshipped, he has used the word 'homage.'" This is supposed to "need no comment." Nevertheless, comment is added; namely, that our Lord Jesus is looked upon in a
subordinate or lower sense than God the Father; especially as where the creature is in question, the translator, "in nearly every instance, has used the word 'homage.'"

Buy My Books: And the Word was a god: A New Book on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1  and The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and both are only 99 cents

Such insinuations it would be almost as foolish to discuss as it was wrong to feel and express them. For in these evil days, I do not wonder at any attacks on that which is good. But it is impossible to conceive remarks more gratuitous than such criticism. Two qualities combined can alone account for them - malice and ignorance, equally intense and without excuse.

Matt. 4:10, the first instance given in the first list, refutes the calumny. The citation in answer to the devil is translated, 'Thou shalt do homage to the Lord thy God," etc. Now here it is a question of adoration direct to God the Father; yet Mr. D. has "do homage." This is the opening proof that "in every inscance" he has the word "worship" when direct to God the Father! Honesty may be prejudiced, but no honest man that understands the words in English, not to speak of Greek, can avoid seeing that the charge is false; and that the inculpated version gives proskuneo the sense of doing "homage" where God is distinctly and exclusively spoken of.

If the first instance proves exactly the contrary of what it was intended to illustrate, the second (Matt. 15:9) will sound quite as strange to any one who knows a word of the Greek Testament. The Englishman's Greek Concordance is referred to at the end of the second list; but this too, of course, rises up to rebuke this false witness. There is no form whatever of proskuneo in the verse. That which answers to "worship" here is a wholly different word, sebontai.

The third (Luke 4:8) is the passage parallel to Matt. 4:10, and simply repeats that which exposes not Mr.D., but his adversary.

John 4 gives several cases where all agree in translating proskuneo "worship;" and so of course Acts 8:27, and 24:11.

The next cases repeat old and add new blunders, by successive texts where proskuneo does not occur! In Acts 16:14 it is sebomene, in Acts 17:25 it is therapeuetai, in Acts 18:13 it is sebesthai, and in Acts 24:14 it is latreuo (and similarly in Heb. 10:2). This may suffice for the first list.

But perhaps as glaring a proof as can be of total absence of candour appears in the removal of Rev. 4:10 and Rey. 5:14 from their true place in the first list in order to eke out a fresh calumny in the second. For it is evident that He who sits on the throne in Rev. 4:5, is not the Son as such in contradistinction from the Father, but expressly the Lord God Almighty, from whose right hand the Lamb, in chapter 5, takes the sealed book. Yet these are the texts with which the unworthy effort is wound up to make it appear that in every instance where the Lord Jesus is worshipped, J. N. D. has used the word "homage;" and in every instance where God is worshipped, he has retained the word "worship!" The truth is that in the two scenes of heavenly adoration in Rev. 4, 5 Mr. D. gives "homage" and not worship. Yet none but the most ignorant can deny that Almighty God as such is the object, in Rev 4 alone, and in Rev. 5 conjointly with the Lamb (if we receive the correct critical text, which Mr. D. does).

Lastly, to show the ill-will of the third list (which is incended to prove that Mr. D. always uses "homage" where the creature is the object), it is enough to state that Rev. 19:10 is by folly or fraud left out here, though rwice inserted in the first list. Thus the use and non-use is doubly false. For Mr. D.'s version of that verse gives the term "worship" (with an asterisk "* Or, 'do him homage"') where the creature or angel is concerned; and it says "worship God" (withou1 giving rhe alternative of homage) where He is named. There is the usual heap of mistakes in this list besides; but we may safely refrain from further exposure. 1 have given enough to demonstrare that all three lists are untrustworthy; and I doubt that any amount of ignorance could have so erred without deliberate malice.

Any man who, knowing J. N. D., or having read his writings, can let party-spirit impute to him a lowering of the Lord Jesus to the condition of the creature, or a denial of divine honour and adoration equally with the father, is beyond the reach of conviction by evidence. What I have said will satisfy others that his detractors are no way scrupulous. Why for instance does the second list leave out J. N. D.'s version of Heb. 1:6? There it is not doing homage, but worship; yet it is to the Son, and not to the Father.

The commonest of Greek and English Lexicons to the New Testament, such as Rose's Parkhurst, is clear that proskuneo expresses homage whether civil or religious (i.e., reverence, and worship). The following note Mr. R. gives from Dr. J. P. Smith's Scripture Testimony to the Messiah (ii., p. 270): "This word occurs sixty times in the New Testament. Two, without controversy, denote civil homage (Matt. 18:26; Rev. 3:9); fifteen refer to idolatrous rites (John 4:22; Acts 7:42[?], 43; Rev. 9:10 [?20); Rev. 13:4, 8, 12, 15; Rev. 14:9, 11; Rev. 16:2; Rev. 19:20; Rev. 20:4); three, to mistaken and disapproved homage to creatures (Acts 10:25; Rev. 19:10; Rev. 22:8); about twenty-five clearly respect the homage due to the most high God; and the remainder relate to acts of homage to Jesus Christ. Of these (Matt. 2:2, 8, ll; Matt. 8:2; Matt. 9:18; Matt. 14:33; Man. 15:25; Matt. 20:20; Matt. 28:9, 17; Mark 5:6; Mark 651 [?xv.19); 5:[?4:) 8 [Luke 24:52], though some of them (marked *) denote a very deep and awful reverence, it cannot be said that any necessarily denote the worship due to God. But John 20:28 and Heb. 1:6, especially the last, against which no objection can be raised, are of a different order." - Note from the ed. of 1829. There must be some oversight as elsewhere in citing John 20:28, for the word is not there, though Thomas' emphatic address did pay divine honour to the Lord. But the passage demonstrates the absurdity of such as limit proskuneo to divine worship. Mr. D.'s version very properly applies it in both senses to our Lord. So Dean Alford, Mr. T. S. Green, Dr. C. Campbell (on the Gospels), Doddridge, and (one may say) every intelligent Christian.

What crowns the character of the present assault is the fact that, in a recent version of the New Testament by a learned and able Unitarian (Mr. S. Sharpe), proskuneo is habitually, indeed invariably, translated "worship," applied to God, our Lord, and the creature, whether in civil reverence or in religious worship. On the other hand I am not aware of a single orthodox Christian of competent biblical knowledge who would not in the main support the discriminating value given to proskuneo in J. N. D.'s version as against either the Authorized Version or Mr. Sharpe. We might generally translate proskuneo as "doing homage;" because this would embrace reverence both civil and religious. But it is an error in the present usage of the English language to translate it always as "worship," because in perhaps a majority of its occurrences in the New Testament this is not the true sense. The principle therefore on which Mr. D.'s version goes is undoubtedly sound, whereas the Authorized Version (perhaps through some change in the use of the verb "worship" as compared with its wider bearing two or three hundred years ago) is incorrec. The substantive and adjective are still applied as a tide of respect to certain authorities. But the usage of the verb, as it often occurs in the New Testament, is now obsolete.

Buy on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

C.S. Lewis on Bible Translations

The following is an excerpt from God in the Dock Essays on Theology and Ethics, and I like that Lewis and I are fans of James Moffatt:

...the Authorised Version (KJV) has ceased to be a good (that is, a clear) translation. It is no longer modern English: the meanings of words have changed. The same antique glamour which has made it (in the superficial sense) so ‘beautiful’, so ‘sacred’, so ‘comforting’ and so ‘inspiring’, has also made it in many places unintelligible. Thus where St Paul says ‘I know nothing against myself,’ it translates ‘I know nothing by myself’. [I Cor 4:4]. That was a good translation (though even then rather old-fashioned) in the sixteenth century: to the modern reader it means either nothing, or something quite different from what St Paul said. The truth is that if we are to have translation at all we must have periodical re-translation. There is no such thing as translating a book into another language once and for all, for a language is a changing thing. If your son is to have clothes it is no good buying him a suit once and for all: he will grow out of it and have to be re-clothed.

And finally, though it may seem a sour paradox—we must sometimes get away from the Authorised Version, if for no other reason, simply because it is so beautiful an so solemn. Beauty exalts, but beauty also lulls. Early associations endear but they also confuse. Through that beautiful solemnity the transporting or horrifying realities of which the Book tells may come to us blunted and disarmed and we may only sigh with tranquil veneration when we ought to be burning with shame or struck dumb with terror or carried out of ourselves by ravishing hoes and adoration. Does the word ‘scourged’ [John 19:1] really come home to us like ‘flogged’? Does ‘mocked him’[Matt 27:29, Mk 15:20; Lk 22:63, 23:11, 23:36] sting like ‘jeered at him’?

We ought therefore to welcome all new translations (when they are made by sound scholars) and most certainly those who are approaching the Bible for the first time will be wise not to begin with the Authorised Version—except perhaps for the historical books of the Old Testament where its archaisms suit the saga-like material well enough. Among modern translations those of Dr Moffat [James Moffat (1870-1944), whose translation of the New Testament appeared in 1913, his translation of the Old Testament in 1924, and the whole being revised in 1935.] and Monsignor Knox [Ronald A. Knox (1888-1957) published a translation of the New Testament in 1945, and a translation of the Old Testament in 1949.] seem to me particularly good..

The Trinity as a Mystery

The following is an interesting excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 15 1912

The First Vatican Council has explained the meaning to be attributed to the term mystery in theology. It lays down that a mystery is a truth which we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from Divine Revelation, but which, even when revealed, remains "hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness" (Const., "De fide. cath.", iv). In other words, our understanding of it remains only partial, even after we have accepted it as part of the Divine messege. Through analogies and types we can form a representative concept expressive of what is revealed, but we cannot attain that fuller knowledge which supposes that the various elements of the concept are clearly grasped and their reciprocal compatibility manifest. As regards the vindication of a mystery, the office of the natural reason is solely to show that it contains no intrinsic impossibility, that any objection urged against it on Reason. "Expressions such as these are undoubtedly the score that it violates the laws of thought is invalid. More than this it cannot do.

Buy on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

The First Vatican Council further defined that the Christian Faith contains mysteries strictly so called (can. 4). All theologians admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is of the number of these. Indeed, of all revealed truths this is the most impenetrable to reason. Hence, to declare this to be no mystery would be a virtual denial of the canon in question. Moreover, our Lord's words, Matthew 9:27, "No one knoweth the Son, but the Father," seem to declare expressly that the plurality of Persons in the Godhead is a truth entirely beyond the scope of any created intellect. The Fathers supply many passages in which the incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature is affirmed. St. Jerome says, in a well-known phrase: "The true profession of the mystery of the Trinity is to own that we do not comprehend it" (De mysterio Trinitatus recta confessio est ignoratio scientiae -- "Proem ad 1. xviii in Isai."). The controversy with the Eunomians, who declared that the Divine Essence was fully expressed in the absolutely simple notion of "the Innascible" (agennetos), and that this was fully comprehensible by the human mind, led many of the Greek Fathers to insist on the incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature, more  especially in regard to the internal processions. St. Basil. "In Eunom.", I, n. 14; St. Cyril of Jerusdem, "Cat.", VI; St. John Damascene, "Fid. Orth.", I, ii, etc., etc.).

At a later date, however, some famous names are to be found defending a contrary opinion Anselm ("Monol.", 64), Abelard ("ln Ep. ad Rom."), Hugo of St. Victor ("De sacram." III, xi), and Richard of St. Victor ("De Trin.", III, v) all declare that it is possible to assign peremptory reasons why God should be both One and Three. In explanation of this it should be noted that at that period the relation of philosophy to revealed doctrine was but obscurely understood. Only after the Aristotelean system had obtained recognition from theologians was this question thoroughly treated. In the intellectual ferment of the time Abelard initiated a Rationalistic tendency: not merely did he claim a knowledge of the Trinity for the pagan philosophers, but his own Trinitarian doctrine was practically Sabellian. Anselm's error was due not to Rationalism, but to too wide an application of the Augustinian principle "Crede ut intelligas". Hugh and Richard of St. Victor were, however, certainly influenced by Abelard's teaching. Raymond Lully's (1235-1315) errors in this regard were even more extreme. They were expressly condemned by Gregory XI in 1376. In the nineteenth century the influence of the prevailing Rationalism manifested itself in several Catholic writers. Frohschammer and Günther both asserted that the dogma of the Trinity was capable of proof. Pius IX reprobated their opinions on more than one occasion (Denzinger, 1655 sq., 1666 sq., 1709 sq.), and it was to guard against this tendency that the First Vatican Council issued the decrees to which reference has been made. A somewhat similar, though less aggravated, error on the part of Rosmini was condemned, 14 December, 1887 (Denz., 1915).

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