If the Bible was first discovered in the Qumran caves near the Dead Sea...

[Augustus]

No one created Constantine's early 50 copies bible. It was compiled, and probably by his man Friday, Eusebius. There were no similar bibles, there were hundreds if not thousands of parchments being carried around by mostly uneducated preachers, who liked Paul's message, and went about preaching it. Before Constantine, there was an Eastern Roman Empire and a Western Roman Empire. Through the overthrow of 3 kings (Daniel 7:24), Constantine unified Rome. Constantine's vision was to fully unify the two, and his religious ploy was the route he apparently chose. The Bishop of Rome didn't even attend the Council of Nicaea, located near the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire. Although he did send two underlings. The bishops involved were mostly Eastern Empire bishops.

Nicaea was primarily about the Arian controversy, not establishing the Biblical canon.

 

[2ndpillar]

reply to metis

Source of what? Chapter and verse are listed for Daniel, Revelation. What is not found in the book "Constantine the Great: the man and his times" by Michael Grant, can be googled. Constantine's only focus was the thorough unification of Rome, by whatever means possible. His god, was the god of war, and to him, Sol Invictus gave him his victory at Milvian Bridge, which can be asserted by his minting of a coin in 313 AD, glorifying him and Sol Invictus.

 

[2ndpillar]

Nicaea was primarily about the Arian controversy, not establishing the Biblical canon.

The Council of Nicaea was about the unifying the Roman Empire. The Arian controversy was simply a problem with respect to that unification. Constantine didn't care one way or another how it turned out, only that the controversy end. As for bibles, Constantine had Eusebius compile a bible and had 50 printed. From what I have read, there is only one reference to any of the books in that bible, and it is not listed in the current cannon.

The Fifty Bibles of Constantine were Bibles in the Greek language commissioned in 331 by Constantine I and prepared by Eusebius of Caesarea. They were made for the use of the Bishop of Constantinople in the growing number of churches in that very new city. Eusebius quoted the letter of commission in his Life of Constantine, and it is the only surviving source from which we know of the existence of the Bibles. Fifty Bibles of Constantine - Wikipedia

 

[Augustus]

As for bibles, Constantine had Eusebius compile a bible and had 50 printed.

It's not like these were radically different from the compilations of other Christians though.

 

[2ndpillar]

It's not like these were radically different from the compilations of other Christians though.

As there is no apparent record apart from what Eusebius wrote that they existed, how do you know? I mean I read one account, for which I am not going to try and find it, that said there was only record of one of those books, and it was not in the canon. And what were the competing canons, and since all writings in line with Arius were burned per an edict of Constantine, and all holding such writings were to be executed, how many of those books were burned? And as Eusebius was an original Arian leader, how many books of Eusebius bible contained Arian thought, and that is why there is no record of the 50 bibles? You seem to be making suppositions with no foundation. One thing is for sure, Constantine is the beast with two horns like a lamb (Revelation 13:11), and you don't want to be associated with that beast (Revelation 14:10).

"In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offence, he shall be submitted for capital punishment....." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

— Edict by Emperor Constantine against the Arians[8]

 

[PruePhillip]

It was "Rome" that chose the canon of the Bible you use.

BTW, Luther had some regrets over making the Bible easier for the public to have have such easy access to as he said later in life that now even a "milk maid" thinks she's an expert.

BTW, there are a minimum of three scriptural readings at each mass in a Catholic church on a weekday (I'm including the Psalm), and there are four on Sundays, so it one is paying attention, ...

Like most things, it's not that simple. The so-called 'canon' of
Christian literature was laid down before there was a Roman
church of note. By the time Paul, Peter and Luke were put to
death their letters were widely circulated, and the Gospels
were scrupulously hand copied.
You can see what books Rome chose but the Protestants
rejected - the Apocrypha. And other books have come to light
which are clearly fraudulent, ie Gospel of Thomas.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nicaea was primarily about the Arian controversy, not establishing the Biblical canon.

The canon of NT scripture compiled, edited and redacted by the Church Fathers up to that time were then accepted as canon in a series of councils in a span of ~50 years. The influence of the Council of Nicaea was more in accepting what was canon in settling the Arian controversy in favor of the Trinitarian view of God, particularly the relationship between God the Father and God the Son, which later dominated and became the dogma of the Roman Church.

 

[Augustus]

As there is no apparent record apart from what Eusebius wrote that they existed, how do you know?

Because not all of Christendom was in the Roman Empire.

nd what were the competing canons, and since all writings in line with Arius were burned per an edict of Constantine, and all holding such writings were to be executed, how many of those books were burned?

The degree to which edicts were followed is far less than modern people would anticipate. Think about administering a massive empire with rudimentary communication and transport technology, limited law enforcement apparatus, and very diverse subjects culturally and linguistically.

So while they had some impact, they weren't massively effective.

“These laws were directed to specific locales, not empire-wide, and there existed no state apparatus to ensure they were carried out... But the laws do show the will of the emperor, and this would not have gone unnoticed.” Bart Ehrman. The Triumph of Christianity.

why there is no record of the 50 bibles?

What would you expect there to be? What percentage of 4th C texts written on animal skins do you think survived to the 21st C?

He made 50 copies of a book and distributed them to various parts of the empire. 1600 years, hundreds of wars, imperial collapse, reuse of parchments (palimpsests), natural decay of organic matter, superior technology (paper) all happened. People got new Bibles.

You seem to be making suppositions with no foundation.

You are mistaken in believing in Constantine's omnipotence

 

[BilliardsBall]

It was "Rome" that chose the canon of the Bible you use.

BTW, Luther had some regrets over making the Bible easier for the public to have have such easy access to as he said later in life that now even a "milk maid" thinks she's an expert.

BTW, there are a minimum of three scriptural readings at each mass in a Catholic church on a weekday (I'm including the Psalm), and there are four on Sundays, so it one is paying attention, ...

No, I've read and studied the apocrypha and determined the 66 are correct, without being Catholic.

The real issue is for us to investigate whether the Bible is the Word of God, regardless of whether Rome interfered/interferes with Bible study. Scripture readings in public aren't scripture studies IMHO.

 

[metis]

No, I've read and studied the apocrypha and determined the 66 are correct, without being Catholic.

And exactly how could you possibly determine that and somehow know you're correct? And frankly there really isn't anything as far as teachings are concerned in the Apocrypha that isn't found in the 66, with only the exception of praying for the dead, which we do know was done not only in the early Church but also within at least some circles in Judaism.

The real issue is for us to investigate whether the Bible is the Word of God, regardless of whether Rome interfered/interferes with Bible study. Scripture readings in public aren't scripture studies IMHO.

At our Catholic church we do all of the above plus some. We have the daily readings as mass, the strong encouragement to read scripture on our own, and I'm currently involved in a 25 week study of Matthew's gospel at the church. Last year I was involved in two other studies at the church.

 

[shunyadragon]

You might want to read this: Apostolic succession - Wikipedia

The apostolic succession is a claim of the Roman Church after the fact, and not accepted by the rest of Christianity outside the Roman Church. The NT was compiled, edited and redacted by the Church Fathers, and not by the Roman Church. The series of councils ~300 to 400 AD accepted the canon created by the Church Fathers before Christianity became Roman.

 

[metis]

The apostolic succession is a claim of the Roman Church after the fact, and not accepted by the rest of Christianity outside the Roman Church.

False, as such claim is also by the Orthodox Church (including the Coptics), the Anglican Church, the Moravians, the LDS, and by several Scandinavian Lutheran denominations. See: Apostolic succession - Wikipedia [scroll down to #5]

The NT was compiled, edited and redacted by the Church Fathers, and not by the Roman Church. The series of councils ~300 to 400 AD accepted the canon created by the Church Fathers before Christianity became Roman.

There were numerous bibles used in different areas and by different groups, so there really was no agreement with the "Church Fathers" prior to Constantine. And it was through this disagreement and confusion why Constantine wanted to find some sort of agreement to try and end the many conflicts. The Bible used by most people, especially in the west, is that canon, and this is what I was referencing to BB about. See: Christian biblical canons - Wikipedia

 

[2ndpillar]

False, as such claim is also by the Orthodox Church (including the Coptics), the Anglican Church, the Moravians, the LDS, and by several Scandinavian Lutheran denominations. See: Apostolic succession - Wikipedia [scroll down to #5]

I don't think the LDS makes such a claim. Their inspiration came supposedly from an angel, in the 19th century. And, yes, the Lutherans have a succession claim from the time of their leader, Luther, a follower of the false prophet Paul, whose church of the tares (Matthew 13:39-42) followed closely after time frame of the followers of Yeshua, but there was around a 1600 time gap. As for the Orthodox, yes, their Eastern Roman church, followed the succession of their founder, the Pontifex Maximus, Constantine, who as head of the Roman Empire and their pagan religion, was in charge of the gods, and the calendar, as he inherited that position from Julius Caesar, who had usurped the position from the head pagan priests. They have a Pontifex Maximus, a pope, whose "authority" comes from the "beast", by way of the "dragon" (Revelation 13:3-4) who claims to be a successor of the "worthless shepherd", Peter (Zechariah 11:17), but the bishops of Rome, whether Eastern or Western, never had such a position until after Constantine set up his Roman church. As for the "apostolic" succession set up be the self professed apostle Paul, such a nomination of leaders, apostles, and teachers, by the false prophet Paul, is not only against the teachings of Yeshua (Matthew 23:8-10), but has led to a cascade of "rotten fruit", (Matthew 7:16-20). You can build a "house" on "sand", but it will eventually "fall" if it is not built on heeding the testimony of Yeshua, and not one of nailing that testimony to a cross. (Matthew 7:24-27).

 

[2ndpillar]

At our Catholic church we do all of the above plus some. We have the daily readings as mass, the strong encouragement to read scripture on our own, and I'm currently involved in a 25 week study of Matthew's gospel at the church. Last year I was involved in two other studies at the church.

Bible study was not the norm with respect to the history of the Roman church, as Luther can attest. As a child, the Catholic Church mass I attended was done in Latin, and the readings from the bible were over shadowed by the 10% tithes sermon given every mass. The church school taught a pre class, 5 minute Catechism, which is not the study of the bible, whether the tare seed included in the NT, or the "good seed". The church my parents went to had services up stairs and downstairs for apparently the hippies, for they got a guitar. The services lasted around 30 minutes, and everyone was whisked out quickly to let the next load of sheep in.

 

[2ndpillar]

You are mistaken in believing in Constantine's omnipotence

With respect to Constantine being "omnipotent", well he convened and chaired the "Council of Nicaea", and he appointed bishops, and for naysayers like Arius, he exiled them, at least until he changed his mind, and exiled Athanasius, until he changed his mind, and exiled Arius, etc. etc. etc.
Constantine is the "beast with two horns like a lamb", whose authority came from the "dragon" (Revelation 13:4 & 11-12). HIs two horns like a lamb, Christ like leaders, where Peter and Paul, the foundation of the church of the tares, who will remain as the foundation of that church, until the "end of the age" (Matthew 13:39-42). Like with Theodosius, who had officially made the "Nicene Trinity Christianity", the official Roman church, they both had to herd the unruly bishops with the power of the sword, and with the case of Constantine, threaten execution if you didn't toe the line.

"In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offence, he shall be submitted for capital punishment....." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

— Edict by Emperor Constantine against the Arians[8]

 

[2ndpillar]

He made 50 copies of a book and distributed them to various parts of the empire. 1600 years, hundreds of wars, imperial collapse, reuse of parchments (palimpsests), natural decay of organic matter, superior technology (paper) all happened. People got new Bibles.

I think in regard to what Eusebius wrote, the 50 bibles were distributed within Constantinople. Which would put them in easy reach of Constantine to burn anything with a hint of Arius, during his Arius fumes. If they had been distributed to such places as the extents of the Roman boundary, they would have been harder to burn, and if the recipients thought highly of them, they would have been copied or written about. Cenobitic monasticism started about the time of the printing of the 50 bibles, and one of their core chores were to copy books.

"The monks of the monastery fulfilled the obediences assigned them for the common good of the monastery. Among the various obediences was copying books."
Christian monasticism - Wikipedia

 

[shunyadragon]

False, as such claim is also by the Orthodox Church (including the Coptics), the Anglican Church, the Moravians, the LDS, and by several Scandinavian Lutheran denominations. See: Apostolic succession - Wikipedia [scroll down to #5]

Not False, because the all make different claims as to what the Apostolic succession is. It remains a different claim 'after the fact' by each church.

There were numerous bibles used in different areas and by different groups, so there really was no agreement with the "Church Fathers" prior to Constantine. And it was through this disagreement and confusion why Constantine wanted to find some sort of agreement to try and end the many conflicts. The Bible used by most people, especially in the west, is that canon, and this is what I was referencing to BB about. See: Christian biblical canons - Wikipedia

I do consider it a process, but it remains the later "Church Fathers" that made the decision as to what the canon would be not Constantine.

 

[PruePhillip]

... the later "Church Fathers" that made the decision as to what the canon would be not Constantine.

It's true and false.
The "church fathers" were guided by what was largely considered
to be the canon by Christian society at large.
Some, like the Infancy Gospel of Thomas would have been amongst
those considered to be "the fictions of heretics" Why? Largely because
the work was outside the character of Jesus, as understood, and likely
not even known to the first Christians.

from Wiki
Early Christians regarded the Infancy Gospel of Thomas as inauthentic
and heretical. Hipploytus identified it as a fake and a heresy in his
Refutation of All Heresies, and his contemporary Origen referred to it
in a similar way in a homily written in the early 3rd century. Eusebius
rejected it as a heretical "fiction" in the third book of his 4th-century
Church History, and Pope Gelasius I included it in his list of heretical
books in the 5th century.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's true and false.
The "church fathers" were guided by what was largely considered
to be the canon by Christian society at large.
Some, like the Infancy Gospel of Thomas would have been amongst
those considered to be "the fictions of heretics" Why? Largely because
the work was outside the character of Jesus, as understood, and likely
not even known to the first Christians.

from Wiki
Early Christians regarded the Infancy Gospel of Thomas as inauthentic
and heretical. Hipploytus identified it as a fake and a heresy in his
Refutation of All Heresies, and his contemporary Origen referred to it
in a similar way in a homily written in the early 3rd century. Eusebius
rejected it as a heretical "fiction" in the third book of his 4th-century
Church History, and Pope Gelasius I included it in his list of heretical
books in the 5th century.

I did note that the later 'Church Fathers' made the final selection, but the early 'Church Fathers' were the ones that compiled, edited and redacted the original books and letters.

 

[PruePhillip]

I did note that the later 'Church Fathers' made the final selection, but the early 'Church Fathers' were the ones that compiled, edited and redacted the original books and letters.

I have no issue with "church fathers", ie the RCC,
compiling material. Someone had to do it.
But where is your evidence that these "fathers"
edited and redacted books? Some believe that
someone edited Mark's ending, but there isn't
proof of this (some copies could have had the
ending and some didn't.)