OT & NT Canon

[JSynon]

Greetings!

I have heard that during the fourth century Constantine and some Romans had corrupted / changed the Scriptures for some reason. Is there any truth to this claim?

 

[BBAS 64]

Greetings!

I have heard that during the fourth century Constantine and some Romans had corrupted / changed the Scriptures for some reason. Is there any truth to this claim?

Good Day, JSynon

Not that I can think of off the top of my head.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[prodromos]

I have heard that during the fourth century Constantine and some Romans had corrupted / changed the Scriptures for some reason.

I am curious as to what they base these claims on.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Hey JSynon, here is a good primer site about the Canon, it's formation and its history. The Canon

...Besides the struggles against false teachings, the early church also met with political problems, chiefly persecutions. These occurred off and on from about A.D. 100 until the Emperor Constantine made Christianity the official religion, around 313. After that, persecution was directed toward non-Christians and heretical Christians, although sometimes "orthodoxy" and "heresy" were decided by the Emperor, not theologians. By the year 400, the canon of Scripture that we know today was established within the contexts of an established, orthodox church and a powerful imperial government. Link

Wikipedia: Biblical Canon

...The canon of the New Testament began to be more firmly established in the later 4th century.

One of the first synods met together to judge which books were to be read aloud in churches was the Synod of Laodicea, held about 363 CE. The decrees issued by the thirty or so clerics attending were called 'canons' Canon 59 decreed that only canonical books should be read, but no list was appended in the Latin and Syriac manuscripts recording the decrees. The list of canonical books sometimes attributed to the Synod of Laodicea is a later addition, most scholars agree.

The first complete listing of canonical books in the Denziger Sources of Catholic Dogma is in §84, which dates from A.D. 382. The third Synod of Carthage, in 397 CE ratified the canon accepted previously at the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa, 393 CE, the acts of which have been lost. This synod marks the beginning of a more widely recognized canon. The inclusion of some books in the New Testament was debated: Epistle to Hebrews, James, 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation. Grounds for debate included the question of authorship of these books; suitability for use; and how widely they were actually being used. 2 Peter is the most weakly attested of all the books in the Christian canon. One concern regarding the book of Revelation at that time is that it was already being interpreted in a wide variety of controversial ways. Virtually all Christians have accepted and continue to accept the same 27 books as the New Testament, except for those Syriac-speaking Christians who continue to use the Peshitta...

Some of the key players in the formation of the canon were.

Athanasius (298-373)
Jerome (340-420)
Augustine of Hippo (354-430)

While Constantine (reign between 306-337) was a formidable influence in the world at that time, there is no evidence that he had direct influence on the formation of the canon, especially since he was dead before most of the councils/synods addressing the Canon happened.

As for Roman influence, it cannot be denied that Rome was directly influential to the formation of the canon since Rome was the center of the Christian world at that time. However, the claim that Rome would intentionally corrupt or change scriptures is probably not true. At the time of the formation of the canon, the epistles and gospels were widespread Christian literature and considered divinely inspired because of their apostolic authorship. Attempts to change those letters would probably have caused another schism in the church.

 

[SolomonVII]

The councils authorized by Constantine were responsible for formerly canonizing scripture as we know it today. This was not a corruption of Scripture but a formal canonization of scripture. Before that, what was or was not to be considered inspired or authoritative varied considerably.

 

[Polycarp1]

Solomon did an excellent quick summary. You need to remember that in the 300 years before Constantine's time, Christianity was a sometimes-persecuted/sometimes-tolerated minority belief. During the 50 years immediately prior to Constantine, it moved into the position of the majority belief system -- and got into exactly the sorts of theological arguments that plague this board today.

It was Constantine's desire, not to set up what he believed as what everyone should (he was not a particularly deep thinker), but rather to try to get the disputes settled by calling together the leadership of the Church to debate the issues out formally and then to jointly arrive at a commonly-held position that could be taught to the laity (like himself). In other words, he didn't say "This is the truth; believe it," but rather "Come to a mutual understanding of the truth, you who are wise, and then teach me and my people what it is."

The canard that he had the Scriptures changed in any way seems to be just a slander against him -- much of the canonical text is quoted by writers who predate him and doesn't appear to have been changed at all.

The establishment of a definite canon, by the way, was done at a regional council in Hippo (now in Tunisia) about 50 years after Constantine's time. But there was pretty close agreement on the books we know today by his time.

 

[JohnJones]

Greetings!

I have heard that during the fourth century Constantine and some Romans had corrupted / changed the Scriptures for some reason. Is there any truth to this claim?

I believe you are referring to the 50 Bibles that Constantine commissioned Eusebius, an Arian, to make. During Constantine's reign, the area around Alexandria was in a theological war. A man by the name of Arius had arisen preaching a new doctrine, namely that Jesus was a created being and not God in the strictest sense but merely a lower created God. Arius was excommunicated by Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria, but he merely moved on to the closest church that would accept him until Alexander sent letters to them and they expelled him and then Arius moved on to the next church, thus causing trouble all around Alexandria. Constantine's rule was to some extent upset by this theological battle, so he saw a political advantage in taking a side and advancing it by having various 'Bibles' made and delivering them for use in the churches. He commissioned an Arian, Eusebius, to make 50 'Bibles' which were to be appointed for reading in the churches in and around Alexandria. Eusebius complied, copying them unfaithfully so as to have them support Arianism. They were rejected by the churches post haste, and Constantine seeing that the Arians were the losing side then joined with the Orthodox. All these 'Bibles' were destroyed, save two, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Fragments of the others began to be found post 1860s. The local text embodied in these corrupt manuscripts was unknown for 1440 years, and the Received Text was in continual use all over the world during that time, and still is in such translations as the KJV and NKJV. All other modern translations, however, are based on the corrupt local Alexandrian Arian text because the two major liberal Greek 'scholars' of the late 1800s (Westcott and Hort) were Neo-Arians who favored these two manuscripts from the ancient trash-dumps of Egypt simply because they minimize the deity of Christ. 95% of all Greek manuscripts are Received Text - only 5% are Alexandrian text. The 95% come from all over the world. The 5% from one manuscript of Alexandrian origin found in the Vatican Library, one manuscript of Alexandrian origin found in the waste-basket of a monastery on Mt. Sinai, and a few fragments found in Alexandria. The oldest manuscript of each form dates to the 4th century, but only the Received Text has been in continuous use, and only the Received Text was used all over the world prior to 1881. (Since 1881 most languages have had the Alexandrian text dumped on them by 'scholars.')

 

[Polycarp1]

I believe you are referring to the 50 Bibles that Constantine commissioned Eusebius, an Arian, to make. During Constantine's reign, the area around Alexandria was in a theological war. A man by the name of Arius had arisen preaching a new doctrine, namely that Jesus was a created being and not God in the strictest sense but merely a lower created God. Arius was excommunicated by Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria, but he merely moved on to the closest church that would accept him until Alexander sent letters to them and they expelled him and then Arius moved on to the next church, thus causing trouble all around Alexandria. Constantine's rule was to some extent upset by this theological battle, so he saw a political advantage in taking a side and advancing it by having various 'Bibles' made and delivering them for use in the churches. He commissioned an Arian, Eusebius, to make 50 'Bibles' which were to be appointed for reading in the churches in and around Alexandria. Eusebius complied, copying them unfaithfully so as to have them support Arianism. They were rejected by the churches post haste, and Constantine seeing that the Arians were the losing side then joined with the Orthodox. All these 'Bibles' were destroyed, save two, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Fragments of the others began to be found post 1860s. The local text embodied in these corrupt manuscripts was unknown for 1440 years, and the Received Text was in continual use all over the world during that time, and still is in such translations as the KJV and NKJV. All other modern translations, however, are based on the corrupt local Alexandrian Arian text because the two major liberal Greek 'scholars' of the late 1800s (Westcott and Hort) were Neo-Arians who favored these two manuscripts from the ancient trash-dumps of Egypt simply because they minimize the deity of Christ. 95% of all Greek manuscripts are Received Text - only 5% are Alexandrian text. The 95% come from all over the world. The 5% from one manuscript of Alexandrian origin found in the Vatican Library, one manuscript of Alexandrian origin found in the waste-basket of a monastery on Mt. Sinai, and a few fragments found in Alexandria. The oldest manuscript of each form dates to the 4th century, but only the Received Text has been in continuous use, and only the Received Text was used all over the world prior to 1881. (Since 1881 most languages have had the Alexandrian text dumped on them by 'scholars.')

This is so far from the truth that it would take hours to refute it in detail. And that has been proven by people with some respect for the truth about Scripture.

However, Mr. Jones is entitled to post his opinions about the world here. But it would be nice for someone with the scholarship to tell the truth about the Uncial Codices.

Just for the record, a few facts I do know without research: the Textus Receptus was compiled a short time prior to the Reformation. So it would have taken an amazing miracle for it to be in use for 1400 years before the recovery of the ancient Codices. And the 95% of manuscripts (an accuracy) are nearly all from the same few sources, and date much later than the other texts. The "garbage dump" libel about Sinaiticus is far from the truth -- as Mr. Jones has been told several times here, with evidence, and no doubt has been told before.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I believe you are referring to the 50 Bibles that Constantine commissioned Eusebius, an Arian, to make. During Constantine's reign, the area around Alexandria was in a theological war. A man by the name of Arius had arisen preaching a new doctrine, namely that Jesus was a created being and not God in the strictest sense but merely a lower created God. Arius was excommunicated by Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria, but he merely moved on to the closest church that would accept him until Alexander sent letters to them and they expelled him and then Arius moved on to the next church, thus causing trouble all around Alexandria. Constantine's rule was to some extent upset by this theological battle, so he saw a political advantage in taking a side and advancing it by having various 'Bibles' made and delivering them for use in the churches. He commissioned an Arian, Eusebius, to make 50 'Bibles' which were to be appointed for reading in the churches in and around Alexandria. Eusebius complied, copying them unfaithfully so as to have them support Arianism. They were rejected by the churches post haste, and Constantine seeing that the Arians were the losing side then joined with the Orthodox. All these 'Bibles' were destroyed, save two, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Fragments of the others began to be found post 1860s. The local text embodied in these corrupt manuscripts was unknown for 1440 years, and the Received Text was in continual use all over the world during that time, and still is in such translations as the KJV and NKJV. All other modern translations, however, are based on the corrupt local Alexandrian Arian text because the two major liberal Greek 'scholars' of the late 1800s (Westcott and Hort) were Neo-Arians who favored these two manuscripts from the ancient trash-dumps of Egypt simply because they minimize the deity of Christ. 95% of all Greek manuscripts are Received Text - only 5% are Alexandrian text. The 95% come from all over the world. The 5% from one manuscript of Alexandrian origin found in the Vatican Library, one manuscript of Alexandrian origin found in the waste-basket of a monastery on Mt. Sinai, and a few fragments found in Alexandria. The oldest manuscript of each form dates to the 4th century, but only the Received Text has been in continuous use, and only the Received Text was used all over the world prior to 1881. (Since 1881 most languages have had the Alexandrian text dumped on them by 'scholars.')

Wow. This post is so full of misrepresentations and outright incorrect information I'm not sure where to start. For neutral point of view articles regarding some of the subjects here, Wikipedia has some good articles.

Constantine
Arius
Eusebius
Westcott
Hort

Codex Vaticanus
Codex Sinaiticus
Alexandrian Text-type
Byzantine Text-type
Textus Receptus (Recieved Text)

 

[JohnJones]

The following quote is from Drs. Westcott and Hort's Critical Introduction (a work describing the textual theories that guided them in preparing their Greek text of 1881):

The fundamental text of late extant Greek mss. generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian text of the second half of the 4th century.

They are saying that the manuscripts that support the Received Text originated in the second half of the 4th century (and that it was the dominant text of the time, as it still is, being found in 95% of extant mss), whereas those mss that support the Alexandrian text according to them originated in the first half of the 4th century. This means that both texts are equally old. (Their separation into 1st half and 2nd half being arbitrarily created to make the Alexandrian text look older.)

The following quote is from Constantin von Tischendorf, the man who discovered Codex Sinaiticus. http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/tischendorf-sinaiticus.html Comments by me in brackets.

...[Concerning 1st visit to St. Catherine's] In visiting the library of the monastery, in the month of May, 1844, I perceived in the middle of the great hall a large and wide basket full of old parchments; and the librarian, who was a man of information, told me that two heaps of papers like these, mouldered by time, had been already committed to the flames...[Concerning return 15 years later] And so saying, he took down from the corner of the room a bulky kind of volume, wrapped up in a red cloth, and laid it before me. I unrolled the cover, and discovered, to my great surprise, not only those very fragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket, but also other parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament complete, and, in addition, the Epistle of Barnabas and a part of the Pastor of Hermas.

Tischendorf describes the heap of manuscripts that were being used to fuel the fire to keep the monks warm, and how he found a Septuagint ms there and was only allowed to take 43 pages. He instructed the monks to not burn anymore of these mss because he wanted them, so one of the monks took the remainder of the ms that Tischendorf found and some others out of the waste-basket and saved them for 15 years, and showed them to Tischendorf when he returned.

The following quote is from page 13-14 of a tract entitled Canonicity which was written by a R.B. Thieme, Jr. who is a supporter of the Alexandrian text. He writes: (Comments by me in brackets)

Codex Sinaiticus: We owe much of our knowledge of the Scriptures to a brilliant nineteenth century German scholar, who spent his life piecing together the original New Testament. At the age of nineteen, young Count Konstantin von Tischendorf amazed his professors with his fluent knowledge of classical languages and dialects of antiquity...[note his praise of Tischendorf, he is a supporter]...In the Spring of 1844, Tischendorf took a trip to the Near East...journeyed to the Sinaitic Peninsula in search of an old monastery that had been hewn from the rock on the side of Mount Sinai...When Tischendorf arrived at the Greek Orthodox monastery of St. Catherine's, he was welcomed warmly by the Russian monks...Then in a small room near the library he saw a large wastebasket filled to the rim with what looked like ancient vellum. The contents of the wastebasket had been consigned to the fireplace--some of which would contribute to the warmth of his room for that night. Tischendorf was aghast at the thought. Here, if his eyes did not deceive him, was something of real value. Quickly he started going through the papers. Was there more of this kind of material around? If so, would they bring it to him that he might examine it? This is how Tischendorf discovered the 129 pages of what is today known as the Codex Sinaiticus, or the Codex Aleph. Unhappily, Tischendorf did not 'play poker' well...Almost fourteen years would pass before all the negotiations for the transfer of this and other priceless ancient documents--among them the Epistle of Barnabas--were concluded....

Here's a Tischendorf supporter saying that Tiscendorf found the ms in a waste-basket, and being proud of it!

 

[Gold Dragon]

And I'm not sure why you are so proud of it too. I'm glad you were able to get at least one fact right in your post. We are fortunate that part of the Codex Sinaiticus was retrieved from the waste basket before it was completely lost.

 

[JohnJones]

We are fortunate that part of the Codex Sinaiticus was retrieved from the waste basket before it was completely lost.

I wish this were true, but the sad fact is that it is not fortunate at all. The two guys who really duped us all into thinking Sinaiticus was all great themselves admit that the Received Text is just as old, and was the dominant text of the time.

The fundamental text of late extant Greek mss. generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian text of the second half of the 4th century.

How ludicrous then to go with Sinaiticus rather than the Received text!

 

[Follower of Christ]

I believe you are referring to the 50 Bibles that Constantine commissioned Eusebius, an Arian, to make. During Constantine's reign, the area around Alexandria was in a theological war. A man by the name of Arius had arisen preaching a new doctrine, namely that Jesus was a created being and not God in the strictest sense but merely a lower created God. Arius was excommunicated by Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria, but he merely moved on to the closest church that would accept him until Alexander sent letters to them and they expelled him and then Arius moved on to the next church, thus causing trouble all around Alexandria. Constantine's rule was to some extent upset by this theological battle, so he saw a political advantage in taking a side and advancing it by having various 'Bibles' made and delivering them for use in the churches. He commissioned an Arian, Eusebius, to make 50 'Bibles' which were to be appointed for reading in the churches in and around Alexandria. Eusebius complied, copying them unfaithfully so as to have them support Arianism. They were rejected by the churches post haste, and Constantine seeing that the Arians were the losing side then joined with the Orthodox. All these 'Bibles' were destroyed, save two, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Fragments of the others began to be found post 1860s. The local text embodied in these corrupt manuscripts was unknown for 1440 years, and the Received Text was in continual use all over the world during that time, and still is in such translations as the KJV and NKJV. All other modern translations, however, are based on the corrupt local Alexandrian Arian text because the two major liberal Greek 'scholars' of the late 1800s (Westcott and Hort) were Neo-Arians who favored these two manuscripts from the ancient trash-dumps of Egypt simply because they minimize the deity of Christ. 95% of all Greek manuscripts are Received Text - only 5% are Alexandrian text. The 95% come from all over the world. The 5% from one manuscript of Alexandrian origin found in the Vatican Library, one manuscript of Alexandrian origin found in the waste-basket of a monastery on Mt. Sinai, and a few fragments found in Alexandria. The oldest manuscript of each form dates to the 4th century, but only the Received Text has been in continuous use, and only the Received Text was used all over the world prior to 1881. (Since 1881 most languages have had the Alexandrian text dumped on them by 'scholars.')

Now I see where youre coming from.....I was getting confused with the repeated use of ''recieved text'' .... If ya had tossed in ''Majority Texts'' in there for the earlier texts, I think I would have gotten it right off

 

[Reader Nilus]

The so called corrupt 50 is a myth no doubt from the KJV only religion.
Jeff the Finn

 

[Turpius]

not every old manuscript was worth saving!

 

[Pats]

Wow, I started a similar thread on this same question, but there are some great links in this one.

How about this question:
I have a friend who thinks the Roman Catholic church was the only source who had the Bible for over 500 years, and none of us can know what they did to it in that time frame.

I'm sure alot of the links you've already posted here will help. But if you can think of anything more that might help with this arguement, it would help me whitness to someone else

 

[thereselittleflower]

Wow, I started a similar thread on this same question, but there are some great links in this one.

How about this question:
I have a friend who thinks the Roman Catholic church was the only source who had the Bible for over 500 years, and none of us can know what they did to it in that time frame.

I'm sure alot of the links you've already posted here will help. But if you can think of anything more that might help with this arguement, it would help me whitness to someone else

What about the Eastern Orthodox? The Church was one at that time, yes, but Roman Catholicism is based in Rome . . there were other Partriarchs . . and they all had the scriptures . . . What you are suggesting is that all 5 Partriarchs would have had to do the same thing your friend thinks Rome did . .

I don't think so . .

And if your friend is Sola Scritpurist, and thinks the scriptures have been corrupted, then what can he base his faith on?


Peace in Him!

 

[SolomonVII]

Wow, I started a similar thread on this same question, but there are some great links in this one.

How about this question:
I have a friend who thinks the Roman Catholic church was the only source who had the Bible for over 500 years, and none of us can know what they did to it in that time frame.

I'm sure alot of the links you've already posted here will help. But if you can think of anything more that might help with this arguement, it would help me whitness to someone else

Based on his location in the heart of the Empire at Rome, and based on his close association with apostolic succession of Peter, the patriarch in Rome always had a special status in the early Christian communities.
Nevertheless, in spite of the much disputed idea of Roman papal primacy, the Roman bishop was never in a position during any time period to enforce his will over the whole of the Church. In almost all respects before Constantine, the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria operated independantly of Rome. Distances, linguistic barriers, and severe persecution from hostile secular authorities ensured that a conspiracy to manipulate the texts would have been all but impossible for the Roman Church to achieve.

After Constantine, the relative position of the Roman Bishop to be able to manipulate Biblical texts was essentially no different than before. Even as the secular authority of the Empire became Christianized, the capital was now bi-located into Constantinople as well, and the Roman Church simply would not be able to change biblical texts from Rome without such changes being noticed by the new patriarch in Constantinople.

Furthermore, just as was apparently the case among the disciples of the Lord who were often portrayed assquabbling amongst each other over who was the most important, the relationships between the patriarchs likewise were as often as not marred by petty disputes and jealousies. Cooperative ventures were as often as not the exception rather than the rule.

Moreso than any ancient writing, we can be fairly confident that the texts of the New Testament that we have today vary only slightly from th4e original writings. The Coptic texts of North Africa, the Latin texts of Rome, the Aramaic texts of Antioch, and the Greek texts of the Eastern Orthodox all contain essentially the same gospel, and have contained that same gospel from the beginning.

The evidence just does not support a singular source for the Christian gospels emanating only from Rome.

 

[filosofer]

Greetings!

I have heard that during the fourth century Constantine and some Romans had corrupted / changed the Scriptures for some reason. Is there any truth to this claim?

There is a book well worth reading that addresses the issues, not from a naming-calling perspective, but by examining manuscripts and texual changes that arose during the time of the Christological controversies of the 4th and 5th centuries.

The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, Bart D. Ehrman, Oxford University Press, 1993.

 

[thereselittleflower]

There is a book well worth reading that addresses the issues, not from a naming-calling perspective, but by examining manuscripts and texual changes that arose during the time of the Christological controversies of the 4th and 5th centuries.

The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, Bart D. Ehrman, Oxford University Press, 1993.

I would hardly recommend his works as a christian scholar . . for his stands against what Christianity teaches, using heretical sources (such as the Gospels of Thomas and Peter) to try to teach us about Jesus - the man . . not Jesus the God-Man:

Through a careful evaluation of the New Testament Gospels and other surviving sources, including the more recently discovered Gospels of Thomas and Peter, Ehrman proposes that Jesus can be best understood as an apocalyptic prophet, a man convinced that the world would end dramatically within his lifetime, and that a new kingdom would be created on earth--a just and peaceful kingdom ruled by a benevolent God. According to Ehrman, Jesus's belief in a coming apocalypse and his expectation of an utter reversal in the world's social organization underscores not only the radicalism of his teachings, but also sheds light on both the appeal of his message to society's outcasts and the threat he posed to the established leadership in Jerusalem.
​

I would hardly take such a person's work as authoritative on the subject . . .


Peace in Him!