A reasonably
unreasonable conclusion …
“All that an insane
person has left is his reason”– G. K. Chesterton 1874 – 1936
*****
All reason is circular. That’s a fact. False premise, false
conclusion. True premise, true conclusion. It is just as simple as that. The
theorems of science are presupposed to be factually true, and reliable once
tested and proven as such; however, science at its best is only a blueprint on
how we are expected to investigate reality.
Purported truth, therefore, must be checked against the
facts. Church history as a disciple is no exception, either. As any student of
Church history knows, such history is loaded with outright forgeries, and
revisionism is defended on the principle of throwing a better light on the
subject at hand. By ‘a better light’ I do not mean a fairer assessment, or
necessarily changing the facts— although, this is always a possibility— I
simply mean this, that history is often filtered through the sieve of today’s
standards, particularly as it pertains to the politically correct ‘hot issues’
inherent in contemporary society like racism, sexuality, egalitarianism, or
social or financial inequalities. Scripture, for example, can, and is, often
twisted to fit the mores of a convenient contemporaneity.
Sadly, however, this has been a reoccurring standard
throughout history, above all is it evidence in sacred history. History is not
just retold, it is retold with a theological slant in mind. Collins Dictionary,
as a matter of fact, defines sacred history as “history that is retold with the
aim of instilling religious faith and which may or may not be founded on fact.” Which
illustrates, at least to me, that it is a reputation well-earned considering
the fact redactors down through ecclesiastical history have felt justified to
change entire passages to suit their fancy.
Further, what I have in mind is a reductionism that does not
just try to simplify a certain passage or translation to say essentially the
same thing, but to change its meaning entirely by injecting an acceptable
orthodoxy into the text to comply with some perceived or otherwise real
standard.
Rufinus Aquileiensis, a nemeses of St. Jerome who quibbled
with him over the orthodoxy of Origen who to prove a point spent considerable
time redacting much of the Early Church Father’s work to make him sound more in
line with the theology of Rome—i.e., Pope Anastasius I (399-401). Eusebius'
Ecclesiastical History, part of which he also translated was redacted
considerably, etc.
These are
well-known fact, attested by William A. Jurgens, as well as Mark Vessey, from
Cambridge another well know scholar of
the period.
Nor does it stop there. Take for example, Jacques Paul Migne
(25 October 1800 – 24 October 1875) a French priest who took on the task of
publishing volumes of theological works, encyclopedias and the texts of the
Church Fathers, with thought of providing books to train young men for the
Catholic priesthood. Problem is, he rushed these translations through at such a
rate that he left a trail of questionable documents. Not that they were all
wrong, but it does take some of the enthusiasm out of reading them because one
is not sure of when on certain occasions something is bogus or not.
Protestants do the same thing. Need I go into that? Well,
there is not a whole lot to go into prior to the 1500’s.
So, although I shall continue to read, I have sadly come to
the conclusion that I cannot base my faith on history, it must have a firmer
foundation than that.
Of course, we all know what that foundation is, it is the
foundation of all truth—that is, the church of the living God, the pillar and
foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).
No comments:
Post a Comment
We appreciate your comments and opinions, please continue.