Chapter 13
Emperor Constantine
In A.D. 331, Emperor Constantine commanded Bishop
Eusebius of Caesarea to prepare fifty Greek copies of the Bible. Dr.
Tischendorf, the man who rescued the Codex Sinaiticus from the Monastery
of St. Catherine in the Sinai desert, devotedly believed that this
manuscript and the Codex Vaticanus were two of Eusebius’ copies (Sidney
Collett, The Scripture of Truth, 28).
Although Eusebius wrote a splendid history of the early
Christian church,
[He] was an enthusiastic admirer, and devoted
adherent of Origen. Dr. F.C. Cook, History of the Revised Version,
157
Further, Cook, who refused an invitation to sit on the
committee which prepared the Revised Version, asserted:
No one needs to be reminded who knows aught of the
history of that age, or who has read, however hastily, his history of
the early church; that in all questions he would defer absolutely to the
authority of Origen, especially in questions of criticism, is almost
equally undeniable; nor do I hesitate to state my immovable conviction
that in that influence is to be found the true solution of the principal
phenomena which perplex or distress us in considering the readings of
the Vatican and Sinaitic Manuscripts. Ibid., 155-157
This reliance upon Origen no doubt recommended Eusebius’
work to the emperor, for he designed to merge Christianity and European
paganism, an aim he successfully achieved. The connection between the
Codex Sinaiticus (Codex Aleph), the Codex Vaticanus (Codex B), and
Eusebius’ work in Caesarea is well attested.
But in connecting B and Aleph with the library at
Caesarea we are not left only to conjecture or inference. In a
well-known colophon affixed to the end of the book of Esther in Aleph by
the third corrector, it is stated that from the beginning of the book of
Kings to the end of Esther the MS was compared with a copy
"corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus," which
itself was written and corrected after the Hexapla of Origen. And a
similar colophon may be found attached to the book of Ezra. It is added
that the Codex Sinaiticus . . . and the codex Pamphili . . . manifested
great agreement with one another. The probability that Aleph was thus at
least in part copied from a manuscript executed by Pamphilus is
established by the facts that a certain "Codex Marchalianus"
is often mentioned which was due to Pamphilus and Eusebius; and that
Origen’s recension of the Old Testament, although he published no
edition of the text of the New, possessed a great reputation. On the
books of the Chronicles, St. Jerome mentions manuscripts executed by
Origen with great care, which were published by Pamphilus and Eusebius.
And in Codex H of St. Paul it is stated that that MS was compared with a
MS in the library of Caesarea "which was written by the hand of the
holy Pamphilus." These notices added to the frequent reference by
St. Jerome and others to the critical (akribe) MSS, by which we are to
understand those which were distinguished by the approval of Origen or
were in consonance with the spirit of Origen, shew evidently the
position in criticism which the library of Caesarea and its illustrious
founder had won in those days. And it is quite in keeping with that
position that Aleph should have been sent forth from that "school
of criticism." The Traditional Text, 164-165
This passage is better understood if Eusebius’
relationship to Pamphilus is known. Dr. G.A. Williamson who has prepared a
translation of Eusebius’ The History of the Church, (Dorset
Press, New York, 1984) provides this background:
As a young man he [Eusebius] became a disciple and
close friend of Pamphilus, a teacher whose influence over his receptive
pupil was profound. Pamphilus was dedicated to the spread of sound
learning. He established at Caesarea a school of theology, and built up
a large and well-stocked library, thus largely contributing to the vast
erudition later displayed by the younger man. Eusebius had already
published several books, but for a time he gave up his original work to
assist his tutor in the composition of a Defense of Origen. In
the year 309, they were both imprisoned as confessors of Christ, but
they continued their combined labours until Pamphilus was put to death
for the Faith—a martyrdom which made an immense impact on his
disciple. Eusebius, released from prison, withdrew to Tyre, where he
honoured his friend’s memory by taking the name Eusebius (son) of
Pamphilus, and himself contributing the sixth and last book to the Defense.
To complete his tribute, he wrote a Life of Pamphilus. G.A.
Williamson, Introduction to Eusebius’ The History of the Church,
11-12
Thus it is seen that Eusebius was greatly influenced by
Pamphilus, who in turn was a great admirer of the work of Origen. Abbo
Martin, a Roman Catholic scholar, claimed that the Codex Sinaiticus was
fabricated by Origen. If Martin’s assertion is true, then it would
account for Eusebius’ reliance upon such a defective manuscript in the
preparation of the royally commanded fifty copies. Eusebius’ high regard
for the work of Origen would no doubt have led him to accept the veracity
of his manuscripts. But no true adherent to God’s Word would be
similarly deceived.
A number of authorities agree that Eusebius was the
source of the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. One states:
Constantine himself ordered fifty Greek Bibles from
Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, for the churches in Constantinople. It is
quite possible that Aleph and B are two of these fifty. Dr. Robertson, Introduction
to Textual Criticism, 80
Because of this possibility it is of vital importance
that we examine Eusebius’ attitude toward Scripture to determine his
mind-set as he undertook his task of copying the Sacred Word.
Significantly he may be described as an early version of today’s higher
critics. In fact, he was one of the forerunners of higher criticism.
After describing the death of James, the step-brother
of Christ who he stated was thrown from a parapet of the temple, and when
he survived that fall was clubbed to death, Eusebius records:
Such is the story of James, to whom is attributed the
first "general" epistle. Admittedly its authenticity is
doubted, since few early writers refer to it, any more than Jude’s,
which is also one of the seven called general. Eusebius, The History
of the Church, Dorset Press, New York, 1984, 103
Eusebius also chose to cast doubt upon the second
epistle of Peter.
Of Peter one epistle, known as the first, is
accepted, and this the early fathers quoted freely, as undoubtedly
genuine, in their own writings. But the second Petrine epistle we have
been taught to regard as uncanonical. Ibid., 108
That Emperor Constantine played no small part in
opening the door to the entry of paganism into the Christian church is
proved beyond dispute. That he further encouraged the spread of corrupted
Greek manuscripts appears all but certain. Later Eusebius states, after
listing four other documents attributed to Peter:
These then are the works attributed to Peter, of
which I have recognized only one epistle as authentic and accepted by
the early fathers. Ibid.
Since the Codex Sinaiticus contains a book called The
Shepherd, Eusebius’ comments upon this book are of interest.
As the same apostle [Paul], in the salutations that
conclude the Epistle to the Romans, has referred among others to Hermas,
the reputed author of the "Shepherd," it is to be noted that
this, too, has been rejected by some authorities and therefore cannot be
placed among the accepted books. Others, however, have judged it
indispensable, especially to those in need of elementary instruction.
Hence we know that it has been used before now in public worship, and
some of the earliest writers made use of it, as I have discovered.
Ibid., 108-109
Since Eusebius believed that James, 2 Peter, and Jude
were non-canonical, he had no right to include them as part of the
Scriptures he prepared for Constantine. But include them he did, thus
indicating his lack of care in such matters. We firmly believe that these
epistles are divinely ordered. But Eusebius has demonstrated that he was
prepared to include books which he regarded as doubtful within his
Scriptures. Thus we should not be surprised that they included such
non-canonical books as The Shepherd, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the
Apocryphal books in his Greek manuscript. It is clear that he had a
reduced sense of the sacredness of the Holy Bible, which no doubt
influenced his work. Yet the modern versions presume to claim such
manuscripts as the oldest and most reliable. Most reliable! Hardly, for in
addition to numerous copyist errors and alterations they contain
non-canonical books.
It is instructive to quote one passage from the Epistle
of Barnabas to demonstrate the nonsense it contains.
But he adds, neither shalt thou eat the hare. To what
end? To signify this to us: Thou shalt not be an adulterer, nor liken
thyself to such persons. For the hare every year multiplies the places
of its conception; and so many years it lives, so many it has. Neither
shalt thou eat the hyena; that is again, be not an adulterer, nor a
corrupter of others; neither be like such. And wherefore so? because
that creature every year changes its kind and is sometimes male and
sometimes female. Epistle of Barnabas, 8:6-7
Quite rightly was this epistle rejected from the canon
of God’s Word, yet the manuscripts ordered by Emperor Constantine and
furnished by Eusebius were so corrupted that the inclusion of this epistle
was regarded as worthy. And still many Christians accept the claims of the
translators of the New International Version, that the Codex Vaticanus and
Codex Sinaiticus which contain such a scientific absurdity are "the
two most reliable early manuscripts." May we be preserved from any
less reliable than these!
Eusebius also cast doubt upon the Book of Hebrews when
he claimed:
We must not shut our eyes to the fact that some
authorities have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, pointing out that
the Roman Church denies that it is the work of Paul. Eusebius, op. cit.,
108
Later in his book Eusebius also cast doubt on the
authenticity of 2 John and 3 John.
Those that are disputed, yet familiar to most,
include the epistles known as James, Jude, and 2 Peter, and those called
2 and 3 John, the work either of the evangelist or someone else with the
same name. Ibid., 134
Thus the only general epistles upon which Eusebius
places undoubted authority are 1 Peter and 1 John. Emperor Constantine
chose a man to prepare his ordered fifty Scriptures who was himself not
settled in the Word of God.
Despite that the book known as "The Shepherd"
was included in the Codex Sinaiticus, and it is likely that this was one
of Eusebius’ 50 Scriptures, Eusebius acknowledged:
Among the spurious books must be placed the
"Acts" of Paul, and the "Shepherd."
Thus if the Codex Sinaiticus is Eusebius’ work, it
seems that he saw no harm in adding to his prepared Scripture, books that
he full well knew to be non-canonical. This fact would indicate a very
careless attitude toward his task.
Another disturbing point is the doubt Eusebius cast
upon the book of Revelation. He states, after listing a number of books he
regards as spurious including the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd, the
Revelation of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas (another book, acknowledged
to be spurious, which was placed in the Codex Vaticanus) and the Teachings
of the Apostles, that
together with the Revelation of John, if this seems a
right place for it: as I said before, some reject it, others include it
among the recognized books. Ibid.
Since the Codex Vaticanus does not include the book of
Revelation one might question if it is just due to a failure to complete
the manuscript, or due to later loss, or whether a more sinister matter—that
Eusebius himself accepted that it was spurious and thus saw no need to
include it, as he also omitted some of the other books correctly deemed
spurious and with another group he mentions including the Gospels of
Hebrews, Peter, Thomas, and Matthias and the Acts of Andrew and John.1
Ibid., 135
Clearly, manuscripts based upon Eusebius’ notions are
most unlikely to meet the high standards of a copyist who possesses no
doubts concerning the canon of Scripture.
1 We are indebted to Russell’s middle
son, Timothy, and his wife, Joan, for presenting a copy of Eusebius’ History
to Russell as a Christmas gift in 1990. Neither the givers nor the
recipient knew what a source of information on the topic of Bible
translations it would prove to be.<BACK>
|
