Paul's Purported Pagan Phrases

So I recently (and somewhat randomly) have came across lists of supposed times that Paul either quotes pagan philosophers or gives statements extremely close to what they did (some lists will count things from others from the New Testament, but Paul gets top billing for these so he'll be focused on). The reasons for these lists vary--some are trying to argue for pagan influence on Christianity or on Paul, while others just think the similarities are interesting but do not mean any attack. Unfortunately, the problem is a whole lot of these are false.

I won't be going through every single one I've seen. Most of these supposed parallels resemble each other only superficially or they are such general moral ideas that parallels would be expected. In such cases, those predisposed to accept these as Paul taking ideas from the pagans will accept them in spite of the difficulties, while those not so predisposed would find them to be major stretches. There is little I can say about such cases because it is unlikely I could influence people's judgments. I should additionally note that because there were a ton of writings by pagan philosophers, by the simple law of averages we would find some similarities.

I also will only be going through ones that have a clear enough citation to check. Some give a vague citation, or no citation at all. Such cases I cannot give any credence to if they cannot tell me exactly where the parallel is.

First, though, I should address a few cases where Paul does appear to be quoting a pagan. As some Bible translations like the NIV will note in footnotes, Acts 17:28 has Paul quote from Epimenides (Cretan philosopher) and Aratus (Cilician Stoic philosopher). And indeed, some have noted that Paul's speech in Acts 17:22-31 has some considerable parallels to Stoicism, a Greek philosophy. But one should note the context; Paul was speaking to a bunch of people who would have been familiar with, and perhaps adherents of, Stoicism (indeed, Acts 17:18 has him debating with Stoics). Paul seems to assume they were Stoics, saying "As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’" In this he is quoting from Aratus, a Stoic philosopher. Aratus was from Cilicia (in modern-day Turkey), not Athens which is where Paul was. So why does Paul say "as some of your own poets have said"? Most probably he is referring to Aratus being a Stoic. Again, the point is to try to frame things in their own terms; he had probably done some research as to their beliefs ahead of time in order to do this.

The other two cases often cited are Titus 1:12, quoting Epimenides' Cretica in referring to the Cretans as being liars, and 1 Corinthians 15:33, possibly quoting Menander with "Bad company corrupts good character". Paul does not specify who he was referring to in Titus 1:12, merely saying "one of their own prophets." This apparently comes from a work called the Cretica, which we actually have no surviving copy of, and only know this is apparently the source because some later Christians mentioned it. The point here of this quote here, however, is not to make use of any kind of pagan philosophy, but merely to make the point that a Cretan makes such an accusation. Lastly, in regards to 1 Corinthians 15:33 and its statement of "bad company corrupts good character", it is not even clear if Paul is explicitly offering a quote from Menander. The quote seems to originate from Menander's play "Thaïs", though as Paul does not explicitly say he is quoting from anyone, it is entirely possible that the phrase had simply made its way into being a popular expression. Even if Paul is quoting it directly, it should also be noted that Menander was a playwright, not a philosopher.

So I do not think these quotes prove any kind of undue pagan philosophical influence on the theology of either Paul or Christianity. The ones in Acts are used in an attempt to appeal to Stoics so it makes sense to try to emphasize points of commonality, the Titus quote has nothing to do with theology as Paul uses it, and Corinthians is a quote from a playwright rather than a philosopher; further, it is not clear if Paul was even appealing to him specifically.

With those out of the way, let us look into some of the claims online I have seen, and if they match up with the facts.

Let's take them one at a time. Here are the cases that are claimed (this is a compilation from several sources):

"Kick against the pricks" Acts 26:14 (KJV) vs. "Kick against the pricks" Agamemnon by Aeschylus
"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Phillipians 2:12 (KJV) vs "Work out your own salvation with diligence" Mahaparinibbana sutta (Buddhist scripture)
"For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do." Romans 7:19 (ESV) vs "The good that I would I do not; but the evil which I would not do, that I do" Euripides by Hippolytus
"But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to show piety at home" 1 Timothy 5:4 (KJV) vs "But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to show piety at home." Act IV of Andria, by Terence
"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." 1 Corinthians 13:12 (KJV) vs. "I am very far from admitting that he who contemplates existences through the medium of thought, sees them only “through a glass, darkly,” anymore than he who sees them in their working effects." Phaedo by Plato
"For necessity is laid upon me ; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!" 1 Corinthians 9:16 (KJV) vs. "But necessity was laid upon me – the word of God I thought ought to be considered first." Apology by Plato

Some of these gave more specific citations for their sources, which I'll get to in the more in-depth explanation of them. The short version of these: The first one is just a general Greek expression and is unlikely to be taken directly from the work in question, the second is an inaccurate quote, the third and fourth are just straight up false, while the fifth and sixth are translated in a way to make them sound more biblical than they originally were.

"Kick against the pricks" Acts 26:14 (KJV) vs. "Kick against the pricks" Agamemnon by Aeschylus

As this was a general Greek expression, it is unlikely that it was specifically appealing to this work. While the specific case I am referring to appealed to Agamemnon by Aeschylus, I saw another person try to find this as a parallel to Euripedes' work Bacchae, which also uses it. However, the response is the same to either, that it was just an expression. But as Agamemnon is the specific one here, I'll start with that. The citation was given to page 255 of The Agammenon of Aeschylus published in 1831, which can be found here. This does mention how the Greek in the New Testament for this phrase is almost (but not exactly) the same.

The first problem we see here is that this quote has nothing to do with theology. Not only is Agamemnon a work of fiction rather than one of philosophy, no real philosophy is being expressed by Paul here.

But more importantly, let's stop and look at the phrase: "Kick against the pricks." (modern translations render it "kick against the goads") This was a Greek expression that meant to struggle futilely. But this is an expression, not a quotation. It can be found in various Greek literature. As noted, even those who try to claim Paul was using this phrase refer to different works, usually Agamemnon or Bacchae. But this is found in more than just those. As stated by the NET Bible's footnote for Acts 26:14:

"Sayings which contain the imagery used here (kicking against the goads) were also found in Greek writings; see Pindar, Pythians 2.94-96; Euripides, Bacchae 795."

Another one is Prometheus Unbound (note some translations render it figuratively rather than literally). And while obviously post-dating the Book of Acts, another example is from Oration VIII of the emperor Julian (available here or here) where he refers to the phrase as a proverb, again demonstrating it was viewed as a popular saying.

It was not even exclusive to Greek, as it can be found in Latin (for example, Terence uses it in Act 1 Scene 2 of Phormio, with the translation rendering it as "kick against the spur").

If I use the phrase "the straw that broke the camel's back" it doesn't mean you can point to a specific usage of the phrase and then say I was quoting that. No, I was just making use of the expression. Even if an expression was created or popularized by a particular work, it can enter the general lexicon while losing any connection to it. So it is a considerable assumption to claim that this phrase was specifically going back to some pagan work that used it, as it was a popular expression.

One thing someone might ask is why a Greek phrase is being used here, if as stated in Acts 26:14, the voice who said it was speaking Hebrew (or Aramaic, depending on how you want to translate Acts 26:14). There are two possibilities. The first is that this expression had made its way into Hebrew/Aramaic from the Greek; while it is true I do not believe we have recorded instances of it being used in the language, we're missing a lot of material and thus it could have been used and simply not mentioned in the works we have. The second is that  Paul, when describing it in Greek, decided to translate it using an idiom. One would not translate the Spanish phrase "eso es el colmo" literally into English, because its literal meaning ("that is the height") does not properly carry the meaning. Instead they would use something like "this is the last straw" as that, while having a different literal meaning, maintains the meaning of the idiom. 

So while this theoretically could have been a citation of an earlier work, it is a considerable assumption to think that using a particular expression is a reference to a specific work that used that expression when it was clearly a more general expression that just happened to be in some works. But at least this one does have the words. That is better than we can see in our next two examples, which rely on misquotes.


"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Phillipians 2:12 (KJV) vs "Work out your own salvation with diligence" Mahaparinibbana sutta (Buddhist scripture)

This is a mangled and paraphrased version of something Buddha said. The specific source given for this is actually not a direct source to the Mahaparinibbana sutta, but rather page 89 of a work called "Buddhism, Taoism, and Other Far Eastern Religions" by J. Isamu Yamamoto. It offers the following quote:

"Be lamps unto yourselves. Be a refuge unto yourselves. Do not turn to any external refuge.... Work out your own salvation with diligence" (Mahaparinibbana-sutta 2:33; 6:10; from the Pali Canon)"

The context here is it is comparing and contrasting Buddhist beliefs with those of Christianity. Rather unfortunately, it is unclear what the "2:33" and "6:10" are supposed to mean (I assume the second is in view, as the ellipses indicates they were from separate sections). But if one searches through this Sutta, one sees "salvation" nowhere, at least in the translations I consulted. A search online for the phrase in question has some sources claim it was Buddha's last words, which are recorded in this Sutta. But the last words are rendered quite differently in the translations I have looked at. For example, this translation renders it as "persist with diligence." While the word "diligence" is found there, there is nothing about salvation.

But, fortunately, someone else figured it out:
https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/work-out-your-own-salvation-do-not-depend-on-others/

According to this, it's simply a fake quote, a mangled version of Buddha's last words. There's more information in the link, but the short version is:

"So here we have an interesting chain of events. Carus, bless him, mangles the Mahaparinibbana Sutta in order to make the Buddha’s words resemble the New Testament, and then Suzuki, quoting from memory during an interview, slightly simplifies Carus’ rendering. And then Suzuki’s version is plucked out of the interview and becomes a genuine Fake Buddha Quote."

So it's not a legitimate quote from any Buddhist text. Those who pass this around therefore have simply not bothered to actually look up the source to make sure it's there, which it is not. I can understand how, in decades past it may have been very difficult to check; but in our age of so much being online, there is little excuse for not doing proper checking.


"For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do." Romans 7:19 (ESV) vs "The good that I would I do not; but the evil which I would not do, that I do" Euripides by Hippolytus

The Euripedes quote is simply false. In the place where I saw this cited, it does not give a direct citation from our source as to where this was said in Euripides; instead we are told to look at the work "Luther's Aesop" by Carl Springer on pages 137-138 (the 2011 printing is cited). I was able to find a copy of this. Here is what is stated:

"Even after his conversion, Paul had to lament (Rom. 7:24): "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" Despite his best efforts, he complains: "For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing" (Rom. 7:19), echoing the words of the conflicted Phaedra in Euripedes' tragedy Hippolytus, who has fallen in love with her stepson despite knowing it was a very bad idea: "We know the good, we apprehend it clearly, But we can't bring it to achievement."

We can see immediately that the person who offered the above quotes is misquoting Luther's Aesop. It is claimed that Luther's Aesop, quoting Hippolytus, says "The good that I would I do not; but the evil which I would not do, that I do." But the quote in Luther's Aesop is "We know the good, we apprehend it clearly. But we can't bring it to achievement." While there are some vaguely similar sentiments, the quotes are rather different.

But where was this quote given by Hippolytus? The citation that Luther's Aesop offers is "Hippolytus, lines 380-81."

We can read the applicable lines here. Regrettably it does not make it clear where individual line numbers end, only telling us when every 5 lines ends, so here's the entirety of 380 to 384:

"we know and understand what is noble but do not bring it to completion. Some fail from laziness, others because they give precedence to some other pleasure than being honorable. Life's pleasures are many, long leisurely talks—a pleasant evil—"

So that says basically the same thing as what was offered in Luther's Aesop. Again, it is hard to see Paul's statement as being a quote of any kind. But those are translations. Let us look at what the original Greek text said and see if they're that similar. We can find it here. Lines 380-381 are:

τὰ χρήστ᾽ ἐπιστάμεσθα καὶ γιγνώσκομεν,
οὐκ ἐκπονοῦμεν δ᾽, οἱ μὲν ἀργίας ὕπο,

For comparison, what is stated in Romans 7:19 in the current version of the Nestle-Alend text is this:

οὐ γὰρ ὃ θέλω ποιῶ ἀγαθόν, ἀλλ’ ὃ οὐ θέλω κακὸν τοῦτο πράσσω.

These are clearly entirely different statements. Thus this whole claim of Paul quoting from Hippolytus's work is flatly wrong. At most, someone can claim they express similar sentiments, but there is little reason to believe Paul took this specifically from Hippolytus.

"But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to show piety at home" 1 Timothy 5:4 (KJV) vs "But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to show piety at home." Act IV of Andria, by Terence

The Terence quote appears false. This is a little vague, as only the act is cited rather than anything more specific. Still, at least it's better than just citing the play without anything more. However, no one who cites this seems able to point to exactly where in Act 4 this statement is made. So, Act 4 in English can be found here. Do a search for "widow" and nothing pops up. Neither does "children" ("child" does appear but in a different context). Searching for "home" or "piety" turns up nothing relevant either.

Of course, it could be a matter of a different translation, but one would still expect one of those words to show up. I did skim Act 4 to see if I could find anything similar, but found nothing. Still, let us look at the original. Act 4 in its entirety in the original Latin can be found here, though if one would prefer to see the full play at once, go here.

The word "widow" in Latin is viuda. So do a search for "viuda". Nothing pops up. Now, in Latin words can take different forms based on how it's used in a sentence. I would think this would be in the nominative form (which would be "viuda") but just in case, I did a search for "viud" on that page, as all forms of the word begin with that (for example viudae, viudam, viudarum). No matches. Trying to search for the Latin equivalents of other words we see here turns up nothing either. So this one seems simply made up.


"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." 1 Corinthians 13:12 (KJV) vs. "I am very far from admitting that he who contemplates existences through the medium of thought, sees them only “through a glass, darkly,” anymore than he who sees them in their working effects." Phaedo by Plato

The Plato quote is translated inaccurately. Supposedly the usage of "through a glass darkly" by Paul is being taken from Plato, but it's actually the other way around; namely, the translation of Plato is taking it from Paul.

One can see the quote from Phaedo here. The page does not state the translation, but from some research I see it is from a translation by Benjamin Jowett. Now, at first glance this seems very powerful. But even simply seeing the above, one wonders "wait, why is "through a glass, darkly" in quotation marks there?" The answer is that it's because that's not actually in the text, but rather a paraphrase. This is presumably the translator showing that they were paraphrasing it according to the New Testament. Why they chose to do that I am not sure, but perhaps they simply liked the phrase.

We can verify this by tracking it down in another translation. First, slightly more context for the quote offered above:

"I dare say that the simile is not perfect - for I am very far from admitting that he who contemplates existence through the medium of ideas, sees them only "through a glass darkly," any more than he who sees them in their working and effects."

Now let us consult the translation at perseus.tufts.edu. It is split across two pages, however, but they are here and here. This translation reads:

"Now perhaps my metaphor is not quite accurate; for I do not grant in the least that he who studies realities by means of conceptions is looking at them in images any more than he who studies them in the facts of daily life."

Another translation (from here) reads:

"Perhaps though my analogy is not quite exact since I am not at all certain that he who examines realities in logic does not do so in mere images and thus is no better off than someone who examines them in their deeds."

Thus we can see this is the same quote, but obviously a different translation. But one notices that rather than "through a glass darkly" we instead see just "in images" or "in mere images."

But what of the underlying Greek? Thankfully, pulling it up is fairly easy. As we accessed it in the Perseus Tufts website we know that it is in sections 99e-100a, so we can pull that up in the Greek! It is here and here, again split into two pages:

This appears to be the Greek sentence that is being translated in the above quotes:

ἴσως μὲν οὖν ᾧ εἰκάζω τρόπον τινὰ οὐκ ἔοικεν: οὐ γὰρ πάνυ συγχωρῶ τὸν ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σκοπούμενον τὰ ὄντα ἐν εἰκόσι μᾶλλον σκοπεῖν ἢ τὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις.

Now, what is the phrase we find in 1 Corinthians 13:12 where "glass darkly" is used in the original Greek? We see:

βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι’ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον· ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

I bolded the portion that reads out as "through a glass darkly". One need not know any Greek to note the fact that neither this phrase nor anything resembling it is found in the Greek of Plato. Thus, it is clear that the usage of "through a glass darkly" was simply a translator paraphrasing Plato's actual words to insert a famous biblical phrase into it. Therefore, Paul took nothing from this section of Plato, but the translator who translated this section of Plato took it from Paul!

This is also confirmed by someone else who knows Greek better than I do:
https://ministrythroughthelens.wordpress.com/2014/08/28/socrates-read-the-bible-conclusions-from-a-dubious-translation/

Thus this similarity comes completely due to a a problem with the translation. I should notice something else; in some of these lists I have observed, the quotations from Plato are from translations by Benjamin Jowett, the same person who did the above translation. If Jowett was willing to essentially rewrite a statement in order to make a biblical reference, it makes one wonder how many other times he may have rendered something to sound more biblical. So be cautious trusting any parallels that come from a Jowett translation unless you have checked the Greek or at least another English translation. Our last statement examined with be another example of Jowett doing this.

"For necessity is laid upon me ; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!" 1 Corinthians 9:16 (KJV) vs. "But necessity was laid upon me – the word of God I thought ought to be considered first." Apology by Plato

Like the above, only looks similar because of the specific Plato translation. We can see Plato's Apology (Benjamin Jowett's translation) in full here and indeed the quote is there. In greater context, it says "Then I went to one man after another, being not unconscious of the enmity which I provoked, and I lamented and feared this: but necessity was laid upon me,—the word of God, I thought, ought to be considered first.

" Now, the first part of the quotes about necessity being laid up is essentially the same except for the change in tense, and the second portion, while more different, is still similar sentiments. The problem is that this similarity exists only because Jowett, intentionally or not, has skewed the wording to sound more like something from the Bible.

Let's compare another translation. Henry Cary also translated this, which can be found here:

Cary's rendition says:

"After this I went to others in turn, perceiving indeed, and grieving and alarmed, that I was making myself odious; however, it appeared necessary to regard the oracle of the god as of the greatest moment, and that, in order to discover its meaning, I must go to all who had the reputation of possessing any knowledge."

Another translation, by Harold Fowler, is found here:

"After this then I went on from one to another, perceiving that I was hated, and grieving and fearing, but nevertheless I thought I must consider the god's business of the highest importance. So I had to go, investigating the meaning of the oracle, to all those who were reputed to know anything."

These alternate translations are much more different from Paul's writing. The similarity of "necessity is/was laid upon me" vanishes, and "god's business" or "oracle of the god" is a much poorer match for "the gospel" than Jowett's "word of God" translation.

But what of the Greek? Well, the Greek can be found here. It seems not to have the final portion, but includes the initial part, and it has:

"μετὰ ταῦτ᾽ οὖν ἤδη ἐφεξῆς ᾖα, αἰσθανόμενος μὲν καὶ λυπούμενος καὶ δεδιὼς ὅτι ἀπηχθανόμην, ὅμως δὲ ἀναγκαῖον ἐδόκει εἶναι τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ περὶ πλείστου ποιεῖσθαι—ἰτέον οὖν, σκοποῦντι τὸν χρησμὸν τί λέγει, ἐπὶ ἅπαντας τούς τι."

And what we see in 1 Cor 9:16 is:

"ἐὰν γὰρ εὐαγγελίζωμαι, οὐκ ἔστιν μοι καύχημα· ἀνάγκη γάρ μοι ἐπίκειται· οὐαὶ γάρ μοί ἐστιν ἐὰν μὴ εὐαγγελίσωμαι."

Here the "necessity is/was laid upon me" vanishes especially when we compare the text. "For necessity is laid upon me" was, in the original Greek of Corinthians, ἀνάγκη γάρ μοι ἐπίκειται. You may notice that this construction is not found in Plato's work. And, of course, the rest is rather different from what Paul says also. Thus the similarity is really only there thanks to Jowett making it sound more like something from the Bible; not only does he use the same verbiage, he also uses "word of God" despite that not being what Plato says.

So again, if you see any proposed similarity between something Plato wrote and something Paul wrote (or anything in the Bible), be sure to check with another translation because Jowett has a tendency to make things sound more biblical than they did in the original text. There are other examples I have seen of this, but I think the examples shown far are sufficient.

Conclusion

The five quotes examined here are false; the ones that aren't simply made up come from inaccurate or highly paraphrased translations. Again, I have not looked through every such quote I have come across, only the ones where they actually looked similar and in which the citation was clear enough for me to look up (I also felt it unnecessary to do more with the ones coming from Benjamin Jowett's translation of Plato, for as shown he can skew the text to sound more Christian than it did).

So, hopefully this has been of use to people.

Some Alleged Anti-Women Quotes

Sometimes you will see supposedly "anti-women" quotes by notable Christians, sometimes in a list. Now, it is beyond dispute that there have been various genuine quotes of this kind throughout history. However, many of these quotes, especially the extreme ones, are inaccurate or misrepresented. This post will discuss some of those alleged quotes. Some of these quotes are presented in different versions; in cases where I have seen multiple ones, I will quote the differing versions.

Quote #1:

This one is attributed to Martin Luther:

"If they become tired or even die, it does not matter. Let them die in childbirth — that is why they are there."

An "extended" version of this is the following:

"Take women away from their housewifery, and they are good for nothing. If they get tired, and die from bearing children, that is no problem. They are made for that." 

These are often given without any citation at all. However, I actually did find one site that gave a citation, but the citation was in German and the quotation was initially confusing to figure out. It turned out to refer to a German collection of Luther's writings, so I had to find that, turn to the page to figure out what it was. Then, since I don't know German, I had to figure out where I could find the work in English, then find the exact quote in the English to see how it was rendered. It was a bit of an odyssey, but in the end I discovered it.

This quote can be found in English in Volume 45, Page 46, of "Luther's Works" as part of an essay called "The State of Marriage." Occurring towards the end, here is the full paragraph:

"Physicians are not amiss when they say: If this natural function is forcibly restrained it necessarily strikes into the flesh and blood and becomes a poison, whence the body becomes unhealthy, enervated, sweaty, and foul-smelling. That which should have issued in fruitfulness and propagation has to be absorbed within the body itself. Unless there is terrific hunger or immense labor or the supreme grace, the body cannot take it; it necessarily becomes unhealthy and sickly. Hence, we know how weak and sickly barren women are. Those who are fruitful, however, are healthier, cleanlier, and happier. And even if they bear themselves weary–or ultimately bear themselves out–that does not hurt. Let them bear themselves out. That is the purpose for which they exist. It is better to have a brief life with good health than a long life in ill health."

The underlined portion is the quote in question, though obviously with different phrasing due to being a different translation. The problem is that when we see this in context, Luther is actually prescribing what he views as health advice. His statement that women should have children even if they die is given in the context of saying that it is preferable because they would be healthier, and a healthy shorter life is preferable to a long one in poor health. Whatever one may think of the actual medical value of Luther's statement, to use this as some kind of staunchly anti-women quote is really not correct.

Now, you may have noticed that in the full context, the phrase "Take women away from their housewifery, and they are good for nothing" is nowhere to be found, despite the fact that the other version of the quote said, "Take women away from their housewifery, and they are good for nothing. If they get tired, and die from bearing children, that is no problem. They are made for that." So where does that come from?

I haven't seen this quote given with a source, but a work called The Story of Civilization by Will and Ariel Durant (specifically, the volume on the Reformation) puts those two quotes next to each other, though it is clear from the usage of quotation marks and separate footnotes that they are separate quotes. However, I am not sure if that the source for the above, because the way he renders those quotes are:

"Take women from their housewifery, and they are good for nothing." "If women get tired and die of bearing, there is no harm in that; let them die as long as they bear; they are made for that." 

(footnotes omitted) Quote is available here. As we can see, the translation is different from the quote I saw. Now, the citations for these are "Maulde, Women of the Renaissance, 467" and "Werke X-2, 301, in Maritain, 171." We already have the latter so there is no difficulty, but what of the first citation of Women of the Renaissance? Unfortunately, having looked it up, it gives no citation. The full quote it offers is (ellipses original):

"Talk of household concerns is women's affair," said Luther: "they are mistresses and queens there, and more than a match for cicero and the finest orators . . . But take them from their housewifery and they are good for nothing . . . Woman is born to manage a household; 'tis her lot, her law of nature: man is born for war and polity, to administer and govern states."

But, again, there is no citation available, so it is impossible to judge the accuracy of this quote, either in terms of the text itself or if there is mitigating context.

In any event, the quote from Luther about women dying in childbirth is taken out of context. The other portion of the quote (only in the "extended version") I have been unable to trace back to Luther.

Quote #2: 

This is another one attributed to Martin Luther. This quote comes in several versions; I'll give all the ones I have seen.

"Men have broad and large chests, and small narrow hips, and more understanding than women, who have but small and narrow breasts, and broad hips, to the end they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children." 

or

"Men have broad shoulders and narrow hips, so they have intelligence. Women have narrow shoulders, and broad hips to sit upon, so they ought to stay home, keep the house, and raise children. The woman differs from the man. She is weaker in body, in honour, in intellect, and in dignity."

or

"Women ... have but small and narrow chests, and broad hips, to the end that they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children."  

The quote comes from Table Talk, and can be viewed here (page 299). Here is how it is rendered there:

"Men have broad and large chests, and small narrow hips, and more understanding than the women, who have but small and narrow chests, and broad hips, to the end they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children."

The problem here is where the quote is found. 

"Table Talks" is a collection of sayings that Luther made to his various students, often at the dinner table, hence the name. While such quotes can be interesting, the fact they were not written down by him, but were written down by his students, means there was likely some level of paraphrasing. Furthermore, in Table Talks these quotes are presented without context. And these quotes are, by their nature, unrehearsed off the cuff remarks, and I'm sure anyone would have some very embarrassing quotes if someone else were to write them down. Remember these were compiled after Luther's death, so he had no opportunity to expunge any he felt were poorly expressed.

So this quote is found in Table Talks and attributed to Luther, but due to the aforementioned considerations it should not be used against him.

Quote #3:

This one is attributed to Thomas Aquinas. I will give two versions I have seen:

"Woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist."


or

"Woman is defective and misbegotten. For the active power in the male seed produces a perfect male likeness. A female comes from a defect in the male seed, or some indisposition, such as the south wind being too moist."

One can indeed find this quote in the work; it occurs in Part 1, Question 92, Article 1.

However, context is all important; not merely the context of the work it is in, but the context of how reproduction was understood at the time.

So, the format of Summa Theologiae, which this comes from, is to pose a question, give objections to the yet-to-be-given answer, give the actual answer, defend it, and then respond to objections. Now, the question here is "Whether the woman should have been made in the first production of things?" and the answer of Aquinas is to say that, yes, God should have and was correct to do so.

One of the objections given to Aquinas's conclusion is "It would seem that the woman should not have been made in the first production of things. For the Philosopher says (De Gener. ii, 3), that "the female is a misbegotten male." But nothing misbegotten or defective should have been in the first production of things. Therefore woman should not have been made at that first production." ("the Philosopher" refers to Aristotle) Aquinas rebuts this argument with the following:

"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes (De Gener. Animal. iv, 2). On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature's intention as directed to the work of generation. Now the general intention of nature depends on God, Who is the universal Author of nature. Therefore, in producing nature, God formed not only the male but also the female."

Notice the important qualifications that are not given in the quote that gets thrown out. Aquinas's statement of "women is defective and misbegotten" comes immediately after the qualification of "as regards the individual nature." Also, he subsequently asserts "as regards human nature in general, women is not misbegotten."

Someone may still be confused, and for this, we need to understand scientific context. In today's world, we understand conception as working in this way: During sexual intercourse, the sperm of the man reaches the egg of the woman, which fertilizes it, and it over the course of nine months will gradually develop and then be born. A child's physical gender is decided by whether the sperm had an X chromosome or a Y chromosome.

Here is the thing: Back in the 13th century AD when Aquinas wrote (to say nothing of the 4th century BC when Aristotle wrote) people didn't know all of that. They knew that sperm went into the woman and pregnancy resulted. And they knew that there was about a 50/50 chance of the child being male or female. There were various theories as to exactly how things worked; the belief Aristotle had, and which Aquinas echoes, was that the "male seed" would somehow interact with the menstrual blood to try to create another male, but this would sometimes fail and instead create a female. Thus, since a female resulted from a failure of the male seed to create a likeness of itself, it could be seen as "misbegotten."

This is the argument Aquinas is responding to, because if women are misbegotten, then that is an argument against Aquinas's position that God was correct to create women. He addresses this argument by saying that even if each individual woman is "misbegotten" in the sense that the male seed failed in its goal, the fact this happens in general is deliberately intended. Hence in the "individual sense" women are misbegotten, but "as regards human nature in general," women are not misbegotten.

Had Aquinas had modern medical knowledge of conception, all he would have to say is that Aristotle's idea of women being misbegotten was based on inaccurate scientific knowledge and move on (or more likely, he would not have bothered responding to it to begin with).

One may also see this post which covers many of the above points.

Quote #4:

This one supposedly comes from Tertullian:

"Woman is a temple built over a sewer."

I have only seen one place give an actual citation for this, which only ambiguously credited it to "De Cultu Feminarum", in English "On the Apparel of Women." While Tertullian does make some remarks concerning women in that work (found here) that would hardly be considered politically correct nowadays--such as the next quote under examination--I see no mention of anything similar to the above quote. Indeed, someone asked about this over here and no one was able to find it. One user there speculated it might be a bad translation of "tu es arboris illius resignatrix" (roughly, "you are the unsealer of that tree"). Until such time as a more clear citation is given, I will regard this one as wrong. Indeed, some have attributed this to other writers entirely, generally a good sign that a quote is dubious.

Quote #5:

This is another one from Tertullian, which I have seen in several versions:

"In pain shall you bring forth children, woman, and you shall turn to your husband and he shall rule over you. And do you not know that you are Eve? God’s sentence hangs still over all your sex and His punishment weighs down upon you. You are the devil’s gateway; you are she who first violated the forbidden tree and broke the law of God. It was you who coaxed your way around him whom the devil had not the force to attack. With what ease you shattered that image of God: Man! Because of the death you merited, even the Son of God had to die… Woman, you are the gate to hell."

or

"Do you know that each of your women is an Eve? The sentence of God - on this sex of yours - lives in this age; the guilt must necessarily live, too. You are the gate of Hell, you are the temptress of the forbidden tree; you are the first deserter of the divine law."

or

"God's sentence hangs over the female sex, and His punishment weighs down on you. You are the devil's gateway. You first violated the forbidden tree and violated God's Law. You shattered God's image in man. And because you merited death, God's Son had to die."

We can find the following quote in the aforementioned On the Apparel of Women:

""In pains and in anxieties do you bear (children), woman; and toward your husband (is) your inclination, and he lords it over you." And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve?  The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert — that is, death — even the Son of God had to die."

(note the first sentence is a quote from Genesis)

Unlike the above ones, there is some merit to this one. That said, there are a few things to note. I should note that some sources giving these quotes, when referring to Tertullian, declare him to be the "father of Latin Christianity" as if to try to hold up his opinion as especially important. This seems questionable to me. Tertullian was a prolific and influential writer, but later on in his life he got into a dispute with the church and was apparently cast out. He could be understood as being the "father" only insofar as he is, to my knowledge, the earliest Latin Christian writer we possess many works of.

But we should also note that the quote, when distributed, is sometimes translated it in a way to make things look a little worse. Additionally, for greater context of this in Tertullian's writings, see here.

One final thing to note. I have no idea where the "woman, you are the gate to hell" is supposed to come from. It is certainly similar to the confirmed statement of "you are the devil's gateway" but it was listed separately in the first of these quotation versions. 

So this one has some merit to it, even if it is overstated a little, especially in the first version.

Quote #6: 

This one is alleged to come from John Chrysostom. There are two versions I have seen, though only slightly different:

"Amongst all savage beasts none is found so harmful as a woman"

or

"Among all savage beasts none is found so harmful as a woman"

There are two problems with this. First, this wasn't said by John Chrysostom, but a Pseudo-Chrysostom text; that is, a work claiming to be by Chrysostom, but not actually by him. More importantly, however, it is mistranslated. There's an important qualifier that is missing in the above quote: It does not say "a woman" but "an evil woman" (or rather, "evil women" as it is plural in the original).

I would go on for more detail, but someone else has done such a good job that I will simply link to their work:
https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2022/09/22/amongst-all-savage-beasts-none-is-found-so-harmful-as-a-woman-a-quote-from-john-chrysostom/

Obviously, there are other quotes that are thrown around of this type. Some are true, some are false, some are in-between. However, hopefully this examination has been of a little help for the above specific quotes. If you take anything from this (outside of better information about the above quotes), you should be wary of trusting any quote you see online that does not have a citation. And even if there is a citation, you should (if possible) check it for context before you start distributing it.

The Sabbath Quotes List Examined

There are many quotes that get copied/pasted on the Internet, with the people doing so having clearly never checked on them themselves. Indeed, many times you do not simply see quotes that are copied/pasted, but entire lists of quotes being copied/pasted. When people simply grab a bunch of quotes and copy/paste them in one big list to try to argue a point, this is what I call "arguing by quotes". Very rarely, if ever, does anyone who does so spend any time verifying the sources given by these quotes. And that is if the quotes even give a source at all, in which case one really should avoid spreading them if they do not have any evidence they were actually said.

So in this blog post I'm going to be looking through a list of these copy/pasted quotes used to try to argue that the early church observed the Sabbath. The same quotes tend to get copy/pasted over and over, and it seemed worthwhile to do an examination to see if there was merit to these.

I'm not arguing in this essay about whether the Sabbath should be observed, or (if it should) whether it be on Saturday or Sunday. There is nothing I could add to that argument on any side that other people have not already said, and I attempt to use this blog to examine things that other people already have not. But in regards to these quotes that get trotted out, I want to do an examination of them, because it seems the people who post them haven't.

This list seem to date back to a list of quotes and citations published in the 1950's by a guy named John H. Coltheart. However, it is not clear how much, if any, of this list was his own original research. Many of these quotes themselves I have found in earlier documents, with him simply copying the citations given in those. It is possible some of them were his own research, but it's certain that at least a significant portion were just taken from other people. It is not clear to what extent he attempted to verify them. Regardless of whether he did, I expect few if any of those who simply copy/paste them and post them online have actually checked up on these quotes.

The full list goes on for longer than the quotes I'm giving here, as it tries to prove Sabbath observance in subsequent centuries. I won't be examining those for two reasons. First, my interest is only in the early Church, and indeed it is mostly only the quotes regarding the earlier church that people cite. Second, given the issues I have found in these earlier quotes, I do not think it is worth it to spend extra time looking up the others. Once one sees enough erroneous quotes, it is highly likely the subsequent ones are no better. I also will not be addressing the biblical quotes it begins with because there is absolutely nothing I could add to the debates on how to interpret them. Again, the whole reason this blog post exists is because I haven't seen other people examine all of these quotes, and I feel it would be useful to do so.

One other thing to note is the oldness of some of these citations. When it comes to primary sources, obviously, the older the better normally; but when it comes to scholarly citations, usually the newer the better, as we can gain information that was previously unknown to older writers. But this list frequently has things from the 19th, 18th, 17th, or even 16th century. Back in the 1950's when this list was compiled, this was a little more understandable, as it was in the past, but here in the 21st century when people mindlessly copy and paste these quotes, it's even more problematic.

I also ask everyone to remember: When people throw these quotes out, it's to try to prove widespread early observance of Sabbath rest among Christians. Only quotes that actually support that can be considered relevant. So if it says something about the Sabbath but it isn't about rest, it is therefore not really relevant to the claim being advanced by those who share this list.

For each citation, I will give an abbreviated explanation of my assessment on it in bold, then go on to give a more detailed version in regular text.

Now we begin!

JOSEPHUS
"There is not any city of the Grecians, nor any of the Barbarians, nor any nation whatsoever, whither our custom of resting on the seventh day hath not come!" M'Clatchie, "Notes and Queries on China and Japan" (edited by Dennys), Vol 4, Nos 7, 8, p.100.

Irrelevant. First, it is notable that, rather than actually cite Josephus directly, it instead refers to a work that's citing Josephus. If one looks it up, you will find Notes and Queries only says "Book II, p.–417". Now, the Notes and Queries citation is a bit annoying as well, as Josephus has multiple works that have two or more books and it does not specify which it is (it refers to Against Apion). Still, it is something, and it would have been nice had this been noted in the above citation. Granted, it is also annoying when people just copy their source's source without checking it (that if, it this list were to simply say "Josephus, Book II, p. 417"). The best thing in cases like this is to cite both; that is, if "citing Josephus, Book II, p. 417" was added at the end of the above quote.

I should further note an error in the citation. It claims this is from "M'Clatchie". But if one looks up the source, we see it is from "Revd. Canon McClatchie". They incorrectly replaced the first c with an apostrophe.

Now, the quote is actually found in Josephus, in Against Apion, Book 2 Chapter 40. Josephus here is trying to prove how Jewish laws are superior, and he puts forward the following argument:

"Nay, further, the multitude of mankind itself have had a great inclination of a long time to follow our religious observances; for there is not any city of the Grecians, nor any of the barbarians, nor any nation whatsoever, whither our custom of resting on the seventh day hath not come, and by which our fasts and lighting up lamps, and many of our prohibitions as to our food, are not observed; they also endeavor to imitate our mutual concord with one another, and the charitable distribution of our goods, and our diligence in our trades, and our fortitude in undergoing the distresses we are in, on account of our laws; and, what is here matter of the greatest admiration, our law hath no bait of pleasure to allure men to it, but it prevails by its own force; and as God himself pervades all the world, so hath our law passed through all the world also."

Even if we accept this as completely true and not rhetorical flourish, note that Josephus is merely asserting that resting on the seventh day can be found in all nations he knows of; obviously this is not stating that everyone follows this everywhere, merely that it's found. Thus this would prove nothing about Christians observing the Sabbath. Why is it even here?

PHILO
Declares the seventh day to be a festival, not of this or of that city, but of the universe. M'Clatchie, "Notes and Queries," Vol. 4, 99

Unclear and irrelevant. This appeals to the same "Notes and Queries on China and Japan" as the above quote and much like the above, it incorrectly claims the author was M'Clatchie when it is McClatchie, and we again get only an indirect citation; rather than telling us where Philo says this, we get a citation for someone else saying Philo says this. However, if one looks up the above citation, it says: "Philo (apud Grot. et Gale.) declares the seventh day a festival, not of this city or of that city, but of the universe."

Unfortunately, I do not know what "apud Grot. et Gale" is supposed to be, especially with how it is clearly abbreviated. "Apud" was often used to refer to a secondhand citation; that is, it is not citing a work of Philo, but someone else citing Philo, which would be "Grot. et. Gale." Thus when people offer this quote, it is that person quoting Coltheart quoting McClatchie quoting "Grot. et Gale." quoting Philo!

So, did Philo say this? Thankfully, I stumbled across someone else who had found the answer. It turns out it comes from On The Creation, available here. We read:

"XXX. (89) But after the whole world had been completed according to the perfect nature of the number six, the Father hallowed the day following, the seventh, praising it, and calling it holy. For that day is the festival, not of one city or one country, but of all the earth; a day which alone it is right to call the day of festival for all people, and the birthday of the world."

It therefore is true that Philo made this remark. However, again, what does this have to do with Christians keeping Sabbath? Philo was not a Christian, and he is not remarking on Christian practice here. It is ultimately irrelevant.


EARLY CHRISTIANS - 2nd Century
"The primitive Christians had a great veneration for the Sabbath, and spent the day in devotion and sermons. And it is not to be doubted but they derived this practice from the Apostles themselves, as appears by several scriptures to the purpose." "Dialogues on the Lord's Day," p. 189. London: 1701, By Dr. T.H. Morer (A Church of England divine).

Misrepresented. No statement is made of Sabbath rest, merely that they had devotions and sermons. Also, this is a work written in 1701. In other words, something that missed three hundred years of scholarship.

Even if we were to accept Morer as being so smart we should accept what he says without reservation, look at what he says on page 193:
https://archive.org/details/discourseinsixdi00more/page/192/mode/2up

"Upon these Prudential Reasons the Apostles and their followers went in indulging their Brethren the Jews by observing the Sabbath. But then in all these respects they made it only an indifferent thing, which they had power to use or to let alone. The Legal force of it they consider'd gone, and if they still kept it, it was by discretion for Peace and Charity's sake, to keep fair with their Countrymen in order to save 'em. But all this was occasional. It was not their own Day, not the Set Day of their Devotion, not the Day which they Dedicated to the use of their Religion; not their Lords-Day, tho' they made it a Day of Worship and an opportunity to teach the People then assembled by Custom."

Thus even if we should accept this source as inherently accurate, it says that the apostles did not consider there to be any "legal force" to the Sabbath, and that to observe it was voluntary.


"The Sabbath was a strong tie which united them with the life of the whole people, and in keeping the Sabbath holy they followed not only the example but also the command of Jesus." "Geschichte des Sonntags," pp.13, 14

Unable to fully verify due to it being in another language, but from the limited context I have been able to uncover, this seems to be referring only to Jewish Christians. This work, published in 1878, is in German, a language I do not speak, and even worse it's all written in that obnoxious old German font that is hard to actually read so even the possibility of manually typing it up and putting it into an automated translation is out. Of course, I doubt that any of those who copy/paste this citation have looked into it either.

So it can't be checked for context, at least by me, but if anyone knows German and can read the font, they can have a crack at it here:
https://archive.org/details/geschichtedesso00zahngoog/page/n16/mode/2up

However, I did find a translation of this portion that provided more context. The following is from the 1912 printing of a revision of "History of the Sabbath and the First Day of the Week." The original work was by John Nevins Andrews and published in the 19th century. In 1912 a revision of it was published by Ludwig Richard Conradi (also known as Louis Richard Conradi).  In a portion that does not seem to have been in Andrews's original version, pages 13-14 of Geschichte des Sonntaggs is cited, and the following translation is given on pages 439-440:

"They kept up the observance of the early Jewish festivals . . . There can be no doubt, although it is not just explicitly stated, that they observed the Sabbath in the most conscientious manner: otherwise, they would have been stoned. Instead of this, we learn from the book of the Acts that at times they were highly respected even by that part of their own nation that remained in unbelief. . . . That the observance of Sunday commenced among them would be a supposition which would have no seeming grounds for it, and all probability against it. It is possible that the eye-witnesses of the crucifixion of Christ and of the appearance of the resurrected ones did not let any Friday pass without thinking of his death, and no Sunday without thinking of his resurrection, more vividly than upon other days of the week. But the only thing that we can learn of the assemblies of the early Christians for divine worship is that they came together in the temple daily, and that they celebrated the Lord's supper in their houses. Thus it was in the weeks and months of the first excitement; but after this had given way to the more quiet routine of life, then the Sabbath inherited of their fathers, as well as the other holy days in Israel, would have been sufficient to answer the requirements for festivals among the Jewish Christians. Besides, the Sabbath was a strong tie which united them with the life of the whole people, and in keeping the Sabbath holy, they followed not only the example, but also the command of Jesus."

Now, Conradi was a Seventh-Day Adventist when he wrote this (he later became a Seventh-Day Baptist). Thus no bias can be claimed in the translation against Sabbath observance. This is notable because even this translation appears to be referring only to the practices of the Jewish Christians, not the Gentile Christians. Without further context of the original Geschichte des Sonntags I cannot fully assess this, but with the above context it appears to me that this would only prove that the Jewish Christians observed it, and it says nothing of any idea that it was seen as a required observation among Christians (Jewish or Gentile).


2ND CENTURY CHRISTIANS
"The Gentile Christians observed also the Sabbath," Gieseler's "Church History," Vol.1, ch. 2, par. 30, 93.

Misrepresented. First, note that Volume 1 of Johann Gieseler's Church History was published in 1824. Not quite as old as the Morer citation, but still rather old. But again let's take a look at it.
https://archive.org/details/textbookofchurc01gies/page/92/mode/2up

The statement in greater context is "While the Jewish Christians of Palestine retained the entire Mosaic law, and consequently the Jewish festivals, the Gentile Christians observed also the Sabbath and the passover (1. Cor v. 6-8), with reference to the last scenes of Jesus' life, but without Jewish superstition (Gal. iv. 10; Col. ii. 16)."

Note the specification of "without Jewish superstition." While he doesn't specify exactly what that means (it probably was a phrase better known in 1824), the invocation of those Galatians and Colossians quotes indicates that it means that any observance of the Sabbath or Passover under the Jewish requirements (in the case of the Sabbath, mandatory rest) is not required. Thus this quote is very out of context; indeed, it cuts itself off mid-sentence in order to avoid the actual thing being said.


EARLY CHRISTIANS
"The primitive Christians did keep the Sabbath of the Jews;...therefore the Christians, for a long time together, did keep their conventions upon the Sabbath, in which some portions of the law were read: and this continued till the time of the Laodicean council." "The Whole Works" of Jeremy Taylor, Vol. IX,p. 416 (R. Heber's Edition, Vol XII, p. 416).

Misrepresented. If some of the previous citations weren't old enough, here we have Jeremy Taylor, a 17th century writer. Rather out of date to use as a scholarly source. But, again, let's see what he had to say.
https://archive.org/details/wholeworksofrigh12tayl/page/416/mode/2up

The very next paragraph is ignored in the above quote:

"At first, they kept both days [Saturday and Sunday] with this only difference,–that though they kept the sabbath, yet it was after the Christian, that is, after the spiritual manner: in these exuberancies and floods of religion, which overflowed their channels, one day of solemnity was not enough: but besides that they, by their sabbath meetings, had intercourse with the Jews in order to their conversion, and the Jewish Christians, in order to the establishment of their religion, they were glad of all occasions to glorify God: but they did it without any opinion of essential obligation; and without the Jewish rest; and upon the account of Christian reasons."

So this source says that they did it "without the Jewish rest"! It refutes the claim being made!


EARLY CHURCH
"It is certain that the ancient Sabbath did remain and was observed (together with the celebration of the Lord's day) by the Christians of the East Church, above three hundred years after our Saviour's death." "A Learned Treatise of the Sabbath," p. 77

Misrepresented. This work was published in 1631. This is the most out of date source so far. And its author, Edward Brerewood, was a mathematician and logician (or so Wikipedia tells me), not a historian. Surely there are better scholarly sources than that.

And looking into it, the context of this is that he is arguing against someone who said that maintaining the Jewish Law was actively sinful. Brerewood is arguing that while there is no need to observe the Jewish Law (including the Sabbath), neither is there any sin in doing so. As stated on page 76:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Learned_Treatise_of_the_Sabaoth_writte/ofViAAAAcAAJ

"There was indeed no vertue in the use of them (they sanctified not) yet neither was there any sinne (they harmed not) if no religion or opinion of holinesse were placed in them. The obligation of them was expired in our Saviours death; but the toleration was not expired."

So if we're going to accept that Edward Brerewood is such an astoundingly great historian he should be listened to, should we not also accept his statement that in those days, Sabbath observance (if it included actual resting, which you may notice he doesn't say) was seen as optional? So again this source, when looked upon in context, goes against the claim being made.


2ND, 3RD, 4TH CENTURIES
"From the apostles' time until the council of Laodicea, which was about the year 364, the holy observance of the Jews' Sabbath continued, as may be proved out of many authors: yea, notwithstanding the decree of the council against it." Sunday a Sabbath." John Ley, p.163. London: 1640.

Obsolete, possibly misrepresented. Almost as out of date as Edward Brerewood! Are writings from the 17th century really what passes for scholarly sources nowadays? I know this list was originally compiled in the mid-20th century, but even then this was really out of date!

I did still examine the work. Ley does argue for "Sabbath observance" but it is not clear from this chapter whether he is arguing they saw it as a required day of rest or merely that they (as most of the other sources indicate) considered it an important day and had assemblies on it. I will note that looking at his arguments, if he is trying to argue that it was seen as a day of mandatory rest, he has the same problem that this list does. Namely, his examples demonstrate importance attached to Saturday, but not that it was required to be a date of rest.


EGYPT (OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRUS) (200-250 A.D.)
"Except ye make the sabbath a real sabbath (sabbatize the Sabbath," Greek), ye shall not see the Father." "The oxyrhynchus Papyri," pt,1, p.3, Logion 2, verso 4-11 (London Offices of the Egypt Exploration Fund, 1898).

Ultimately traces to a source of highly questionable orthodoxy. This quote is found in this work, and is indeed from the papyrus it is talking about. However, what the source of this quote is--that is, the document it is from--is of considerable importance. At the time the cited work was published (1898, which is actually the most recent source so far), it was not known exactly what this Papyrus (Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1) was. While the source cited above does give some speculations, ultimately it was fragmentary and thus we only possessed a small portion of whatever the original was. So attempting to claim it was from an orthodox Christian document, while speculative, wasn't unwarranted.

However, about half a century later, we discovered exactly where this was from, as a copy of the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas was discovered. Prior to this, we knew it existed, but never had a copy of it, and we now had a full (though translated) copy. And what was in Papyrus 1 was clearly taken directly from the Gospel of Thomas--thus, Papyrus 1 was a fragment of a manuscript of the Gospel of Thomas. And while it is disputed as to whether the Gospel of Thomas is outright Gnostic or not, it certainly isn't considered an orthodox document. Some parts of it are bizarre, such as its ending:

"Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.""

A work published in 1898 can of course be forgiven for not knowing about something that would only be discovered half a century later. And while it had been discovered by the time Coltheart put this list together, it had been recent enough that he can perhaps be excused for being unaware. But I would hope that about 80 years after it was discovered, people would be able to research the information and discover that what they were referencing is an unorthodox apocryphal gospel. But that's what happens when people just copy/paste references without looking into them.


EARLY CHRISTIANS-C 3rd
"Thou shalt observe the Sabbath, on account of Him who ceased from His work of creation, but ceased not from His work of providence: it is a rest for meditation of the law, not for idleness of the hands." "The Anti-Nicene Fathers," Vol 7,p. 413. From "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles," a document of the 3rd and 4th Centuries.

Misrepresented. One need not even look at the source to see the problem here: This very quote that supposedly proves Sabbath rest explicitly says that the Sabbath is for meditation of the law, NOT for idleness of the hands. This would therefore appear to fit with what we have seen in the other sources, where the Sabbath was seen as a day for religious assembly--but not a day of required physical rest.


AFRICA (ALEXANDRIA) ORIGEN
"After the festival of the unceasing sacrifice (the crucifixion) is put the second festival of the Sabbath, and it is fitting for whoever is righteous among the saints to keep also the festival of the Sabbath. There remaineth therefore a sabbatismus, that is, a keeping of the Sabbath, to the people of God (Hebrews 4:9)." "Homily on Numbers 23," par.4, in Migne, "Patrologia Graeca," Vol. 12,cols. 749, 750.

Misrepresented. It is striking that generally speaking, the typos in this are kept up in the constantly copy/pasted quotes--namely, the lack of a space between the comma and "cols".

The cited source, Patrologia Graeca, gives this in Latin. Fortunately, there is now an English translation of Origen's homilies on Numbers in the Ancient Christian Texts series. I should note that (as the citation is ambiguous) this is the 23rd of Origen's homilies on Numbers, not a homily on Numbers 23. Anyway, what is stated in that is:

"Now the second feast, after the feast of the perpetual sacrifice, is recorded to be the sacrifice of the sabbath, and it is necessary that every saint and just person celebrate the feast of the Sabbath as well. Well, what is the feast of the Sabbath, if not that feast of which the apostle says: "So a sabbath," that is, the observance of the sabbath, "will be left for the people of God"? Therefore, leaving behind the judaic observances of the sabbath, let us see what sort of observation of the sabbath there ought to be for the Christian. On the day of the sabbath, no worldly activity is supposed to be carried out. Thus if you cease doing secular works and carry out nothing worldly, but make room for spiritual works, if you come together at church, give ear to the divine readings and discussions, think about heavenly things, show concern for the future hope, keep the coming judgment before your eyes, do not look to present and visible things, but to the invisible and future things, that is how the Christian observes the sabbath."

Origen does go further than some in that he suggests people should celebrate the feast of the Sabbath. But note he says that people should leave "behind the judaic observances of the sabbath" and celebrate it differently. His suggestion is to avoid worldly activity and secular works, but not an all-purpose required rest as was followed by the Jews. So even Origen, while apparently going farther than the others cited, does not proscribe Sabbath rest.


PALESTINE TO INDIA (CHURCH OF THE EAST) As early as A.D. 225 there existed large bishoprics or conferences of the Church of the East (Sabbath-keeping) stretching from Palestine to India. Mingana, "Early Spread of Christianity." Vol.10, p. 460.

Misrepresented. One will try in vain to try to find a work with 10 or more volumes called Early Spread of Christianity. What appears to be in mind is an article called "Early Spread of Christianity in India" by Alphonse Mingana in Volume 10 of the Bulletin of the John Rylands Library. This is a demonstration of how these citations were simply copied without any verification; if they had, they would have cited it more clearly. Anyway, volume 10 of the Bulletin of the John Rylands Library  can be found here:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.28211092

The "Early Spread of Christianity" article may also be viewed (without any necessity of registration) here, though as it is a standalone publication here, its page numbers differ:
https://archive.org/details/earlyspreadofchr00ming_0/page/n3/mode/2up

Turning to page 460 in the article that was printed in the Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, I see absolutely nothing whatsoever about the Sabbath. It does discuss churches in India, but nothing about the Sabbath. Also, if I do a search through the document on the archive.org link for Sabbath, I find zero matches.

Thus this one seems inaccurate. I will give it misrepresented as it does mention there being the Church of the East, but it provides no support for the claim they are Sabbath keeping at this time.


INDIA (BUDDHIST CONTROVERSY), 220 A.D.)
The Kushan Dynasty of North India called a famous council of Buddhist priests at Vaisalia to bring uniformity among the Buddhist monks on the observance of their weekly Sabbath. Some had been so impressed by the writings of the Old Testament that they had begun to keep holy the Sabbath. Lloyd, "The Creed of Half Japan," p. 23.

Misrepresented. This is an especially bad misrepresentation. First, let's take a look at the cited source:
https://archive.org/details/creedofhalfjapan00lloyiala/page/22/mode/2up

The copy/pasted citation claims that this occurred in 220 A.D. But the cited work says no such thing. It is referring to what is called the Second Buddhist Council, which occurred about one hundred years after Buddha achieved Nirvana (the work says "about one hundred years after the Parinirvana of the Master.") Its date is not entirely clear because we do not know exactly when Buddha is supposed to have achieved Nirvana. However, we do know it was multiple centuries prior to Christianity, meaning the council would have been held centuries prior to Christianity as well. How in the world this list of quotes claims it's from 220 A.D. when it was from centuries earlier is utterly baffling. The source certainly doesn't say it.

Therefore, even if this claim of them wanting to bring uniformity in their observance of the weekly Sabbath was true, this would have taken place centuries prior to the birth of Jesus and cannot be used in any way to try to prove Christian retention of the Sabbath. 

However, even the claim that they were trying to bring uniformity in their observance of the weekly Sabbath is not true. As is better clarified in a footnote in The Creed of Half Japan on page 16, what is being referred to is the Uposathas. While the author does try to find a connection between it and the Sabbath (referring to articles I unfortunately do not seem to have access to), it is still a different thing entirely, and does not occur on a weekly basis. It appears that some did refer to the uposathas as a sabbath, but it is certainly not the seventh-day Sabbath referred to in the Old Testament.

So the entire claim here is utter nonsense. This council occurred in the pre-Christian era, not 220 AD, and did not involve any discussion of the seventh day Sabbath, but rather a Buddhist rest day. One could understand misunderstanding the difference between a sabbath and an uposathas if they read only the specific page cited, but how does one end up with the idea that it's 220 AD when it's not even in the source?


EARLY CHRISTIANS
"The seventh-day Sabbath was...solemnised by Christ, the Apostles, and primitive Christians, till the Laodicean Council did in manner quite abolish the observations of it." "Dissertation on the Lord's Day," pp. 33, 34

Obsolete source. The actual name of the source in question is "A briefe polemicall dissertation, concerning the true time of the inchoation and determination of the Lords Day-Sabbath", a 17th-century work written by the lawyer William Prynne. The quote is there. But is a book from around 400 years ago written by a lawyer really a good scholarly source on history?


ITALY AND EAST-C 4th - "It was the practice generally of the Easterne Churches; and some churches of the west...For in the Church of Millaine (Milan);...it seems the Saturday was held in a farre esteeme... Not that the Easterne Churches, or any of the rest which observed that day, were inclined to Iudaisme (Judaism); but that they came together on the Sabbath day, to worship Iesus (Jesus) Christ the Lord of the Sabbath." "History of the Sabbath" (original spelling retained), Part 2, par. 5, pp.73, 74. London: 1636. Dr. Heylyn.

Misrepresented. Another 17th-century writer, though at least Peter Heylyn seems to have been an ecclesiastic rather than a lawyer. Again we see no statement that they felt an obligation to rest on the Sabbath, but rather that they came together on the Sabbath day to worship.

But, as in other cases, when we look at the work itself, we see it actually refutes the argument being made:
https://archive.org/details/P.HeylinHistoryOfTheSabbath1636/page/n299/mode/2up

Just one page earlier (page 72), it says plainly "As for the Saturday, that retained its wounted credit in the Easterne Church; little inferior to the Lords day; if not plainely equall: not as a Sabbath, thinke not so, but as a day designed unto sacred meetings."

Again, it says they had sacred meetings, but rejects there being any rest.


ORIENT AND MOST OF WORLD - "The ancient Christians were very careful in the observance of Saturday, or the seventh day...It is plain that all the Oriental churches, and the greatest part of the world, observed the Sabbath as a festival...Athanasius likewise tells us that they held religious assembles on the Sabbath, not because they were infected with Judaism, but to worship Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath, Epiphanius says the same." "Antiquities of the Christian Church," Vol.II Book XX, chap. 3, sec.1, 66. 1137,1138.

Misrepresented. Another case of a really old work (Joseph Bingham published this in the early 18th century) that says nothing about them feeling Saturday must be a day of rest and in fact, when you look in greater context, denies that very claim. Now, the quotes came from here. But afterwards, Bingham writes the following on page 1139, and I apologize for the length:

"If it be inquired, why the ancient church continued the observation of the Jewish sabbath, when they took it to be only a temporary institution given to the Jews only, as circumcision and other typical rites of the law; (which is expressly said by many of the ancient writers, particularly by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, to name no more) it is answered by learned men, that it was to comply with the Jewish converts, as they did in the use of many other indifferent things, so long as no doctrinal necessity was laid upon them. “For the Jews being generally the first converts to the Christian faith, they still retained a mighty reverence for the Mosaic institutions, and especially for the sabbath, as that which had been appointed by God himself, as the memorial of his rest from the work of creation, settled by their great master, Moses, and celebrated by their ancestors for so many ages, as the solemn day of their public worship, and were therefore very loth it should be wholly antiquated and laid aside. For this reason, it seemed good to the prudence of those times, (as in other of the Jewish rites, so in this,) to indulge the humour of that people, and to keep the sabbath as a day for religious offices, viz. public prayers, reading of the Scriptures, preaching, celebration of the sacraments, and such like duties.” But when any one pretended to carry the observation of it further, either by introducing a doctrinal necessity, or pressing the observation of it precisely after the Jewish manner, they resolutely opposed it, as introducing Judaism into the Christian religion. For this reason, the Ebionites were condemned for joining the observation of the sabbath according to the law of the Jews, with the observation of the Lord's day after the manner of Christians."

So yet again, the source actually goes against the claim that was made.


ABYSSINIA
"In the last half of that century St. Ambrose of Milan stated officially that the Abyssinian bishop, Museus, had 'traveled almost everywhere in the country of the Seres' (China). For more than seventeen centuries the Abyssinian Church continued to sanctify Saturday as the holy day of the fourth commandment." Ambrose, DeMoribus, Brachmanorium Opera Ominia, 1132, found in Migne, Patrologia Latima, Vol.17, pp.1131,1132.

Misrepresented. The citation here only seems to be the statement of "traveled almost everywhere in the country of the Seres". The citation here is very sloppy, getting the page number wrong (De Moribus Brachmanorium, which should also be three words and no commas between them, is from columns 1167-1184). However, the opening states that while attributed to Ambrose, its stylistic differences with his undisputed works indicates it may not have been his work. My Latin isn't good enough to read through the thing to find the quote but if someone else wants to it's here:
https://archive.org/details/patrologiaecurs131migngoog/page/n588/mode/2up?view=theater

But then this leaves the claim that "For more than seventeen centuries the Abyssinian Church continued to sanctify Saturday as the holy day of the fourth commandment." This is certainly not found in the above source given that a work by Ambrose could not have said anything about them observing it for 17 centuries. The "traveled almost everywhere in the country of the Seres" therefore seems to be the only quote attributed to that document. Now, what is this Abyssinian Church? Ethiopia was previously known as Abyssinia so this presumably presumably refers to the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church (in fact, a search on Wikipedia for "Abyssinian Church" redirects to you the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church). 

It is unclear what it means by "more than seventeen centuries." Is it attempting to say that the Ethiopian church has continued it up until the present, which totals more than seventeen centuries, or is it indicating that it stopped at some point in the past but prior to that had been doing it for that long? While I have seen claims that they are Sabbatarian in the present, this Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church website says otherwise:
https://www.keraneyo-medhanealem.com/beliefs-and-origins-order-of-calend

"The celebration of Saturdays is the Order of the Old Testament. (Ex. 20:8). In the era of the New Testament the Orthodox Church teaches that the observance of Saturdays should not be as strict as that of the Jews. “Christians should not be idle on the Sabbath like the Jews.” But they should work as Christians. (Fetha Negest 19)."

This indicates that they do not observe the Sabbath rest in the same way Jews do, so they really do not provide proof of the church being Sabbath keeping. And furthermore they observe both Saturday and Sunday (as attested to by that link).

The phrasing is unclear on the seventeen hundred years; is it saying that they have done so up through our modern day (putting the starting date around the third/fourth century AD) or is it saying they did so from an earlier point but then stopped after seventeen hundred years? I cannot tell. It does appear that they were, to at least some extent, Sabbathkeeping in the 16th century (see the examination of the next quote), and if so it would appear based on the quotation from the Ethiopian Orthodox Tawahedo Church website that at some point subsequently they ceased. So perhaps the argument is that they were Sabbath keeping from the start, which continued through the 16th century, and at some point subsequently stopped. If this is the claim, then it has not been proven; evidence has not been given that they were doing it in the early centuries AD. This will be discussed in a little more depth in the next section.

ARABIA, PERSIA, INDIA, CHINA
"Mingana proves that in 370 A.D. Abyssinian Christianity (a Sabbath keeping church) was so popular that its famous director, Musacus, travelled extensively in the East promoting the church in Arabia, Persia, India and China." Truth Triumphant,p.308 (Footnote 27).

Questionable source. There are multiple books with this title but the one in question is the one by Benjamin Wilkinson, a Seventh Day Adventist who tried to argue for Seventh Day Adventist beliefs in his work. I do not have a physical one but did find a digitized version online. Incidentally, I notice that a good number of the quotations in this list, including the citations of them, are simply taken from his work. The fact they were simply copied, rather than being adjusted to make it more clear what they were, indicates it is rather likely that the compiler of the list did not bother to check on them.

Now, the version I looked at, due to being digital, had different page numbers than the above; also, this statement is found in footnote 23, not 27. I do not know if this was an error on the essay's part or if the numberings somehow were made different in the change of the book into being digital.

So, what is his source for this statement? The footnote is lengthy, but here is the part quoted with some additional context:

"Mingana proves that as early as A.D. 225 there existed large bishoprics or conferences of the Church of the East stretching from Palestine to, and surrounding, India. In 370 Abyssinian Christianity (a Sabbathkeeping church) was so popular that its famous director, Musaeus, traveled extensively in the East promoting the church in Arabia, Persia, India, and China. In 410 Isaac, supreme director of the Church of the East, held a world council, — stimulated, some think, by the trip of Musaeus, — attended by eastern delegates from forty grand metropolitan divisions. In 411 he appointed a metropolitan director for China. These churches were sanctifying the seventh day, as can be seen by the famous testimonies of Socrates and Sozomen, Roman Catholic historians (c. A.D. 450), that all the churches throughout the world sanctified Saturday except Rome and Alexandria, which two alone exalted Sunday. A century later (c. A.D. 540) Cosmas, the celebrated world traveler, a member of the great Church of the East, testified to the multiplied number of churches of his faith he had seen in India and central Asia and to those he had learned about in Scythia and China."

There is more in the footnote, but that seems to be all that is relevant for this purpose. But what is its proof the Abyssinian Church was Sabbath-keeping at this time? It refers to it as "Sabbathkeeping" in the second sentence but doesn't give a source. Most likely we are supposed to assume it by the later statement "These churches were sanctifying the seventh day, as can be seen by the famous testimonies of Socrates and Sozomen, Roman Catholic historians (c. A.D. 450), that all the churches throughout the world sanctified Saturday except Rome and Alexandria, which two alone exalted Sunday." First, I should note an error here: It says that Socrates and Sozomen are Roman Catholic historians. However, Sozomen lived in Constantinople, not Rome, and Socrates was Greek.

But do their testimonies prove the claim that the Abyssinian Church "sanctified Saturday"? No. While Socrates and Sozomen sometimes get cited as proof of widespread Sabbath keeping, if one looks at them in context, their statements refer to days of religious assemblies, not anything about required rest. Thus if the book's only proof that these other churches were Sabbathkeeping is the statements of Sozomen and Socrates, it doesn't prove anything at all about the Abyssinian Church being Sabbath observant.

I did look a bit more in Truth Triumphant to see if it offered more of a source. It actually did elsewhere. Towards the end of Chapter 18, it claims "When in the sixteenth century Europe again came into contact with the Abyssinians, the seventh day was found to be their weekly rest day; Sunday was only an assembly day." Its citation is "The Church History of Ethiopia" by Geddes, pages 87-88 (full name is Michael Geddes. This citation is copied and used in the quotes list in a later section I won't be examining). In Geddes' work, we have the following from a lengthy statement of faith attributed to the ambassador of the king of Ethiopia. It says (and I apologize for any errors of transcription in my manual copying):

"Furthermore, in obedience to the said Synod of the Apostles, we do celebrate the day of St. Stephen, and other Martyrs, and are bound by the Insticution* of the Apostles to observe two days, to wit, the Sabbath, and Lord's-Day, on which it is not lawful for us to do any work, no not the least, on the Sabbath-Day, because God, after he had finished the Creation of the World, rested thereon: Which Day, as God would have it called the Holy of Holies, so the not celebrating thereof with great honour and devotion, seems to be plainly contrary to God's Will and Precept, who shall suffer Heaven and Earth to pass away sooner than his Word; and that especially, since Christ came not to dissolve the Law, but to fulfil it. Is is not therefore in imitation of the Jews, but in obedience to Christ, and his holy Apostles, that we observe that Day, the favour that was shewed herein to the Jews being transferred to us Christians; so that, excepting Lent, we eat Flesh every Saturday in the Year; but in the Kingdoms of Barnagaus, Tigre, and Mahon, the Christians, according to ancient custome, do eat Flesh on all Saturdays and Sundays, even in Lent. We do observe the Lord's-Day after the manner of all other Christians, in memory of Christ's Resurrection: But as we are sensible that we have the observation of the Sabbath-Day from the Books of the Law, and not from those of the Gospel, so we are not ignorant that the Gospel is the end of the Law and the Prophets."

*I cannot make out what this is. "Instruction" would make the most sense but I simply do not see an R there.

So this does appear to have a demonstration of Sabbath keeping (took the list long enough). However, it should be noted that this is from the 16th century. This does not provide evidence that it was done all the way back in the fourth century, as the list is trying to argue. It claims "Mingana proves" but as far as I can tell all Mingana proves is that there were churches there, not that they were Sabbath keeping. Thus nothing at all is proved in regards to them keeping the Sabbath in 370 AD.


ITALY-MILAN
"Ambrose, the celebrated bishop of Milan, said that when he was in Milan he observed Saturday, but when in Rome observed Sunday. This gave rise to the proverb, 'When you are in Rome, do as Rome does.'" Heylyn, "The History of the Sabbath" 1612

Probably misrepresented, almost certainly inaccurate. It's hard to look this one up because the book is hundreds of pages long and no page number is given. Even worse, searching is very difficult because it's an older book with a harder to digitize font, so the digitized text that is searched is going to have a lot of errors in it.

The work can be found here, if someone wants to see if they can find the quote. But whether or not the above quote is in the book, I am pretty sure know what is being referred to. This is not directly from Augustine, but rather a paraphrased version of a statement Augustine attributes to Ambrose (found in letter 54 of Augustine). This, however, wasn't about whether he "observed Saturday" or "observed Sunday"; it was simply whether or not to fast on Saturday, with no mention of Sunday at all. Here is Augustine's statement:

"When my mother followed me to Milan, she found the Church there not fasting on Saturday. She began to be troubled, and to hesitate as to what she should do; upon which I, though not taking a personal interest then in such things, applied on her behalf to Ambrose, of most blessed memory, for his advice. He answered that he could not teach me anything but what he himself practised, because if he knew any better rule, he would observe it himself. When I supposed that he intended, on the ground of his authority alone, and without supporting it by any argument, to recommend us to give up fasting on Saturday, he followed me, and said: “When I visit Rome, I fast on Saturday; when I am here, I do not fast. On the same principle, do you observe the custom prevailing in whatever Church you come to, if you desire neither to give offense by your conduct, nor to find cause of offense in another's.” When I reported this to my mother, she accepted it gladly; and for myself, after frequently reconsidering his decision, I have always esteemed it as if I had received it by an oracle from heaven."

See also here, an earlier letter where he tells the same story. So this has nothing to do with Sabbath observation. I suppose it is possible that Heylyn makes a different reference, but if so it's the onus on those who distribute this list of citations to specify the page.


SPAIN-COUNCIL ELVIRA (A.D.305)
Canon 26 of the Council of Elvira reveals that the Church of Spain at that time kept Saturday, the seventh day. "As to fasting every Sabbath: Resolved, that the error be corrected of fasting every Sabbath." This resolution of the council is in direct opposition to the policy the church at Rome had inaugurated, that of commanding Sabbath as a fast day in order to humiliate it and make it repugnant to the people. 

Inaccurate. We run into a number of problems with the citation of Elvira, even setting aside this claim that Rome had Sabbath a fast day "in order to humiliate it" being unsubstantiated speculation. First, it is not clear whether Canon 26 was part of the original council or was added later (see https://web.archive.org/web/20120716202800/http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Canon%20Law/ElviraCanons.htm which notes that only the first 21 canons were passed by the council).

The second problem is that it is my understanding that the phrasing leaves it confusing as to whether it is saying they were fasting on every Sabbath and were correcting it, or if the error was that people weren't fasting every Sabbath and that they were fixing it. "The Synod of Elvira and Christian Life in the Fourth Century: A Historical Essay" by Alfred William Winterslow Dale, states on page 216 (see https://archive.org/details/synodofelvirachr00dale/page/216/mode/2up) that "In Elv. XXVI the brevity of the Canon has made its force exceptionally ambiguous, and caused grave doubt whether it is to be interpreted as a precept or a prohibition." Now, granted, it's from an older work--from 1882--so perhaps people have figured things out better since then.

But maybe I just wasted a bunch of time with those paragraphs, because this is simply a question of whether they fasted on the Sabbath or not. It has no bearing on observance of Sabbath rest.

PERSIA-A.D. 335-375 (40 YEARS PERSECUTION UNDER SHAPUR II)

The popular complaint against the Christians-”They despise our sungod, they have divine services on Saturday, they desecrate the sacred the earth by burying their dead in it.” Truth Triumphant, p.170.

Unclear. While this is in Truth Triumphant, the version I consulted does not appear to offer any citation for this claim (which perhaps is why this list cites Truth Triumphant rather than just copying whatever citation the work offered). But even if it's completely true, note that it refers to having divine services, not resting on that date.


PERSIA-A.D.335-375
"They despise our sun-god. Did not Zorcaster, the sainted founder of our divine beliefs, institute Sunday one thousand years ago in honour of the sun and supplant the Sabbath of the Old Testament. Yet these Christians have divine services on Saturday." O'Leary, "The Syriac Church and Fathers," pp.83, 84.

Quote is not found in those pages. This one seems to be somewhat of a re-hash of the above, but this time it offers a source. When I originally put up this blog post, I got a copy of the book and I looked at the pages, but the quote was not there. However, the version I had was not the original printing, but a reprint, published in 2002 as part of a “Gorgias Reprint Series”. As it was possible the page numbers shifted, I couldn't be sure it wasn't there, though I did skim through the book to try to see if I could find anything similar to try to be sure, and also checked the Index and found no mention of Zorcaster, Sun, Sunday, or Sabbath in it.

However, since then I have managed to take a look at the original printing of this work from 1909, where there should be no possibility of a reprint changing page numbers. But in this original printing, the above quote is also not found on pages 83 or 84. So this one is simply a false quote.


COUNCIL LAODICEA-A.D.365
"Canon 16-On Saturday the Gospels and other portions of the Scripture shall be read aloud." "Canon 29-Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day; but the Lord's day they shall especially honor, and as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day." Hefele's "Councils," Vol. 2, b. 6

Accurate, but does not prove much. Presumably the argument is that because they passed this canon, it was to attack those who were observing the Sabbath. But these would appear to be heretical sects, not the main church (I suppose someone could try to claim that the main church was wrong at this point, but remember the argument this list is usually used in conjunction with is that it was only at this point that things shifted, a claim weakened by all of the misrepresentations we've seen). Still, this is the only one of these quotes so far to demonstrate any true Sabbath observance in this period, even if it was only by unnamed heterodox individuals. 

Indeed, the quotes offered in this list that supposedly prove Sabbath observance have for the most part, when examined in context, shown the opposite. Thus, limiting ourselves only to these quotes, it would seem the most plausible explanation is that this is simply re-affirming what was already being done.

I'm not sure why canon 16 was cited at all; maybe it's supposed to show Canon 16 decreeing on Saturday the Scriptures are to be read, but that doesn't demonstrate any Sabbath rest observance considering the fact the same council condemned that.

I want to make a quick additional note. While not specifically mentioned here, I have seen some claim that the "Roman Catholic Church" abolished the Sabbath through this... which seems rather difficult to be the case, considering the Church of Rome appears to have had absolutely nothing to do with the Council of Laodicea, a regional council attended only by bishops from what is nowadays Turkey.

So on the whole, this is one of the "better" quotes, but still ultimately proves little.


THE WORLD
"For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrated the sacred mysteries (the Lord's Supper) on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Allexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, refuse to do this." The footnote which accompanies the foregoing quotation explains the use of the word "Sabbath." It says: "That is, upon the Saturday. It should be observed, that Sunday is never called "the Sabbath' by the ancient Fathers and historians." Socrates, "Ecclestical History," Book 5, chap. 22, p. 289.

Misrepresented. As can be seen even in the quote being given here, and is made even more obvious when one looks at the statement in context, Socrates here is talking about the celebration of the sacred mysteries. He is not saying anything about Sabbath rest.


CONSTANTINOPLE
The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria." Socrates, "Ecclesiastical History," Book 7, chap.19.

Misrepresented. First, it should further be noted that the citation is in error; this was not from Socrates, but Sozomen, another writer (again, a sign that those who copy/paste this have not bothered to verify their quotes). However, this has the same problem as above. In context, the author is referring to religious assemblies, and says nothing about Sabbath rest. 

THE WORLD-AUGUSTINE, BISHOP OF HIPPO (NORTH AFRICA)
Augustine shows here that the Sabbath was observed in his day "in the greater part of the Christian world," and his testimony in this respect is all the more valuable because he himself was an earnest and consistent Sunday-keeper. See "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers," 1st Series, Vol.1, pp. 353, 354.

Misrepresented. So this can be found here:
https://archive.org/details/selectlibraryofn01auguuoft/page/352/mode/2up

Or, if you'd prefer to read the applicable letter in simple HTML format:
https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/101/1010388.htm

But Augustine is not saying that Sabbath was observed "in the greater part of the Christian world." He simply says that "in the greater part of the Christian world" it wasn't a fast day.


POPE INNOCENT (402-417)
Pope Sylvester (314-335) was the first to order the churches to fast on Saturday, and Pope Innocent (402-417) made it a binding law in the churches that obeyed him, (In order to bring the Sabbath into disfavour.) "Innocentius did ordain the Saturday or Sabbath to be always fasted." Dr. Peter Heylyn, "History of the Sabbath, Part 2, p. 44.

Misrepresented. A sloppy citation which demonstrates that those who copy/paste these don't bother to check--this quote is actually on page 43:
https://archive.org/details/P.HeylinHistoryOfTheSabbath1636/page/n269/mode/2up

But the citation gives no evidence for the claim that this was done to try to "bring the Sabbath into disfavor."


5TH CENTURY CHRISTIANS
Down even to the fifth century the observance of the Jewish Sabbath was continued in the Christian church. "Ancient Christianity Exemplified," Lyman Coleman, ch. 26, sec. 2, p. 527.

Misrepresented. Here is the quote:
https://archive.org/details/ancientchristian75cole/page/526/mode/2up

As we repeatedly see, the quote does not say anything about rest, and if one reads on just an extra page or two you see that he gives citations showing that honoring Saturday in the Jewish way was rejected by the early church. As far as I can see he makes no indication that it was regarded as a required day of rest, and thus his statement of "observance of the Jewish Sabbath" refers to what has been noted before, it being a day that people attended religious assemblies.


FRANCE
"Wherefore, except Vespers and Nocturns, there are no public services among them in the day except on Saturday (Sabbath) and Sunday." John Cassian, A French monk, "Institutes," Book 3, ch. 2.

Misrepresented. As we can see even in this quote without looking anything up, this is merely saying that there were only public religious services on Saturday and Sunday. This proves nothing about Sabbath rest observance.

5TH CENTURY CHRISTIANS
In Jerome's day (420 A.D.) the devoutest Christians did ordinary work on Sunday. "Treatise of the Sabbath Day," by Dr. White, Lord Bishop of Ely, p. 219.

Irrelevant. The Christians on Sunday could have been engaging in the most brutal work possible on Sunday and it would mean nothing in proving observance of Sabbath rest on Saturday.

But let's take a look at this anyway. We can find it here:
https://archive.org/details/treat00whit/page/n243/mode/2up

The vague citation in the source is not particularly helpful here. It seems to be saying it's citing epistle 27, but the epistle in question (which I did manage to find because it does at least tell us is to Eustochium) is actually #108, which can be found here:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001108.htm

Maybe these were numbered differently back in the 17th century. Anyway, what is cited is this (I will be using the translation from the Nicene/Post-Nicene Fathers series, as what is quoted in the "Treatise of the Sabbath Day" is old timey English):

"On the Lord's day only they proceeded to the church beside which they lived, each company following its own mother-superior. Returning home in the same order, they then devoted themselves to their allotted tasks, and made garments either for themselves or else for others."

This is discussing a group of what were essentially nuns. The claim is apparently to point out that it refers to them working on the Lord's Day. As noted, however, this does not prove any level of observance of a Sabbath rest considering it's not even talking about the Saturday Sabbath.

The whole reason Francis White brings this up is because he's trying to argue against the idea that Sunday is the Sabbath. At best, it is an argument against that, but it provides no argument for a Saturday one. As for whether it proves anything about rest on Sunday, I am not so sure it does, given that this is portrayed as a charitable work, which I believe is often regarded as permitted even on days where rest is required. But even if it totally disproves the idea, it proves nothing of a Saturday Sabbath being observed.


AFRICA
"Augustine deplored the fact that in two neighbouring churches in Africa one observes the seventh-day Sabbath, another fasted on it." Dr. Peter Heylyn, "The History of the Sabbath." p. 416.

This page number does not exist. The History of the Sabbath, which has been cited previously in this list, is a two-part work in which both parts have their own page numbering. There is no page 416 because neither of them go that large. Perhaps there is an edition that published it in one part (though it doesn't seem to be on The Internet Archive), but it's very odd to be citing the two-part previously and then jumping over to a one-part.

But, without knowing exactly where to look, I would venture to say this refers to what has been said before regarding Augustine on this: This statement of "observing" the seventh-day Sabbath is not a reference to any sort of required rest, but simply whether it was fasted upon or not. I also saw no indication that Augustine "deplored" the fact, but perhaps Heylyn went into more detail. In any event, a more clear citation must be offered in order for it to be verified.

SPAIN (400 A.D.)
"Ambrose sanctified the seventh day as the Sabbath (as he himself says). Ambrose had great influence in Spain, which was also observing the Saturday Sabbath." Truth Triumphant, p. 68.

Unclear. Again the version of Truth Triumphant I have does not match the page numbers, but I was able to search and find this quote. No citation is given there, but it does add "as we show later" which is cut off in the above quote. I do not plan to look through the entire book to try to find this, but given the fact this list copies a lot of things from it, my guess is that some of the previous citations in this list are supposed to be offering proof of this--but they do not.


SIDONIUS (SPEAKING OF KING THEODORIC OF THE GOTHS, A.D. 454-526)
"It is a fact that it was formerly the custom in the East to keep the Sabbath in the same manner as the Lord's day and to hold sacred assemblies: while on the other hand, the people of the West, contending for the Lord's day have neglected the celebration of the Sabbath." "Apollinaries Sidonli Epistolae," lib.1, 2; Migne, 57. 

Misrepresented. I did not even look at the source to see the problem. The quote itself refers to assemblies.  It says nothing about Sabbath rest.

CHURCH OF THE EAST
"Mingana proves that in 410 Isaac, supreme director of the Church of the East, held a world council,-stimulated, some think, by the trip of Musacus,-attended by eastern delegates from forty grand metropolitan divisions. In 411 he appointed a metropolitan director for China. These churches were sanctifying the seventh day."

No source. Oddly, no source is given for this. I include it only for completeness. This presumably alludes to something in Mingana's article that was previously cited, but I was unable to find it. I do notice this is extremely similar to part of a footnote of Truth Triumphant I quoted earlier, so presumably it was from that... but Truth Triumphant doesn't make any clear statement as to where this comes from either. As noted, it claimed:

"Mingana proves that as early as A.D. 225 there existed large bishoprics or conferences of the Church of the East stretching from Palestine to, and surrounding, India. In 370 Abyssinian Christianity (a Sabbathkeeping church) was so popular that its famous director, Musaeus, traveled extensively in the East promoting the church in Arabia, Persia, India, and China. In 410 Isaac, supreme director of the Church of the East, held a world council, — stimulated, some think, by the trip of Musaeus, — attended by eastern delegates from forty grand metropolitan divisions. In 411 he appointed a metropolitan director for China. These churches were sanctifying the seventh day, as can be seen by the famous testimonies of Socrates and Sozomen, Roman Catholic historians (c. A.D. 450), that all the churches throughout the world sanctified Saturday except Rome and Alexandria, which two alone exalted Sunday."

The quote in question seems based on this, but it cuts some things out (for example there is a sentence and a half between "Mingana proves" and "in 410 Isaac" that was removed). But note the reason it argues they were sanctifying the seventh day: Its citation of Sozomen and Socrates, which I have already demonstrated to be in error (and will demonstrate again in the next example)


EGYPT
"There are several cities and villages in Egypt where, contrary to the usage established elsewhere, the people meet together on Sabbath evenings, and, although they have dined previously, partake of the mysteries." Sozomen. "Ecclesiastical History Book 7, ch. 119

Misrepresented. If looked at in context, his is about customs on the day, nothing about any required rest.

And that about does it for the early centuries. That said, I will include one more from later. Originally when I did this, it was because someone posted a bunch of these as quotes online and included one from later--it was only later I located the source. Since I did look into that one, it may be good to refer my findings.


CHINA – A.D. 781
In A.D. 781 the famous China Monument was inscribed in marble to tell of the growth of Christianity in China at that time. The inscription, consisting of 763 words, was unearthed in 1625 near the city of Changan and now stands in the "Forest of Tablets," Changan. The following extract from the stone shows that the Sabbath was observed:

"On the seventh day we offer sacrifices, after having purified our hearts, and received absolution for our sins. This religion, so perfect and so excellent, is difficult to name, but it enlightens darkness by its brilliant precepts." Christianity in China, M l Abbe Huc, Vol. 1, ch. 2, pp. 48, 49.

Misrepresented. This one is an extremely sloppy citation, but I was able to eventually figure it out. The work in question here is "Christianity in China, Tartary, and Thibet" by Evariste Régis Huc. It is true that the title page says "by M. L'Abbe Huc" so it's not exactly wrong to cite them as the author, but they could have at least given the full title of the book.

The quote is not found on pages 48 or 49, at least not on the edition I consulted. Rather, it was on page 51. However, note it does not actually support the claim of Sabbath rest observation. Rather, it simply says sacrifices were offered on the seventh day.

 

CONCLUSION

Few if any of the quotes in this big list show any actual Sabbath rest observance on the part of the mainstream church in the early centuries. It is another example of how people should, when arguing by quotes, actually make sure their sources back them up on their claims. If one wishes to make an argument that the church in the early centuries believed that Sabbath rest was mandatory on Saturday, these quotes are not how to do it.