Did Constantine the Great rewrite parts of the Bible?

Question

I read this is the DaVinci Code, and I didn't believe it since the book is fiction. But I heard from many people (Christians included!) that Constantine did edit the Bible. Anyone know?

A coloring book? wtf?

Answer 1

At the time Constantine established the Council of Nicea, the only "bible" was the jewish TaNaKh (the Old testament), and letters that were copied and passed around by the jewish essenes/gnostic sects who believed in "Jesus". The Council of Nicea was tasked by Constantine with establishing doctrine for this religion and compiling what they thought was inspired scripture, in order to unite the sects into one religion.
You could say that Constantine was responsible for establishing the New Testament, but he didn't rewrite anything. He simply changed things like the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday and Passover to Easter to marry the religion with paganism and unite his empire.

Answer 2

No.

For one thing, you've misunderstood what Brown said in the code. He didn't say Constantine wrote parts of the bible. He said Constantine decided what went into the bible.

Which isn't true either.

Constantine had only JUST made Christianity legal. Around 320 or so.

Not long after that, the heretics came out making a mess out of Romes new "official" faith.

That's one thing Brown has really corrupted. But hey, it made for good reading...

Brown claimed that Jesus was just a guy, until Constantine proclaimed him divine. This isn't true.

A fellow named Arius was busy running around telling people Jesus was just a guy and not divine. The bishops at the Council of Nicea refuted this whole heartedly.

In 350 Constantine called for the bishops together for the Council of Nicea.

The bible wasn't even discussed at the Council of Nicea. The Council came together from the 4 corners to actually map out what they believed as a Catholic family.

Remember, the church had been underground for 300 years. Many of them had never met or communicated in any way. And yet, by the grace of the Holy Spirit they were all pretty much doing the same thing! Believing the same thing. Performing the same mass!

That's where we get the Nicean Creed from.

We believe in ONE God, the Father, the Almighty...
and so on.

While texts exist as early as 33 years after the death of Christ which list the canon of the bible almost exactly as Catholics still use it today (Protestants removed some things) it wasn't "official" until the Council of Hippo in 398.

At the Council of Hippo, all the bishops came together again to compare their scrolls and see what scripture they were all using. It was pretty much the same across the board.

Martin Luther heavily edited the bible in I think around 1512. Or so... Don't quote me on that one.

PS: What Janet says is completely Dan Brown and completely UNtrue... If it were true, the Dead Sea Scrolls would have changed the bible a LOT. As it were, only a little word or two was different.

If Dan Brown were correct the Douay Rheims bible - the first English translation - would be extremely different from the Jerusalem Bible - the first bible "updated" from the ancient scrolls of the Dead Sea.

Answer 3

Conspiracy lovers like to blame Constantine for perverting Christianity somehow. Undoubtedly his "conversion" was a practical political decision, but he would have been more interested in Church organization than in scripture. Specifically, he wanted Christians to stop feuding over doctrine, because it was affecting public order, and he was having enough to do fighting rivals, running two empires, and keeping migrating barbarians pacified.

The Christian theologians of the previous century had begun drawing up lists of writings they regarded as inspired and, with the exception of a half dozen books, they substantially agreed. Constantine legalized Christianity, then called the Council at Nicea to get it settled, along with the theological definitions that were being disputed. The biggest issue was Christ's relationship with the Father. The followers of Arius said Jesus was special, more than an ordinary man, but definitely less than God. What came to be the orthodox position determined that Jesus was fully human and fully divine. That's how the doctrine of the Trinity came about, and why the Nicene Creed has all that stuff about "true God from true God", and "Begotten, not made." They were identfying and suppressing a heresy.

There are several passages in the New Testament that are rather ambiguous about the relationship of Christ and the Father. They're still there, too. If Constantine had rewritten parts of the scriptures, those would have been obvious targets. All he wanted was for the Church to get its act together and settle down.

Answer 4

There is a document called the Muratorian fragment, if I remember correctly, which contains an almost complete list of the books of the new testament that were accepted reading in the assemblies of the time when it was compiled. It is dated within the time before 150 AD or there about, again if I remember correctly. Constantine didn't change what we know as the word of God and which has God's seal on it.

Answer 5

Constantine did not rewrite the bible. He gathered all the religious leaders of that time in a village called Nicea. The the Council of Nicea agreed on what books to put in the bible and agreed on different religious historical dates. Like Easter and Christmas days we're decided.

Answer 6

Absolutely not. Constantine had nothing to do with the Canon of Scripture. The Bible was compiled by the bishops of the Catholic Church at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD, and not a word of the text has been changed since that time. Not by Catholics at least.
.

Answer 7

Constantine during the Fifth Ecumenical Council made critical decisions about what books would be included in the Bible. Many references were eliminated which didn't meet his worldview. References to reincarnation were removed.

If you do the research, do your homework you'll find endless information describing what happened.

A good source for this type of information is anything by Sir Lawrence Gardner (http://graal.co.uk/) or Zecharia Sitchin (www.sitchin.com).

I'm glad you're asking questions. That shows great intelligence.

Answer 8

Bart Ehrman recently wrote a book called _Misquoting Jesus_. It is all about parts of the New Testament that were potentially mistranslated, rewritten, etc. The real Bible is so old. It is in so many pieces that there isn't one exact source other than translations from other people.

Answer 9

You can look up the first Council of Nicea. AD 325.

I think Brown's contention is generally, but not necessarily specifically correct. The council was convened to determine which ancient texts would be codified into the word of god. However- Dan Brown implied a specific mission to de-humanize Jesus as part of it. I don't know whether that specific mission of the council has ever been verified.

But- it is irrefutable that MEN have determined what is deemed the word of GOD.

Answer 10

He did not rewrite parts of the Bible...he simply chose which books he wanted to put in there. There were many books that have been ignored because they are not in the Bible...and why? Because some man said that they shouldn't be.