Emperor Constantine edit the bible to his liking?

The bible in it's current form is really a creation of Constantine since he is the one who commissioned it to be collected, edited, parts left out, parts re-written, etc. There was not a bible per say prior to Constantine. There were various separate writings with nothing collected into one form. It's not like every motel in Jerusalem had a bible in the night stand.

Constantine was not a scholar of religion; merely a political puppet master influencing the development of the early Roman church. Whilst he didn't alter the bible; he would have been a key player in influencing the overall direction of the books selected for the final composition.

Many books were written during the first 4 centuries after Jesus' crucifixion. Over time; divergence of opinion and also an inevitable power fight between ego's led to an inevitable split in doctrine between the different churches across the world.

Rome wanted unity of religion within the empire to reassert hearts and minds control over it.

The Roman empire and later the Byzantine empire successfully suppressed rival ideologies in Alexandria (Egypt center of Christian scholarship); Syria and later India.

The only remnent of those rival ideologies are the scriptures of the Nag Hammadi library; and in the writings of early Roman catholic scholars like Irenius whom sought to suppress these rival ideologies - from yahoo questions and answers.

So what do you think...did Emperor Constantine edit the bible to his liking?

[edit on 27-4-2010 by Theone2000]

Flagging this thread. Hopefully someone has some answers. I heard certain things like how hell is actually a garbage pit and how eternity is actually translated to "eon"..So hopefully someone might know what kind of political figure messed with the bible.

I don't know much about this issue. But you could find many stories of biblical characters from early Christianity followers. Many of the early Christians shared stories on Biblical figures to one another before the Bible was written and well read.

Emperor Constantine and the First and Second Councils of Nicea most definately edited the bible. They did it in the same way that the jewish bible was collected and edited as well as many religious documents before that. I doubt there was any great sinister plot behind this editing, just merely an attempt to meld all the conflicting myths and writing surrounding the main tennants of the religion into a cohesive unit. A noble, if misguided, cause to be sure.

That is, however, the primary reason that the 99.9% of religious texts in their current form CANNOT be regarded as the immutable and irrevocable "word of God" simply because they are all so far removed from the original source and fallen prey to editing and redacting for man's own selfish opurposes.

reply to post by Theone2000


History shows that the definition of the books of the New Testament was a gradual, and collective process. Churches in different parts of the Empire had slightly different viesw, and eventually there was a consensus.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Constantine had anything to do with it. The process began before him and continued after him. You're not quoting any decisions he made, or any instructions he gave. You just say "would have done". History needs more than that.

Originally posted by USAFJetTech
Emperor Constantine and the First and Second Councils of Nicea most definately edited the bible. They did it in the same way that the jewish bible was collected and edited as well as many religious documents before that. I doubt there was any great sinister plot behind this editing, just merely an attempt to meld all the conflicting myths and writing surrounding the main tennants of the religion into a cohesive unit. A noble, if misguided, cause to be sure.

That is, however, the primary reason that the 99.9% of religious texts in their current form CANNOT be regarded as the immutable and irrevocable "word of God" simply because they are all so far removed from the original source and fallen prey to editing and redacting for man's own selfish opurposes.

I agree with you 100% Very good answer bro! Helped me figure it out.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Incidentally, the canons of the Nicene Council are available online (I have just checked them at newadvent.org), and I see no mention whatever of any decisions on the form of the Bible.


[edit on 27-4-2010 by DISRAELI]

The replys that came in before mine posted bring up some good points, so I'll adress them.
As to 'hell' actually being a garbage pit, in one of jesus' sermons he refers to eternal punishment in "Gehenna". This is actually the name of a valley where the people of jeruselum would burn their refuse, and it was also a place where alot of wild dogs lived and fought, hence the referances to wailing (howling) and gnashing of teeth. Most apologetics will say that this was used as a metaphore for the fires and suffering of 'hell', but either way it is a physical location.

As far as political figures "messing" with the bible, this was unnecessary as political figures WROTE the bible. Before constantine and the modern christian cannon, early christians felt no need for a seperate bible. All their stories of jesus revolved around an oral tradition and their main set of spiritual writings was the already compiled jewish bible. This is why folk tales of biblical figures generally predate any written accounts of their life.

He edited out all the common people and kept in those he thought were of any importance or enough to carry any credence, so yet again the word of the common man has been pushed to one side. Good ole fashioned cooking the books.
All the original manuscripts are in the Vatican and no one, but no one will ever read them because the content will destroy the foundations of the Christian religion.

reply to post by DISRAELI


The councils of nicea were the staging grounds for the decision of which practices would become cannon law. While it was not involved in the first hand rewriting of the bible (no one sat around the table with quills dipped in red ink making corrections and omissions) the decisions made there decided not just official church interpretation of canonical texts, but also decided basic tenants of the faith. In fact, the first council was where the decision of christs divinity was made... Yes my christian freinds, that is correct. Until the first council of nicea it was NOT accepted fact in the christian community that jesus was the divine son of god. Most christians regarded him as completely human prior to his apotheosis.

Originally posted by USAFJetTech Until the first council of nicea it was NOT accepted fact in the christian community that jesus was the divine son of god. Most christians regarded him as completely human prior to his apotheosis.

The writings of many theologians before the Council survive to demonstrate the general concensus of the divinity of Christ. "The Trinity", which includes that doctrine, was being discussed a hundred years earlier. The decision made at the Council was to rule out a statement about Christ which was thought to be incompatible with that teaching.

reply to post by Theone2000


S & F, hopping for some great responses and discussion. All i really know about this sort of subject is the arrangement of the old testament. Which supposedly was edited in such a way that God was the main figure. The apocrypha i believe are the books taken out of the old testament. The included more details about the angels and their influence in the world. Its been awhile so I'm not entirely sure if i say is what was written.

reply to post by DISRAELI


They serve to demonstrate nothing but the general concensus of theologians, imo.
I think that christ as a man negates nothing about his message, and that by setting him up as a divine person the church was setting itself up at the high end of an unbalanced power structure.

How else to convince the masses that they needed the churches intercession?

reply to post by ItsAgentScully


You bring up a good point about old testament authorship (which is something entire books have been written about) but I think you're also refering to stories like the Book of Enoch and the Nephilim, which is probably best kept as a subject for other threads (many of which are already in existence around ATS)

Originally posted by USAFJetTech


They serve to demonstrate nothing but the general concensus of theologians, imo.

OK, but if you leave out the writings of theologians, where is there any evidence for what the "ordinary people" thought?

As mentioned, Constantine did bring the Eastern and Western branches of the Catholic Church into agreement. Prior to his conference there was a division as to whether Christ was a God or the prophet of God.

It was decided that pagans would accept the beliefs easier if they were based on a God.

There is also the issue of artifacts. Most notablly fragments of the Cross itself but also including dozens of other objects that all popped into existence in the years following the conference. Specifically Helena, Constantine's mother, is the one most responsible for 'finding' many of these relics.

The editting of the bible did not end at this time. One of the spinoffs of latin sermons to an illiterate parish was that few if any would recognize when changes were made as few, if any, could understand what was being said to them to begin with. These changes to the bible really only stopped when Gutenberg invented the printing press and began mass producing bibles in common language for anyone who could afford it.

Prior to the printing press the church itself was the only source for the bible and few copies existed as they were each hand written over the course of years. In a very real way the greatest boon to the church was also to become it's curse...with the bible now in wide circulation more people were exposed but at the cost of the book itself becoming static for the first time ever.

From here I digress.


[edit on 27-4-2010 by [davinci]]

Originally posted by DISRAELI
if you leave out the writings of theologians, where is there any evidence for what the "ordinary people" thought?

I'm not necessarily disregarding the writings of theologians, however when you take into account the propensity for chistians to burn books that disagree with their world view, you have to assume that the reason early writings indicate scholars agreed with the church fathers is because those were the only writings allowed to survive.

The fact that it was an issue of contention at all and not just a small heresy easily eradicated indicates that it had a wide range of proponents. It was not a casual thing to be decided upon quickly... in fact some accounts say that the debate grew so heated, that Santa Clause (Saint Nicholas of Myra) Slapped the main proponent of the idea of chists humanty in the face!

Originally posted by [davinci]
As mentioned, Constantine did bring the Eastern and Western branches of the Catholic Church into agreement. Prior to his conference there was a division as to whether Christ was a God or the prophet of God.

It was decided that pagans would accept the beliefs easier if they were based on a God.

a) The dispute at that time was not between the Eastern and Western branches. If there was any geographical division, it was mainly between Antioch and Alexandria.

b) I challenge you to produce any evidence for the second statement. There's a long account in Athanasius about the way the church leaders really arrived at the formula announced At Nicaea, which I can quote if you like.

No, the bible isn't Constantines creation. I've already looked at the bottom line, and the entire bible could be rewritten from the 36,000 recorded quotes of early church leaders alone, let alone the thousands upon thousands of originals which exists. The bible is one of the best recorded historical documents we have. The last book to be written was Revelations, which is at the very latest 95 AD. We can also translate back to the original Hebrew and Greek languages by way of wonderful books called Concordances to make accurate copies. Deny ignorance; your thread and it's assertations are a waste of time. I'm not going to bother with it any more, or future ones of a similar nature, except to pass it's disqualifier along.

If you were going to create a book some people would follow for thousands of years, he would probably do it for the impact. To have people live like he dictated, because they're insane