Chapter Four: Making New Sayings: “Eusebius, Constantine, and the Making of the New Testament”
Eusebius wrote “Historia Ecclesiastica,” or the “History of the Church.” He was friends with Emperor Constantine the Great and helped Constantine win the crown. Because of this friendship, the Edict of Milan (313 CE), removing penalties for professing to be a Christian, was enacted. Mack wrote: “The Bible was created when Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire. . . with Constantine converted, the age-old model of the temple-state could start to work again, and the history of Christendom began.” Until then, there was no New Testament, but only writings by unknown authors.
Constantine, with Eusebius by his side, presided over the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Eusebius’ Life of Constantine states that bishops came from all over the world. Two hundred fifty men (both young and old) came together from “all quarters” and “all nations,” Eusebius listed the following areas from which these men traveled:
“In effect, the most distinguished of God’s ministers from all the churches which abounded in Europe, Lybia, and Asia were here assembled. And a single house of prayer, as though divinely enlarged, sufficed to contain at once Syrians and Cilicians, Phœnicians and Arabians, delegates from Palestine, and others from Egypt; Thebans and Libyans, with those who came from the region of Mesopotamia. A Persian bishop too was present at this conference, nor was even a Scythian found wanting to the number. Pontus, Galatia, and Pamphylia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Phrygia, furnished their most distinguished prelates; while those who dwelt in the remotest districts of Thrace and Macedonia, of Achaia and Epirus, were notwithstanding in attendance. Even from Spain itself, one whose fame was widely spread took his seat as an individual in the great assembly.”
Constantine urged that they sit down and discuss their differences and come to unity. When all the delegates were seated, Constantine urged them to get a handle on their doctrine and be “united in a common harmony of sentiment.” He “gave permission to those who presided in the council to deliver their opinions.” Eusebius wrote that
“the emperor gave patient audience to all alike, and received every proposition with steadfast attention, and by occasionally assisting the argument of each party in turn, he gradually disposed even the most vehement disputants to a reconciliation. At the same time, by the affability of his address to all, and his use of the Greek language, with which he was not altogether unacquainted, he appeared in a truly attractive and amiable light, persuading some, convincing others by his reasonings, praising those who spoke well, and urging all to unity of sentiment, until at last he succeeded in bringing them to one mind and judgment respecting every disputed question.”
When all was said and done, all were “united as concerning the faith.” Then, “Those points also which were sanctioned by the resolution of the whole body were committed to writing, and received the signature of each several member.”
In his book Crimes of Humanity, Jared Bailey noted that tales were taken from all over the world, “using the standard god-myths from the presbyters’ manuscripts.” Constantine’s hope, Bailey wrote, was that by including facets of all the myths, East and West would be united in a uniform religion. We have no record of what the book contained, but Mack wrote that other “lists would be produced from the fourth to the ninth century, showing that total agreement was never reached.” Mack continued: “When the Jewish scriptures and the apostolic writings were combined in a single book, the church finally had its story straight. The Bible could be used to claim antiquity for the Christian religion and serve as the Christian epic.”
According to Eusebius, he was told to make fifty copies of the scriptures, and later Constantine wrote a letter to the churches as follows:
“Having had full proof, in the general prosperity of the empire, how great the favor of God has been towards us, I have judged that it ought to be the first object of my endeavors, that unity of faith, sincerity of love, and community of feeling in regard to the worship of Almighty God, might be preserved among the highly favored multitude who compose the Catholic Church. And, inasmuch as this object could not be effectually and certainly secured, unless all, or at least the greater number of the bishops were to meet together, and a discussion of all particulars relating to our most holy religion to take place; for this reason as numerous an assembly as possible has been convened, at which I myself was present, as one among yourselves (and far be it from me to deny that which is my greatest joy, that I am your fellow-servant), and every question received due and full examination, until that judgment which God, who sees all things, could approve, and which tended to unity and concord, was brought to light, so that no room was left for further discussion or controversy in relation to the faith.”
I couldn’t tell whether the following was written by Constantine or Eusebius: “Receive, then, with all willingness this truly Divine injunction, and regard it as in truth the gift of God. For whatever is determined in the holy assemblies of the bishops is to be regarded as indicative of the Divine will.” Because “It was by the Will of God that Constantine became possessed of the Empire,” naturally it was perceived that God guided him in leading these men to truth.
And why shouldn’t Constantine know the truth? After all, he was inspired (according to Eusebius). On a day previous to the convening of this council, God had sent Constantine a vision of a “Cross of Light” and
“about noon, when the day was already beginning to decline, he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, CONQUER BY THIS. At this sight he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also, which followed him on this expedition, and witnessed the miracle.”
Then, to ensure that Constantine understood, God appeared to him in the form of Christ.
“He said, moreover, that he doubted within himself what the import of this apparition could be. And while he continued to ponder and reason on its meaning, night suddenly came on; then in his sleep the Christ of God appeared to him with the same sign which he had seen in the heavens, and commanded him to make a likeness of that sign which he had seen in the heavens, and to use it as a safeguard in all engagements with his enemies.”
This sounds a lot like the story the apostle Paul told about his own vision, which also appeared “about noon” and in the presence of his companions (Acts 22:6-9). Many Christians believe Paul’s story while disbelieving Constantine’s; then they turn around and trust Constantine to give them their holy book with its holy words from God (including the story about Paul). I don’t think they can have it both ways.
After this miracle Constantine “sent for those who were acquainted with the mysteries of His doctrines, and enquired who that God was, and what was intended by the sign of the vision he had seen. They affirmed that He was God, the only begotten Son of the one and only God“ (whatever that means). At that point Constantine began to worship the gods Yahweh and Jesus.
Constantine was enthralled by the writings of Eusebius, and wrote to him, saying:
“I am, notwithstanding, filled with admiration of your learning and zeal, and have not only myself read your work with pleasure, but have given directions, according to your own desire, that it be communicated to many sincere followers of our holy religion. Seeing, then, with what pleasure we receive favors of this kind from your Sagacity, be pleased to gladden us more frequently with those compositions.”
Constantine himself was a speaker, author, philosopher, and prophet. Eusebius wrote of him:
“For himself, he sometimes passed sleepless nights in furnishing his mind with Divine knowledge: and much of his time was spent in composing discourses, many of which he delivered in public; for he conceived it to be incumbent on him to govern his subjects by appealing to their reason, and to secure in all respects a rational obedience to his authority. Hence he would sometimes himself evoke an assembly, on which occasions vast multitudes attended, in the hope of hearing an emperor sustain the part of a philosopher. And if in the course of his speech any occasion offered of touching on sacred topics, he immediately stood erect, and with a grave aspect and subdued tone of voice seemed reverently to be initiating his auditors in the mysteries of the Divine doctrine . . . And he himself both felt and uttered these sentiments in the genuine confidence of faith.”
Perhaps both these men had a hand in writing these New Testament scriptures. Whoever did the work of piecing together information from far and wide (whether Eusebius, Constantine, or the 250 bishops), at some point a new merged manuscript was turned into a document that would through the years, and other councils, grow into what we have sitting on our coffee tables today. As Robert Wright noted, “politics and economics gave us the one true god of the Abrahamic faiths.”
“Having by these means banished dissension, and reduced the Church of God to a state of uniform harmony,” Constantine turned his attention to the false prophets and heretics, addressing them as follows: “Understand now, by this present statute, you Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulians, you who are called Cataphrygians, and all you who devise and support heresies by means of your private assemblies.” He informed these people that “from this day forward none of your unlawful assemblies may presume to appear in any public or private place.” Eusebius wrote:
“Thus were the lurking-places of the heretics broken up by the emperor’s command, and the savage beasts they harbored (I mean the chief authors of their impious doctrines) driven to flight. . . Thus the members of the entire body became united, and compacted in one harmonious whole; and the one catholic Church, at unity with itself, shone with full luster, while no heretical or schismatic body anywhere continued to exist. And the credit of having achieved this mighty work our Heaven-protected emperor alone, of all who had gone before him, was able to attribute to himself.”
“Thus the emperor in all his actions honored God, the Controller of all things, and exercised an unwearied oversight over His churches. And God requited him, by subduing all barbarous nations under his feet, so that he was able everywhere to raise trophies over his enemies: and He proclaimed him as conqueror to all mankind, and made him a terror to his adversaries: not indeed that this was his natural character, since he was rather the meekest, and gentlest, and most benevolent of men.”
After that, God revealed traitorous plots to Constantine in visions so that he was able to dispose of threats against him. In fact,
“God frequently vouchsafed to him manifestations of himself, the Divine presence appearing to him in a most marvelous manner, and according to him manifold intimations of future events. Indeed, it is impossible to express in words the indescribable wonders of Divine grace which God was pleased to vouchsafe to His servant.”
Eusebius believed Constantine’s flights of fancy. I do not. However, I believe the stories he told of his visions as much as I believe the stories he (Eusebius, or whoever) told of Paul’s visions. Paul also was supposedly given exceeding or abundant revelations (2 Cor. 12:7).
Now, what are the chances that a non-Christian emperor of Rome (he wasn’t baptized until right before he died) and his bishops were able to decide which of all the contradictory writings that existed were the true word of God? We can boldly proclaim that “God watched over the process and made sure only the inspired material was put in the book these men made,” but that is the epitome of naiveté, particularly when Yahweh wasn’t even able to preserve any original writings.
Edward Gibbon wrote:
“The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related what might rebound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion. Such an acknowledgment will naturally excite a suspicion that a writer who has so openly violated one of the fundamental laws of history has not paid a very strict regard to the observance of the other; and the suspicion will derive additional credit from the character of Eusebius, which was less tinctured with credulity, and more practiced in the arts of courts, than that of almost any of his contemporaries.”
Gibbon further noted:
“It must be confessed that the ministers of the Catholic Church imitated the profane model which they were impatient to destroy. The most respectable bishops had persuaded themselves that the ignorant rustics would more cheerfully renounce the superstitions of Paganism if they found some resemblance, some compensation, in the bosom of Christianity. The religion of Constantine achieved in less than a century the final conquest of the Roman empire; but the victors themselves were insensibly subdued by the arts of their vanquished rivals.”
Dr. Robert L. Wilken, the “first Protestant scholar to be admitted to the staff of Fordham University,” wrote: “Eusebius wrote a history of Christianity in which there is no real history. Eusebius was the first thoroughly dishonest and unfair historian in ancient times.” Joseph Wheless wrote that Eusebius was “one of the most prolific forgers and liars of his age in the church.” Paul L. Meier noted: “They cannot deny their crime: the copies are in their own handwriting, they did not receive the Scriptures in this condition from their teachers, and they cannot produce originals from which they made their copies.”
These books Eusebius put together were, according to Bushby and Bailey, called the “New Testimonies.” Bushby wrote that “this is the first mention (c. 331) of the New Testament in the historical record.” After the book was presented Constantine ordered all other writings that had been brought to the meeting to be burnt; and, according to Bushby, “presbyterial writings previous to the Council of Nicaea no longer exist, except for some fragments that have survived.” As Mack noted:
“The writings in the New Testament were not written by eyewitnesses of an overpowering divine appearance in the midst of human history. That is the impression created by the final formation of the New Testament. Dismantled and given back to the people who produced them, the writings of the New Testament are the record of three hundred years of intellectual labor in the interest of a thoroughly human construction. . . It is charged with the intellectual battles and resolutions of untold numbers of persons who invested in a grand project three centuries in the making. . . To be quite frank about it, the Bible is the product of very energetic and successful mythmaking on the part of those early Christians.”
It should come as no surprise to us that we have been fooled. According to my research,
“The original encyclopedias produced under the name of Britannica probably provided the first and last opportunity for unaffiliated biblical specialists outside Vatican control to release factual information about the development of the Christian religion. In the 1895 version alone, 344 Christian experts contributed to articles associated with biblical sections in the 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th Editions. The knowledge they provided was subsequently published, and the priesthood had endowed the Encyclopaedists with disclosures that shocked the Christian hierarchy. Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903), in particular, was horrified by the revelations, and realizing something had to be done, circuitously arranged for a group of Catholic businessmen to purchase Encyclopedia Britannica.”
Apparently by the eleventh edition (1898), the new ownership was in place and earlier versions were destroyed. The Roman Catholic University in Chicago took over the encyclopedia’s dissemination, and church missionaries began selling the new version door to door. Vati Leaks said researchers today need to check at their local libraries for information in Britannica’s Ninth Edition, Volume 10. The author noted:
“Christians with access to libraries holding older pre-edited copies of Encyclopedia Britannica, particularly the Ninth Edition, Volume 10, will be shocked to read page 783 onwards under the heading of “Gospels”. It confirms what church leaders knew about the crooked nature of early Christian bishops, the Fourth Century compilation of the Gospels, later inclusion of forged narratives into now-canonical New Testament texts, the papal suppression of 1200 years of church history (Encyclopedia Biblica, Adam & Charles Black, London, 1899), contradictions between Gospels, the retrospective fabrication of the Christian story, and the anonymous nature of Gospels now official to Christianity. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Secret Vatican Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Scrolls, that earlier knowledge was reinforced and reveals that the Vatican hierarchy know that the origin and authenticity of its Gospels is falsely presented. Persons in a position to compare earlier editions with ‘under Vatican management’ editions should do so for personal confirmation that a new and fictitious Christian history was written and published, omitting previously available detrimental information.”
After suppressing the evidence, the Vatican was able to create its own false history. From there the bogus information began to spread.
Protestants speak about the Catholic Church in derogatory terms (some even calling her the whore of Babylon) while they gobble up every poison niblet she has poured into their bowl. Valerie Tarico wrote that the printing press “brought the written word to the masses,” fueling the Protestant Reformation; and in time the “authority of the papacy and Catholic hierarchy were replaced by the authority of the Bible, the Reformation’s ‘sola scriptura.'” The irony here is that it “was the Catholic hierarchy itself that had assembled the collection of texts and declared them, on papal authority, to be God’s best and most complete revelation to humankind.”
Tina Rae Collins
My goal is to share my book The Judaeo-Christian Myth one article at a time. If you find these articles interesting or you don’t think I’ll reach my goal (always a possibility, I suppose), and/or you just can’t wait, you can purchase the book by clicking on the picture above or the title in this paragraph. Thanks for reading!
 Mack, 293.  “Father Eusebius – Forger,” 30 Oct. 2014.  Eusebius, Life of Constantine, III, Chs. 6, 7, and 9; tr. Ernest Cushing Richardson; from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 1; ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890); rev. and ed. for New Advent by Kevin Knight; newadvent.org, 2009, web, 9 Apr., 2015.  Eusebius, Life of Constantine, III, Ch. 7.  Eusebius, Life of Constantine, III, Ch. 12.  Eusebius, Life of Constantine, III, Ch. 12.  Eusebius, Life of Constantine, III, Ch. 13.  Eusebius, Life of Constantine, III, Ch. 13.  Eusebius, Life of Constantine, III, Ch. 14.  Eusebius, Life of Constantine, III, Ch. 14.  Bailey, Crimes of Humanity.  Bailey, Crimes of Humanity.  Mack, 288-289.  Mack, 290.  Eusebius, Life of Constantine, IV, Ch. 36.  Eusebius, Life of Constantine, III, Ch. 17.  Eusebius, Life of Constantine, III, Ch. 20.  Eusebius, Life of Constantine, I, Ch. 24.  Eusebius, Life of Constantine, I, Ch. 28.  Eusebius, Life of Constantine, I, Ch. 29.  Eusebius, Life of Constantine, I, Ch. 32.  Eusebius, Life of Constantine, IV, Ch. 35.  Eusebius, Life of Constantine, IV, Ch. 29.  Wright, 134.  Eusebius, Life of Constantine, III, Ch. 63.  Eusebius, Life of Constantine, III, Ch. 64.  Eusebius, Life of Constantine, III, Ch. 65.  Eusebius, Life of Constantine, III, Ch. 66.  Eusebius, Life of Constantine, I, Ch. 46.  Eusebius, Life of Constantine, I, Ch. 47.  Eusebius, Life of Constantine, IV, Ch. 62.  Edward Gibbon, Rome, Vol. II (Philadelphia, 1876), as noted at “Father Eusebius – Forger,” 12 Nov. 2014.  Gibbon, Rome, Vol. III, 163, as noted at “Father Eusebius – Forger,” 12 Nov. 2014.  Robert Louis Wilken, The Myth of Christian Beginnings, History’s Impact on Belief, Chapter III: The Bishop’s Maiden: History Without History (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1971), 73, 57. See also: “Father Eusebius – Forger,” 12 Nov. 2014.  Wheless, Forgery in Christianity; quoted in Gibbon, History, Ch. 37; Lardner, IV, 91. These citations were retrieved from: “Father Eusebius – Forger,” 12 Nov. 2014. See also: Taylor, Diegesis, 272.  Eusebius, The Church History, Book 5, Section 28; retrieved from: “Father Eusebius – Forger,” 12 Nov. 2014.  Bushby, “The Forged Origins of the New Testament.”  Bushby, “The Forged Origins of the New Testament.”  Mack, 308.  D. H. Gordon and N. L. Torrey, History in the Encyclopedia (New York, 1947); and Norman Segal, The Good News of the Kingdoms (Australia, 1995). See also: Vati Leaks, “Why the Vatican purchased Encyclopedia Britannica,” vatileaks.com, 6 July 2011, web, 11 Apr. 2015.  Encyclopedias: Their History Throughout the Ages, 1966. See also: Vati Leaks.  Vati Leaks.  Vati Leaks.  Cardinal Caesar Baronius, Annales Ecclesiastici, tome vii, Fol. Antwerp, 1597.  Valerie Tarico, “In Defense of Cherry Picking the Bible,” exchristian.net, 9 July 2015, web, 10 July 2015.