Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Nay-Sayer · 02-18-2008, 04:57 PM

Need information on the suppression of non canonical Gospels by the Church. Thanks in advance.

Toto · 02-18-2008, 06:00 PM

That's a big topic. Could you explain exactly what you want to know? Have you checked the usual sources - wikipedia? google? Are you looking for books?

Nay-Sayer · 02-18-2008, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

That's a big topic. Could you explain exactly what you want to know? Have you checked the usual sources - wikipedia? google? Are you looking for books?

Didn't find anything on Wiki or Google. Specifically, what I want to know is what did the Church do about all of the non canon Gospels after they settled on the four? Book burnings? Excommunications? Were they declared heretical?

mountainman · 02-18-2008, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nay-Sayer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

That's a big topic. Could you explain exactly what you want to know? Have you checked the usual sources - wikipedia? google? Are you looking for books?

Didn't find anything on Wiki or Google. Specifically, what I want to know is what did the Church do about all of the non canon Gospels after they settled on the four? Book burnings? Excommunications? Were they declared heretical?

Hi Nay Sayer,

I have recently drafted a page on the NT Noncanonical texts

They are a huge set of writings when you start looking at them.
FOr this very reason I have been examining just the Acts.

Nevertheless to answer your question about their status,
here is the quotage from Eusebius about this stuff ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by EUSEBIUS

Chapter XXV.

The Divine Scriptures
that are Accept and
Those that are Not.

1 Since we are dealing with this subject
it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament
which have been already mentioned. First then must be put
the holy quaternion of the Gospels;
following them the Acts of the Apostles.

2 After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul;
next in order the extant former epistle of John,
and likewise the epistle of Peter, must be maintained.
After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper,
the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give
the different opinions at the proper time.
These then belong among the accepted writings.

3 Among the disputed writings,
which are nevertheless recognized by many,
are extant the so-called epistle of James
and that of Jude,
also the second epistle of Peter,
and those that are called the second and third of John,
whether they belong to the evangelist
or to another person of the same name.

4 Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also

* the Acts of Paul, and
* the so-called Shepherd, and
* the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these
* the extant epistle of Barnabas, and
* the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said,
* the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper,

which some, as I said, reject,
but which others class with the accepted books.

5 And among these some have placed also
the Gospel according to the Hebrews,
with which those of the Hebrews that
have accepted Christ are especially delighted.
And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books.

6 But we have nevertheless felt compelled
to give a catalogue of these also,
distinguishing those works which according
to ecclesiastical tradition are
true and genuine and commonly accepted,
from those others which,
although not canonical but disputed,
are yet at the same time known
to most ecclesiastical writers-

we have felt compelled to give this catalogue
in order that we might be able to know both
these works and those that are cited
by the heretics under the name of the apostles,
including, for instance, such books as

* the Gospels of Peter,
* of Thomas,
* of Matthias,
* or of any others besides them, and
* the Acts of Andrew and John and
* the other apostles,

which no one belonging to the succession
of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy
of mention in his writings.

7 And further, the character of the style
is at variance with apostolic usage,
and both the thoughts and the purpose
of the things that are related in them
are so completely out of accord
with true orthodoxy that they
clearly show themselves to be
the fictions of heretics.

Wherefore they are not to be placed
even among the rejected writings,
but are all of them to be cast aside
as absurd and impious.

Let us now proceed with our history.

Chapter XXVI. Menander the Sorcerer.

To answer your question, YES, certain books
were sought out, and writings were burnt
and destroyed. The problem is trying to make
sense of the story bit by bit, which is a
very time consuming task.

There was a list written c.492 a decree of Gelasius,
I think Pope, which lists certain categories of works.

It is available here:
DECRETUM GELASIANUM DE LIBRIS RECIPIENDIS ET NON RECIPIENDIS

There are opinions which see this as a later fabrication,
and not authored by the church.

Here is the relevant extract from this document:

Quote:

V. The remaining writings which have been compiled
or been recognised by heretics or schismatics
the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not
in any way receive; of these we have thought it right
to cite below a few which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics:

LIKEWISE A LIST OF APOCRYPHAL BOOKS

firstly we confess that the synod of Sirmium
called together by Constantius Caesar the son of Constantine
through the Prefect Taurus is damned then and now and for ever.

As an aside here, has anyone got any further information
about this synod of Sirmium and what went down thereat?
We could infer from this there were things said at that
council which the church now want to unsay.

Anyone know anything?

Back to this 5th century list ....

Quote:

the Itinerary in the name of Peter the apostle,
which is called the nine books of the holy Clement apocryphal

the Acts in the name of the apostle Andrew apocryphal
the Acts in the name of the apostle Thomas apocryphal
the Acts in the name of the apostle Peter apocryphal
the Acts in the name of the apostle Philip apocryphal
the Gospel in the name of Mathias apocryphal
the Gospel in the name of Barnabas apocryphum
the Gospel in the name of James the younger apocryphum
the Gospel in the name of the apostle Peter apocryphum
the Gospel in the name of Thomas which the Manichaeans use apocryphum
the Gospels in the name of Bartholomew apocrypha
the Gospels in the name of Andrew apocrypha
the Gospels which Lucianus forged apocrypha
the Gospels which Hesychius forged apocrypha
the book on the infancy of the saviour apocryphus
the book of the nativity of the saviour and of Mary or the midwife apocryphus
the book which is called by the name of the Shepherd apocryphus
all the books which Leucius the disciple of the devil made apocryphi
the book which is called the Foundation apocryphus
the book which is called the Treasure apocryphus
the book of the daughters of Adam Leptogeneseos apocryphus
the cento on Christ put together in Virgilian verses apocryphum
the book which is called the Acts of Thecla and Paul apocryphus
the book which is called Nepos's apocryphus
the books of Proverbs written by heretics and prefixed with the name of holy Sixtus apocryphus
the Revelation which is called Paul's apocrypha
the Revelation which is called Thomas's apocrypha
the Revelation which is called Stephen's apocrypha
the book which is called the Assumption of holy Mary apocryphus
the book which is called the Repentance of Adam apocryphus
the book about Og the giant of whom the heretics assert that after the deluge he fought with the dragon apocryphus
the book which is called the Testament of Job apocryphus
the book which is called the Repentance of Origen apocryphus
the book which is called the Repentance of holy Cyprian apocryphus
the book which is called the Repentance of Jamne and Mambre apocryphus
the book which is called the Lots of the apostles apocryphus
the book which is called the grave-plate (?) of the apostles apocryphus
the book which is called the canons of the apostles apocryphus
the book Physiologus written by heretics and prefixed with the name of blessed Ambrose apocryphus
the History of Eusebius Pamphilii apocrypha
the works of Tertullian apocrypha
the works of Lactantius also known as Firmianus apocrypha
the works of Africanus apocrypha
the works of Postumianus and Gallus apocrypha
the works of Montanus, Priscilla and Maximilla apocrypha
the works of Faustus the Manichaean apocrypha
the works of Commodian apocrypha
the works of the other Clement, of Alexandria apocrypha
the works of Thascius Cyprianus apocrypha
the works of Arnobius apocrypha
the works of Tichonius apocrypha
the works of Cassian the Gallic priest apocrypha
the works of Victorinus of Pettau apocrypha
the works of Faustus of Riez in Gaul apocrypha
the works of Frumentius Caecus apocrypha
the cento on Christ stitched together from verses of Virgil apocryphum
the Letter from Jesus to Abgar apocrypha
the Letter of Abgar to Jesus apocrypha
the Passion of Cyricus and Julitta apocrypha
the Passion of Georgius apocrypha
the writing which is called the Interdiction of Solomon apocrypha
all amulets which are compiled not in the name of the angels as they pretend but are written in the names of great demons apocrypha

These and those similar ones, which Simon Magus, Nicolaus, Cerinthus, Marcion, Basilides, Ebion, Paul of Samosata, Photinus and Bonosus, who suffered from similar error, also Montanus with his obscene followers, Apollinaris, Valentinus the Manichaean, Faustus the African, Sabellius, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Novatus, Sabbatius, Calistus, Donatus, Eustasius, Jovianus, Pelagius, Julian of Eclanum, Caelestius, Maximian, Priscillian from Spain, Nestorius of Constantinople, Maximus the Cynic, Lampetius, Dioscorus, Eutyches, Peter and the other Peter, of whom one disgraced Alexandria and the other Antioch, Acacius of Constantinople with his associates, and what also all disciples of heresy and of the heretics and schismatics, whose names we have scarcely preserved, have taught or compiled, we acknowledge is to be not merely rejected but eliminated from the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and with their authors and the followers of its authors to be damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema forever.

Hopefully this is a start.
Where do you want to go?
Does anyone want to create a special study group for this stuff?

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Toto · 02-18-2008, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nay-Sayer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

That's a big topic. Could you explain exactly what you want to know? Have you checked the usual sources - wikipedia? google? Are you looking for books?

Didn't find anything on Wiki or Google. Specifically, what I want to know is what did the Church do about all of the non canon Gospels after they settled on the four? Book burnings? Excommunications? Were they declared heretical?

Wikipedia: Non-canonical_gospels

Some were declared heretical. Not all are heretical - some were just not included in the canon. Some were just not saved.

Are you thinking along the lines of the Da Vinci Code?

Huon · 02-19-2008, 01:39 PM

Hilary of Poitiers wrote in 359 a treatise "De Synodis" against the decisions of the synods of Sirmium (351 and 357).

This treatise can be found at CCEL :
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.html

Here are some quotes from this page :

Quote:

The Liber de Synodis is a double letter, addressed to Western bishops, but containing passages intended for Orientals. Hilary had recognized that the orthodox of the West had kept aloof from the orthodox of the East, firstly from ignorance of events, secondly from misunderstanding of the word homoousios, and thirdly from the feelings of distrust then prevalent. These facts determined the contents of his letter.

The historical part of the book consists of fifty-four chapters (c. 10-63). It begins with the second Sirmian formula, and the opposing formula promulgated at Ancyra in a.d. 358. The Sirmian creed being given in c. 10, Hilary, before proceeding to give the twelve anathemas directed against its teaching by the bishops who assembled at Ancyra, explains the meaning of essentia and substantia.

In the second division (c. 29-33) of the historical part, Hilary considers the Dedication creed drawn up at Antioch in a.d. 341. He interprets it somewhat favourably. After stating that the creed is perhaps not sufficiently explicit in declaring the exact likeness of the Father and the Son, he excuses this inadequacy by pointing out that the Synod was not held to contradict Anomoean teaching, but teaching of a Sabellian tendency. The complete similarity of the Son's essence to that of the Father appears to him to be guarded by the phrase Deum de Deo, totum ex toto.

The third division (c. 34-37) contains the creed drawn up by the Synod, or Cabal Synod, which met at Philippopolis in a.d. 343. Hilary does not discuss the authority of the Synod; it was enough for his purpose that it was composed of Orientals, and that its language emphatically condemns genuine Arianism and asserts the Son is God of God.

The fourth division (c. 38-61) contains the long formula drawn up at Sirmium in a.d. 351 against Photinus. The twenty-seven anathemas are then separately considered and commended. The two remaining chapters of the historical part of the work include a reflection on the many-sided character of these creeds both in their positive and negative aspects.

The theological part of the work is in c. 64-92.

Sozomen, in his history, mentions a synod of Sirmium :
Sozomen Book 2 Chapter XXXIII.-Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra; His Heresy and Deposition.
Sozomen Book IV. Chapter VI.-Photinus, Bishop of Sirmium. His Heresy, and the Council Convened at Sirmium in Opposition Thereto. The Three Formularies of Faith. This Agitator of Empty Ideas Was Refuted by Basil of Ancyra. After His Deposition Photinus, Although Solicited, Declined Reconciliation.

If I am not mistaken, it is the Synod of 351.

The reference is in Wiki, Sozomen, external links.

mountainman · 02-19-2008, 03:55 PM

Thanks for all this Huon.
..... trimmed a bit ......

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Hilary of Poitiers wrote in 359 a treatise "De Synodis" against the decisions of the synods of Sirmium (351 and 357).

This treatise can be found at CCEL :
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.html

Here are some quotes from this page :

Quote:

The Liber de Synodis is a double letter, addressed to Western bishops, but containing passages intended for Orientals. Hilary had recognized that the orthodox of the West had kept aloof from the orthodox of the East,

* firstly from ignorance of events,

* secondly from misunderstanding of the word homoousios, and

* thirdly from the feelings of distrust then prevalent.

These facts determined the contents of his letter.

I wonder what the distrust was about? Since homoousios was a greek red herring we are left with the very first issue above. I wonder what events people were ignorant of?

Quote:

The fourth division (c. 38-61) contains the long formula drawn up at Sirmium in a.d. 351 against Photinus. The twenty-seven anathemas are then separately considered and commended. The two remaining chapters of the historical part of the work include a reflection on the many-sided character of these creeds both in their positive and negative aspects.

I am particulalry interested in a list of these twenty-seven anathemas separately considered and commended. Thanks for the reference again, I will try and dig these 27 things out.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Huon · 02-20-2008, 12:39 AM

Quote:

...the orthodox of the West had kept aloof from the orthodox of the East, firstly from ignorance of events...

My understanding is that, as it happens still now, the people of the East had almost no information about the local developements of the West, and vice-versa. Today, I don't know what happens in Syria, except the existence of the local president, and I am pretty certain that the Syrians don't care much about our Sarkozy.

What is interesting about the synod of Sirmium-351, and the 27 (whoah !) anathemas, is that it shows clearly that the question was not settled at Nicaea-325.

Quote:

A copy of the creed composed at Sirmium by the Easterns to oppose Photinus.

38. "We believe in one God the Father Almighty, the Creator and Maker,
from whom every fatherhood in heaven and in earth is named.
"And in His only Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the Father
before all ages, God of God, Light of Light, through whom all things
were made in heaven and in earth, visible and invisible. Who is the
Word and Wisdom and Might and Life and true Light: who in the last days
for our sake took a body, And was born of the holy Virgin, And was
crucified, And was dead and buried: who also rose from the dead on the
third day, And ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of
the Father, And shall come at the end of the world to judge the quick
and the dead; whose kingdom continueth without end and remaineth for
perpetual ages. For He shall be sitting at the right hand of the Father
not only in this age, but also in the age to come.

"And in the Holy Ghost, that is, the Paraclete, whom according to His
promise He sent to the apostles after He ascended into heaven to teach
them and to remind them of all things, through whom also are sanctified
the souls of those who believe sincerely in Him.

Huon · 02-20-2008, 12:53 AM

The 27 anathemas of Sirmium-351 :

Quote:

I. "But those who say that the Son is sprung from things non-existent,
or from another substance and not from God, and that there was a time
or age when He was not, the holy Catholic Church regards as aliens.

II. "If any man says that the Father and the Son are two Gods: let him
be anathema.

III. "And if any man says that God is one, but does not confess that
Christ, God the Son of God, ministered to the Father in the creation of
all things: let him be anathema.

IV. "And if any man dares to say that the Unborn God, or a part of Him,
was born of Mary: let him be anathema.

V. "And if any man say that the Son born of Mary was, before born of
Mary, Son only according to foreknowledge or predestination, and denies
that He was born of the Father before the ages and was with God, and
that all things were made through Him: let him be anathema.

VI. "If any man says that the substance of God is expanded and
contracted: let him be anathema.

VII. "If any man says that the expanded substance of God makes the Son;
or names Son His supposed expanded substance: let him be anathema.

VIII. "If any man says that the Son of God is the internal or uttered
Word of God: let him be anathema.

IX. "If any man says that the man alone born of Mary is the Son: let
him be anathema.

X. "If any man though saying that God and Man was born of Mary,
understands thereby the Unborn God: let him be anathema.

XI. "If any man hearing The Word was made Flesh thinks that the
Word was transformed into Flesh, or says that He suffered change in
taking Flesh: let him be anathema.

XII. "If any man hearing that the only Son of God was crucified, says
that His divinity suffered corruption, or pain, or change, or
diminution, or destruction: let him be anathema.

XIII. "If any man says Let us make man was not spoken by the
Father to the Son, but by God to Himself: let him be anathema.

XIV. "If any man says that the Son did not appear to Abraham, but the
Unborn God, or a part of Him: let him be anathema.

XV. "If any man says that the Son did not wrestle with Jacob as a man,
but the Unborn God, or a part of Him: let him be anathema.

XVI. "If any man does not understand The Lord rained from the Lord to
be spoken of the Father and the Son, but that the Father rained from
Himself: let him be anathema. For the Lord the Son rained from the Lord
the Father.

XVII. "If any man says that the Lord and the Lord, the Father and the
Son are two Gods, because of the aforesaid words: let him be anathema.
For we do not make the Son the equal or peer of the Father, but
understand the Son to be subject. For He did not come down to Sodom
without the Father's will, nor rain from Himself but from the Lord, to
wit by the Father's authority; nor does He sit at the Father's right
hand by His own authority, but He hears the Father saying. Sit thou on
My right hand.

XVIII. "If any man says that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost
are one Person: let him be anathema.

XIX. "If any man speaking of the Holy Ghost the Paraclete says that He
is the Unborn God: let him be anathema.

XX. "If any man denies that, as the Lord has taught us, the Paraclete
is different from the Son; for He said, And the Father shall send you
another Comforter, whom I shall ask : let him be anathema.

XXI. "If any man says that the Holy Spirit is a part of the Father or
of the Son: let him be anathema.

XXII. "If any man says that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit
are three Gods: let him be anathema.

XXIII. "If any man after the example of the Jews understands as said
for the destruction of the Eternal Only-begotten God the words, I am
the first God, and I am the last God, and beside Me there is no God,
which were spoken for the destruction of idols and them that
are no gods: let him be anathema.

XXIV. "If any man says that the Son was made by the will of God, like
any object in creation: let him be anathema.

XXV. "If any man says that the Son was born against the will of the
Father: let him be anathema. For the Father was not forced against His
own will, or induced by any necessity of nature to beget the Son: but
as soon as He willed, before time and without passion He begat Him of
Himself and shewed Him forth.

XXVI. "If any man says that the Son is incapable of birth and without
beginning, saying as though there were two incapable of birth and
unborn and without beginning, and makes two Gods: let him be anathema.
For the Head, which is the beginning of all things, is the Son; but the
Head or beginning of Christ is God: for so to One who is without
beginning and is the beginning of all things, we refer the whole world
through Christ.

XXVII. "Once more we strengthen the understanding of Christianity by
saying, If any man denies that Christ who is God and Son of God,
personally existed before time began and aided the Father in the
perfecting of all things; but says that only from the time that He was
born of Mary did He gain the name of Christ and Son and a beginning of
His deity: let him be anathema."

mountainman · 02-20-2008, 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

The 27 anathemas of Sirmium-351

Thanks for separating these out Huon.
I have gone through these and tidied them up.

The following is the result:

TWENTY-SEVEN SAMPLES OF PUBLIC OPINION
ABOUT CONSTANTINE'S BRAND NEW GOD ...
JESUS CHRIST c.351 CE

A list of 27 issues that are recorded concerning
the public opinion of Jesus Christ c.351 CE:

01: The Son is sprung from things non-existent,
or from another substance and not from God,
and that there was a time or age when He was not

02: The Father and the Son are two Gods

03: God is one, but Christ, God the Son of God,
ministered not to the Father in the creation of all things

04: The Unborn God, or a part of Him, was born of Mary.

05: The Son born of Mary was, before born of Mary,
Son only according to foreknowledge or predestination,
and denies that He was born of the Father
before the ages and was with God,
and that all things were made through Him.

06: The substance of God is expanded and contracted

07: The expanded substance of God makes the Son;
or names Son His supposed expanded substance.

08: The Son of God is the internal or uttered Word of God.

09: The man alone born of Mary is the Son.

10: Though saying that God and Man was born of Mary,
understands thereby the Unborn God.

11: Men hearing The Word was made Flesh
think that the Word was transformed into Flesh,
or say that He suffered change in taking Flesh.

12: Men hearing that the only Son of God was crucified,
say that His divinity suffered corruption,
or pain, or change, or diminution, or destruction.

13: Saying "Let us make man" was not spoken by
the Father to the Son, but by God to Himself.

14: Saying that the Son did not appear to Abraham,
but the Unborn God, or a part of Him.

15: Saying that the Son did not wrestle with Jacob as a man,
but the Unborn God, or a part of Him.

16: Men who do not understand that The Lord rained from the Lord
to be spoken of the Father and the Son, but that the Father
rained from Himself.

17: Saying that the Lord and the Lord,
the Father and the Son are two Gods,
because of the aforesaid words.

18: Saying that the Father and the Son
and the Holy Ghost are one Person.

19: When speaking of the Holy Ghost the Paraclete
says that He is the Unborn God.

20: Denying that, as the Lord has taught us,
the Paraclete is different from the Son.

21: Saying that the Holy Spirit is a part of
the Father or of the Son.

22: Saying that the Father and the Son
and the Holy Spirit are three Gods.

23: Men after the example of the Jews understand
as said for the destruction of the Eternal Only-begotten God
the words, I am the first God, and I am the last God,
and beside Me there is no God,
which were spoken for the destruction of idols
and them that are no gods.

24: Saying that the Son was made by the will of God,
like any object in creation.

25: Saying that the Son was born against the will of the Father.

26: Saying that the Son is incapable of birth and without beginning,
saying as though there were two incapable of birth and unborn
and without beginning, and makes two Gods.

27: Denying that Christ who is God and Son of God,
personally existed before time began
and aided the Father in the perfecting of all things;
but saying that only from the time that He was born of Mary
did He gain the name of Christ and Son
and a beginning of His deity.

The public opinion seems to be rather diverse.

The opinion of Arius is conspicuous in the first place,
and in any other words, describes Jesus Christ as a
political fiction, sprung from things non-existent.

Any independent political observer might be tempted
to think that the populace c.351 CE considered Jesus
Christ to be some type of bullshit.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

02-18-2008, 04:57 PM	#1
Nay-Sayer Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 141	Non-canonical Gospels Need information on the suppression of non canonical Gospels by the Church. Thanks in advance.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-18-2008, 06:00 PM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	That's a big topic. Could you explain exactly what you want to know? Have you checked the usual sources - wikipedia? google? Are you looking for books?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.