Fresh Batch #121: No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

A Lesson Learned From the Devil's Chaplain

“I freely, and once and for all, confess, that after many years of study and acquaintance with divines, and with their works, (and I wish I knew less of them than I do), experience has shown me that their’s is bad company, and that a man can make no better advantage of his misfortune in falling into it, than by informing himself, as an honest man would, of the mysteries of a gang of thieves, taking their words, not for all that they say, but for what they sometimes say without meaning that it should strike vulgar observance, when nature’s honesty will, ever and anon, break out or press through the policy of the craft and tell us unexpected truth.” —Rev. Robert Taylor (Synt. p. 55.)

Dr. John Pye Smith (Answer to the Manifesto of the Christian Evidence Society, p. 40.), “It is well enough known that, in the early ages of Christianity, many silly and fraudulent persons composed fictitious narratives of the life and actions of Jesus Christ and his Apostles, and gave them out as the writings of Peter, Nicodemus, Thomas, Barnabas, and even Judas Iscariot. By for the larger part of these spurious compositions have long ago dropped into deserved oblivion. That they ever existed is known only from the records of the early Christian writers, usually called the Fathers, and they were always rejected by the general body of Christians.”

To which Rev. Taylor responded (Syntagma, p. 20), “If the early ages of Christianity many silly and fraudulent persons composed fictitious narratives, &c., must not fictitious narrative making have been a good trade? Must they not have found the Christian community easily imposed upon? How, then, can Dr. Smith, or any one else, presume to say, that they were always rejected by the general body of Christians? Who were the representatives of the general body of Christians, that exercised for them the stupendous arbitration? If writings were forged in the names of Peter, Nicodemus, Thomas, and Barnabas, why might not those which appear under the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, have been forgeries also? Why should not all the rest of the disciples have written gospels as well as the two, Matthew and John? Why should not the gospels of all the rest of the disciples have had as good a claim on our credence, as those of Matthew and John, who were no more than disciples—and a better claim than those of Mark and Luke, who were no disciples at all? If all accounts or narratives of Jesus Christ and his apostles were forgeries, as ‘tis admitted that all the apocryphal ones were, what can the superior character of the received gospel prove for them; but that they are merely superiorly executed forgeries?”

Lardner quoted Emperor Theodosius (Vol. IV, p. 111.), “We decree, therefore, that all writings whatever, which Porphyry, or any one else hath written against the Christian Religion, in the possession of whomsoever they shall be found, should be committed to the fire; for we would not suffer any of those things so much as to come to mens’ ears which tend to provoke God to wrath, and to offend the minds of the pious.”

Recall that it was Porphyry who told the truth about Israel, that it was never a historical location but an old Phoenician name for Kronos. Of course the priests would commit anything that could expose their rewriting of history, by using astrotheology to replace it, to the flames.

The same Emperor was quoted by Gibbon (Vol. V, p. 15.), “Besides the condemnation of divine justice, they must expect to suffer the severe penalties which our authority, guided by heavenly wisdom, may think proper to inflict upon them.”

Mosheim wrote (Vol. 1, p. 382.), “It was a maxim of the Church, that it was an act of virtue to deceive and lie, when by that means the interest of the Church might be promoted.”

According to Dr. Henry More (Mystery of Godliness, p. 495, quoted in Tindul, p. 314), “There is scarce any church in Christendom at this day, which doth not obtrude, not only plain falsehoods, but such falsehood as will appear to any free spirit, pure contradictions and impossibilities, and that, with the same gravity, authority, and importunity, as they do the holy oracles of God.”

Taylor was unfairly called a forger by Dr. Loyd Pie Smith, but there is a good lesson to be learned: provide as much context as possible if you are going to paraphrase or deviate from someone’s citation. Taylor wrote in his Manifesto, “For the book of Revelation, there was no original Greek at all, but Erasmus wrote it himself, in Switzerland, in the year 1516.—Bishop Marsh, vol. 1, p. 320.”

Bishop Marsh did not write this exact sentence. Instead, Bishop Marsh gave examples in two different volumes of his Introduction to the New Testament (Michaelis, Johann David, 1717-1791; Marsh, Herbert, 1757-1839).

Marsh wrote in Volume 1 (pp. 319, 320), “Lastly, if the manuscript in the possession of a transcriber or editor was in any place defective, he was reduced to the necessity either of leaving a vacancy in the copy, or filling up the space, by translating into Greek the passage as it stood in the version. This unpardonable method of restoring the lost text of an author was adopted by Erasmus in the Revelation of St. John: whether the same liberty has been taken in some of the manuscripts, and a part of the synonymous readings is to be ascribed to this cause, is a question that deserves to be examined.”

In Volume 2, published in 1793, Bishop Herbert Marsh wrote (pp. 443-445), “Before the Complutensian Polyglot was delivered to the public, Erasmus published his Greek Testament with a new Latin translation. The Greek manuscripts, which he used, have been described above, ch. viii. sect. 6. chiefly under the article Codices Basileenses. Natural abilities, profound learning, a readiness in detecting errors, with every qualification that is requisite to produce critical sagacity, Erasmus possessed in the very highest degree: and perhaps there never existed a more able editor of the New Testament. But he was engaged, and paid by a printer, who employed him in publishing and correcting several books, in consequence of which he was obliged to make greater haste in the publication of his Greek Testament, than the novelty and importance of the subject should have permitted, because, though involved in a multiplicity of other business, he was obliged to prepare for the press a fresh sheet every day. This is evident from his letters, of which Wetstein has given extracts in his Prolegomena, p. 122, 123. and on this account Erasmus is much more to be pitied than to be censured. It is a mistake, that he began his first edition in 1513, which it is necessary for me to notice, because I had asserted it on the authority of Mill. His editions of the Greek Testament, notwithstanding their faults, are much esteemed, and in some respects equivalent to manuscripts, though Erasmus has sometimes made use of critical conjecture, to which he was accustomed, as corrector of a press, and has very frequently altered the Greek text from the Vulgate. Examples of the latter have been given by Goeze, and every reader will observe them, in examining Wetstein’s various readings. A remarkable instance, in which he has made one of these mistakes, is John xviii. 15. where he has αλλος μαθητης (allos mathetes), instead of ο αλλος μαθητης (o allos mathetes). Now the omission of the article gives the passage a different meaning, yet it was omitted in no manuscript, that could have been known to Erasmus; because the three, in which αλλος μαθητης is found, namely, the Alexandrinus, Cantabrigiensis, and Winchelseanus, had not been then collated. The omission therefore of the article, is either an error arising from the too great hurry of Erasmus, and transferred from his edition to almost every other, or it is an alteration from critical conjecture, or it as correction from the Vulgate; for Erasmus, as well as Wetstein, has been guilty of a mistake, in supposing that αλλος, not ο αλλος, is expressed in the Vulgate, when in fact the Latin, which cannot express the article, is not evidence at all. The reading απωλειας, 2 Pet. ii. 2. which we find in the edition of Erasmus, no one has been able to discover in any manuscript whatsoever. In the twenty-second chapter of the book of Revelation he has even ventured to give his own translation from the Latin, because the Codex Reuchlini, which was the only Greek manuscript, which he had of that book, was there defective. And he seems to have taken the same liberty in many places, where he had not that excuse for instance, Acts ix. 5, 6. In his Annotationes in Novum Testamentum, he gives a particular account of those Greek readings, which differ from the Latin: yet his Greek text latinizes much more than the Complutensian. He published five editions of the New Testament in the years 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535; of which the two last were altered in many places from the Complutensian edition, especially in the Revelation of St. John: for Mill relates, that of an hundred alterations which Erasmus made in his edition of 1527, not less than ninety relate to the Revelation alone. These five editions have been collated by Mill, Bengel, and Wetstein. I have never particularly examined whether their collations have been made with accuracy; but having occasionally made use of the first and most scarce of these editions, I have observed that their extracts are not complete. It is however of less importance to know the readings of his editions, than those of the Complutensian, because we are acquainted with most of the manuscripts, which he used. A knowledge of them belongs rather to the province of literary history, and is more necessary in making a proper estimate of his editions, than in the criticism of the New Testament itself. After his death, his Greek Testament was published at Basel, in 1553, and again in 1558, at Leipzig in 1582, at Frankfort, with various readings, in 1673, 1674, and 1693, and with a preface by Schmid, in 1700. But these reimpressions are of little importance in the present inquiry.

“The literary labours of Erasmus, added to the envy excited by his profound erudition, drew on him the attacks of many adversaries; not to mention the strictures which were passed on his productions by the divines of Paris. One of his most violent opponents was the learned Spaniard Lopez de Stunica, who published Annotationes adversus Erasmum in defensione translationis N.T. Erasmus replied, in his Apologies, both to him and his other antagonists; and the controversy has been so far useful, that many points of criticism have been cleared up, which would otherwise have remained obscure. But the character of Erasmus seems in some measure to have lost by it, for he was more intent on his own defence, than the investigation of truth, as Wetstein has shewn in several instances.

“Several other editions of the Greek Testament, which have been celebrated for their excellence or scarcity, are nothing more than reimpressions of that of Erasmus.

“a) The Greek Bible which Aldus Manutius published at Venice in 1518. Even the errors of the press are retained in it: for instance in the edition of Erasmus, Rev. vii. 14. a catch-word had been falsely printed, namely αυτας (autas) for αυτων (auton), which Manutius has retained, and printed ελευκαναν τας ςολας ΑΥΤΑΣ αυτων (eleukanan tas solas AUTAS auton; see Mill’s Prolegomena § 1122, 1123.). Wetstein therefore, p. 127. has very justly observed that Erasmus did not act fairly in appealing to the Aldine edition, in support of his own readings. This edition was reprinted by Heerwagen at Basel in 1545.

“b) The Greek Testament printed at Hagenau in 1521, by Nicolaus Gerbelius, was taken from those of Erasmus and Manutius, for it differs only in the errors of the press. Some have contended that Luther made his German translation from this edition, for instance Tobias Eckhard, in his Conjecturæ de codice Græco N.T. quo Lutherus in concinnandâ versione Germanicâ usus sit. Halberstadii 1722; to whom Boysen replied in his Dissertatio theologica et critica de codice Græco, quo usus est Lutherus, Lipiæ 1723. The controversy would be of little importance, if it related not to the history of a version so generally used, as that of Luther, and to the source from which it was drawn.

“c) The edition published at Strasburg in 1524, under the direction of Fabricius Capito, differs from that of Hagenau in only eleven places, one of which is a critical conjecture.

“Another edition printed at Strasburg in the same year is said to be a copy of that of Aldus.

“d) The edition by Johannes Bebelius at Basel in 1531 follows Erasmus and Aldus.

“e) Sim. Colinæus republished the edition of Erasmus at Paris in 1534, but he made several alterations on the authority of some Greek manuscripts, and the Complutensian edition. He has been suspected likewise of having inserted critical conjectures in the text, especially by Beza, who has taken the very same liberty himself. But Wetstein has observed, that in most of the examples, which have been considered as alterations from conjecture, Colinæus has actually followed Greek manuscripts; and it appears from Griesbach’s Symbolæ Criticæ that there are three in particular, namely Wetstein’s Codex 17, and Griesbach’s 119, and 120, which in many remarkable readings coincide with the edition of Colinæus.

“f) The edition of Jacobus Bogardus, which takes its name from the publisher, was printed at Paris in 1543. According to the title, it is only a reimpression of one of Erasmus’s editions; but there is a material difference, especially in the book of Revelation, as appears from the list of various readings at the end of the work. Wetstein, who has described it, p. 142. is of opinion that the editor made use of the Codex Stephani ιδ.

“g) In this and the following year was printed at Basel an octavo edition, under the following title, Novi Testamenti omnia, cum scholiis ex patribus, et historiis in loca obscuriora in marginibus adjectis. The subscription is Basileæ per Thomam Platerum, impensis Reinhardi Beck. Anno M.D. XLIIII. mense Martio. I take notice of this edition, because it has εν τω καθεξης (en to kathexes), Luke viii. I. a reading, which makes a material alteration in the sense. Though it follows in general the edition of Erasmus, it deserves a more minute examination. John Gast has prefixed to it a dedication, dated Feb. 16, 1543. which contains nothing of any consequence, except the following passage, Reinhardus Beck, insignis nostræ urbis bibliopola, cum Novum Testamentum Græco charactere sub prælum dare animo concepisset, me convenit, an aliquid haberem annotationum, quo commendatissimus per se liber commendatior, in lucem exiret, sibi ut communicarem, rogans. Non potui vel aliquid illius humanitati denegare. Mox assensi, et candide quæ assignata erant libro meo impertivi. It appears then that Gast had nothing to do with the publication, and correction of the text.”

As someone who loves to save time and effort, I appreciate Rev. Robert Taylor’s summation of this, “For the book of Revelation, there was no original Greek at all, but Erasmus wrote it himself, in Switzerland, in the year 1516.”

He also added (Ib. p. 51), “The passage which Erasmus thus audaciously interpolated, and added of his own invented Greek, to that which he represented as contained in his manuscript, contains the words, ‘If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book,’ &c. This entire passage, from the 18th verse (Rev. xxii.) to the end was first put forth to the world under a false pretence, and rested solely on the Greek which Erasmus had made from the Latin Vulgate.”

I wrote in A Godsacre for Winds of the Soul, “Higgins observed that the books of Ecclesiasticus, or the wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, is corrupted and dislocated. The translation is found in the Vulgate, but it’s not known who made it. Calmet noticed the translator used obsolete words that prove the translation is much older than the Christian era. Examples would be honestas for riches, honestus for a rich man, respectus or visitatio for the punishment of God on wicked men, supervacuitas for vanity or vain glory, animalia supervacua for dangerous or noxious animals.”

It’s apparent that the Vulgate is oldest, or that the texts used to create the Vulgate are oldest. Either way, the Latin is older than the Greek versions of the New Testament, as the marks of being written in monkish Latin and then translated into older language appear throughout, but one needn’t look further than the name Jesus or the word Christian, thus the New Testament lies to the reader from the title page where it claims that it was “faithfully translated from a Greek original.”

Rev. Robert Taylor was correct and vindicated, but it didn’t stop John Pye Smith from dragging his name through mud, from the so-called Christian government throwing him in jail for blasphemy (where he wrote Syntagma of the Evidences of the Christian Religion), and from corrupt Abrahamics projecting the title Devil’s Chaplain onto Taylor, yet, any man with enough sense to pour piss out of a boot will see that it was the Christians who did the proverbial Devil’s bidding, serving the Father of Lies in the same manner they presume the principalities of darkness and evil operate.

But the lesson to be learned is that no good deed goes unpunished, especially when dealing with members of corrupt institutions that control society. You must be hyper-specific when using the work of others to support your own, and if you aren’t going to cite them directly, you must explain exactly what you’re doing and cite the passages you’re paraphrasing. The exception to this is if you do what I do and lay traps for the insincere. For example, I may tell someone to spell Christian in Greek, as it’s spelled in the New Testament, and then describe the problem with it, or, I may say that the word Christian in the New Testament is a Latinized corruption of a Greek root, affixed with a Latin termination, pretended to be of Greek invention, in a Greek city, that no Greek would ever create, but then I’d refrain from demonstrating my claim and what that root or termination is (intentionally) in order to draw out the zealots to lie about it, so that when the time comes to turn the cards over I can end their professional careers in a public spectacle and demonstrate how unlearned and possessed by the Dunning-Kruger effect they are.

I’m a different breed. I get euphoric in conflict. But if you don’t approach things from a tactical perspective or with the intent of engaging with liars, it’s best to be as forthcoming as possible with your work so that your critics can’t lie about you, or if they do, when attention is drawn to your work, the inquisitive will recognize that those who criticized you were liars.

I hope you found this valuable. Share it if you did. For those looking to dive deep into the subjects of religion and world domination, read Spirit Whirled.