Friday, October 23, 2015

Church History: realiable or not?


“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.

The truth is, however, much of what we believe to be true—reality, as it were,  is just a matter of opinion, sometimes an educated guess at best. I have no quibbles with science. What I do have problems with, however, are the invested prejudices found embedded in much of what tries to pass itself off as pure science regardless of the disciple under consideration—be that, theology, history, or something else.

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).

Remember sometimes the Devil is in the details.

Take care!

JimR/


[i] http://www.collinsdictionary.com/
[ii] Mark Vessey, 'Jerome and Rufinus', in Frances Young, Lewis Ayres and Andrew Louth, eds, The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature, (2010), p325 

No comments: