You are on page 1of 67

SAAN GALING ANG BIBLIA

Septuagint

Around AD 235, Origen, a Christian scholar in Alexandria, completed the Hexapla, a comprehensive comparison of the ancient versions and Hebrew text side-by-side in six columns, with diacritical markings (a.k.a. "editor's marks", "critical signs" or "Aristarchian signs"). Much of this work was lost, but several compilations of the fragments are available. In the first column was the contemporary Hebrew, in the second a Greek transliteration of it, then the newer Greek versions each in their own columns. Origen also kept a column for the Old Greek (the Septuagint) and next to it was a critical apparatus combining readings from all the Greek versions with diacritical marks indicating to which version each line (Gr. στἰχος) belonged. [12] Perhaps the voluminous Hexapla was never copied in its entirety, but Origen's combined text ("the fifth column") was copied frequently, eventually without the editing marks, and the older uncombined text of the LXX was neglected. Thus this combined text became the first major Christian recension of the LXX, often called the Hexaplar recension. In the century following Origen, two other major recensions were identified by Jerome, who attributed these to Lucian and Hesychius.[3]

2 Timoteo 3:15-16 “At mula sa pagkabata ay nalaman ninyo na ang Banal na Kasulatan ay makakapagpatalino sa inyo sa paraan ng Kaligtasan sa pamamagitan ng pananampalataya na siyang nakay Yahshu’a Messiah, Lahat ng Kasulatan ay ipinagkaloob sa patnubay ni Yahweh, at ito ay mapapakinabangan sa pundasyon ng paniniwala, sa pagpapatunay, sa pagtutuwid, sa pagtuturo ng tamang aral sa tamang pagganap sa mga kautusan.

Ang tinutukoy dito na Banal na Kasulatan ay ang Old Testament dahil wala pang naisulat na New Testament sa panahong sinulatan ni Apostol Pablo si Timoteo.
ni

Alfonso Datu-Aca Tabilog

TALAAN NG MGA NILALAMAN
PAHINA

Saan Galing Ang Old Testament…………………..1 Saan Galing Ang New Testament....………………17 50 Kopya ng Biblia ni Contantine………………...24 Pinagmulan ng English Bible……………………..29 How Yeshu’a Become Jesus ………………………32 Salamat Sa Pinagkunan Ng Mga Saliksik…..…….a

SAAN GALING ANG OLD TESTAMENT?
Jacob Tinawag ni Yahweh na Yahshear sa Gen.32:28
Sina Yahshaak (Isaac) at Ismaale (Ismael) ay Anak at Lahi rin ni Abraham at si Ismaale ang naunang nanirahan sa Masry (Egypt) sa Genesis 21:21 at sumunod ang mga anak ni Yahshaak kay Yahkoob (Jacob) na tinawag ni Yahweh bilang Yahshear (Gen. 32:28).

THE NAME ‘ISRAEL’ ORIGINATED FROM THE NAME (YASHAR) ‘YAHSHEAR’ yaw-shar' a primitive root; to be straight ‘yesh-oo-roon' Jeshurun, a symbol. name for Israel yis-raw-ale' a symbolical name of Jacob
Genesis 32:28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel –₃₄₇₄ for as a prince hast thou power with Elohim and with men, and hast prevailed.

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Hebrew-Greek Dictionary ‘search’ for "Israel"–₃₄₇₄
3474 yashar yaw-shar' a primitive root; to be straight or even; figuratively, to be (causatively, to make) right, pleasant, prosperous:--direct, fit, seem good (meet), + please (will), be (esteem, go) right (on), bring (look, make, take the) straight (way), be upright(-ly). 3475 Yesher yay'-sher from 3474; the right; Jesher, an Israelite: -Jesher. 3476 yosher yo'-sher from 3474; the right:--equity, meet, right, upright(-ness). 3477 yashar yaw-shawr' from 3474; straight (literally or figuratively):--convenient, equity, Jasher, just, meet(-est), + pleased well right(-eous), straight, (most) upright(-ly, -ness). 3484 Yshuruwn yesh-oo-roon' from 3474; upright; Jeshurun, a symbol. name for Israel:--Jeshurun. 3478 Yisra'el yis-raw-ale' from 8280 and 410; he will rule as God; Jisrael, a symbolical name of Jacob; also (typically) of his posterity: --Israel. 3479 Yisra'el yis-raw-ale' (Aramaic) corresponding to 3478:--Israel. 3481 Yisr'eliy yis-reh-ay-lee' patronymically from 3478; a Jisreelite or descendant of Jisrael:--of Israel, Israelite. 3484 Yshuruwn yesh-oo-roon' from 3474; upright; Jeshurun, a symbol. name for Israel:--Jeshurun.

1

Nang ang salita ni YAHWEH ay dumating kay Abraham sa Genesis 15:13-14 “At sinabi ni Yahweh kay Abraham, sinabi ko sa iyo na ang lahi ng iyong mga anak ay magsisilbi sa ibang lupain ng mga Hentil at sila ay pahihirapan sa loob ng 400 taon, at ang Nasyong iyon na kanilang pinagsilbihan ay aking hahatulan at pagkatapos ay ilalabas ko sila na may dalang malaking yaman”. Sa Genesis 21:12-13 ― kay Yahshaak (Isaac) ang iyong lahi ay tatawagin at ang anak mo sa katulong ay aking gagawin din na isang Nasyon, DAHIL SIYA AY ANAK AT LAHI MO RIN‖. Genesis 46:3 ―Ako si YAHWEH, ang makapangyarihan ng iyong mga magulang, huwag kang matakot pumaroon sa Masry; dahil gagawin ko kayong malaking Nasyon‖. Samakatwid ang lahi ni Abraham sa kanyang dalawang anak sina Ismaale at Yahshaak ay naging tigapagsilbi sa lupain na hindi kanila sa lupain ng Masry kagaya sa sinabi ni Yahweh sa Genesis 15:13-14. Ang sinabi ay paglipas ng 400 na taon ay lalabas sila sa Nasyong iyon na kanilang pinagsilbihan at sa Exodus 12:52 ―si YAHWEH ay inilabas ang mga anak ni Yahshear (Jacob) (Tribo ng Yahshurun) Gen.32:28 mula sa lupain ng Masry‖. Sa lupain ng Masry ang Tribo ni Ismaale at Tribo ni Yahshurun (mula sa pangalang Yahshear) ay ang tanging ―Tribong Tuli‖, upang magkaroon ng pagkaka-kilanlan sa dalawang Tribong-Tuli ang Tribong Yahshurun ay tinawag ng mga nagsasalita ng Aramaic ng ―Yisraw-ale‖ (Yisrawale naging Israel) ibig sabihin ay ―Prinsipe ni Sarah‖ at ang Ismaale naman ay tinawag na ―Ishmael‖ na ibig sabihin ay ‗sa Pangalan ni Sarah‖. Ang ‗Ale‘ sa wikang Hebreo ay ‗Among-Babae‘, tinutukoy ang amo ni Hagar na si Sarah.

13 TIBO NG YAHSHURUN Ang 12 anak ni Yahshear (Jacob) na tinawag na 12 Tribo ni Yahshurun ay orihinal na 12, ngunit ng akuin ni Yahshear ang dalawang anak ni Yohseph sina Efraim at Manase na kanyang anak na rin sa Genesis 48:5-6 ay naging 13 ang Tribo ng Yahshurun. Ang nakatalaga para kay Yohseph ay pinalitan ng kanyang dalawang anak, samakatwid ang Tribo ni Yahshurun ay naging 13 Tribo na lumabas sa lupain ng Masry sa panahon ni Moshe (Moses).
1. Ruben 2. Simeon 3. Levi 4. Yahuwdah 5. Dan 6. Nepthali 7. Gad 8. Asher 9. Isachar 10.Zabulon Dinah (Leah) Yohseph anak sina Manaseh at Efraim 11. Manaseh 12. Efraim 13. BenYahmin

2

Dath
Dath ‫תד‬

‫תד‬

1) decree, law, edict, regulation, usage ,a) decree, edict, commission, b) law, rule

dath <1881> Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Hebrew Dictionary Pronunciation: Definition: Dawth 1) decree, law, edict, regulation, usage 1a) decree, edict, commission 1b) law, rule of uncertain (perhaps foreign) derivation: a royal edict or statute:-commandment, commission, decree, law, manner. DaTH I used to think of DaTH (dawth) as meaning void, since that's the way the fluffy bunny new age kabbalah books present it. I was curious one day and decided to see if the word was in the Bible (in Hebrew version) and found that it means something like the Law written in our hearts, a kosmic consciousness that lets us know if we are in sync with the Tao That Be (or however you want to describe it). Here are a few of my notes on my research into DaTH. Go on a spiritual quest to find values you can hold up as being what you stand for. You have found your inner DaTH. You have found the law written in your heart. What is law? A king gives a decree or edict that is the expression of the king’s will. [Esther 3:14, 8:13, 9:14] There was the concept that once a king issued this DaTH, it cannot be altered or revoked. [Daniel 2:15, 6:16] DaTH is entrusted to people. In the case of civil law, this DaTH is in the hands of judges, enforced by police, argued by lawyers, voted upon and recorded by politicians. The Israelites had the concept of the ToWRaH being the DaTH of Yahweh. Ezra was given the title of Secretary of the irrevocable DaTH of the Almighty of heaven. [Ezra 7:2, 1 Esdras 8:9] The irrevocability of the DaTH from Yahweh was not questioned by Yahshua. Yahshua was not out to destroy the ToWRaH representing the DaTH from Yahweh, but to bring it to life in the hearts of people. [Matthew 5:17] He was not getting out a giant cosmic eraser. What he challenged was that DaTH of Yahweh was complete and contained in scriptures and traditions. He offered that DaTH of Yahweh can be known in the heart, directly experienced, with continued insights into this DaTH, renewed revelation, and ongoing prophecy. This was not anti-Jewish at all. The idea was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Jews continued to redefine DaTH with the Mishnah, the Talmud, the Kabbalah, and to this day with books being published, web sites being built, deeper insights explored and lived out.

Here is something you can count on to be true for your entire life — CHoKMaH/Sophia and DaTH are treasures that will be your salvation. The greatest treasure comes from uniting with Yahweh. [Isaiah33:6]

3

A treasure is a reward after following a treasure hunt. A gift is never really valued as a treasure. YAHWEH with a multitude approaches, from his right hand comes a shining DaTH. [Deuteronomy 33:2] DaTH is the invisible SHiPHRaH, the Law in the heart of Yahweh. DaTH is Law, but DaTH is also having an active conscious, a living Law written in the heart. DaTH is being conscious of the will of Yahweh, which we can concentrate upon, which we can be mindful of, which can direct our view of what Yahweh wants in each given situation. DaTH is beyond memorizing a collection of ancient rules. DaTH is a living part of each of us. I would dare say that people who have never heard one word of religion still know that it would be wrong to go on a murdering spree or steal from the neighbors when they are not at home. The commandments part of ToWRaH are not the DaTH, but are examples of using the DaTH in specific situations. The DaTH extends far beyond the few ancient case-by-case examples of what would not be acceptable behavior. Thus the Jewish/Kabbalist quest for the invisible DaTH is much like the Gnostic quest for direct connect, for gnosis. Maybe it is invisible because it is from another dimension, that light trapped in the darkness, our core Messiah’s Consciousness, our native our Nature. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia - Dath Mosha Middle Eastern and North African Jewish community headdress may also resemble that of the ancient Israelites. In Yemen, the wrap around the cap was called ‫ ַמ ַמ ר‬massar; the head covering worn by all women according to Dath Mosha was a ‫" ַמרגּוש‬Gargush" ‫ג‬

Yahshear-Dath o (Sacer-dote) Ang anak ni Yahshear (Jacob) na Tribo ni Levi ay itinalaga sa Pagpapari (Priesthood o Yahshear-Dath o Sacerdote) sa Exodus 29. Ang tatlong anak ni Levi si Yahshear-Dath Gerson, Yahshear-Dath Cohat at Yahshear-Dath Merari o mga Yahshear-Dath o mga Secerdote ay inihalo sa 12 Tribo ng Yisrawale upang pamahalaan ang trabaho ng Pagpapari at sa pagsisilbi sa pagsamba kay YAHWEH na mababasa sa Joshua 21:1-8 at 1Chronicles 6:63-81.

Tatlong Anak ni Levi Itinalagang Yahshear-Dath o Secerdote o Pari ay Inihalo sa 12 Tribo ng Yisrawale (Israel) 1.Secerdote o Yahshear-Dath Gerson 2.Secerdote o Yahshear-Dath Cohat 3.Secerdote o Yahshear-Dath Merari

4

Ang mga anak ni Yahshear (Jacob) kay Leah, Rachel, Bilha, Zilpa:
1. Ruben ---------- 1. Ruben (Leah) - Yahshear Dath Merari ang Pari 2. Simeon ---------- 2. Simeon (Leah) – Yahshear Dath Cohat ang Pari 3. Levi ---------Levi (Leah) mga anak sina Gerson, Cohat, Merari 4. Yahuwdah ---------- 3. Yahuwdah (Leah) – Yahshear Dath Cohat ang Pari 5. Dan ---------- 4. Dan (Bilha-Rachel ) – Yahshear Dath Cohat ang Pari 6. Nepthali ---------- 5. Nepthali (Bilha-Rachel) – Yahshear Dath Gerson ang Pari 7. Gad ---------- 6. Gad (Zilpa-Leah) – Yahshear Dath Merari ang Pari 8. Asher ---------- 7. Asher (Zilpa-Leah) – Yahshear Dath Gerson ang Pari 9. Isachar ---------- 8. Isachar (Leah) –Yahshear Dath Gerson ang Pari 10.Zabulon ---------- 9. Zabulon (Leah) – Yahshear Dath Merari ang Pari Dinah (Leah) 11.Yohseph ---------Yohseph (Rachel) mga anak sina Manaseh at Efraim 12.BenYahmin ---------10. Manaseh-kalahating tribo - Yahshear Dath Gerson ang Pari Manaseh- kalahating tribo – Yahshear Dath Cohat ang Pari 11. Efraim – Yahshear Dath Cohat ang Pari 12. BenYahmin(Rachel) - Yahshear Dath Cohat ang Pari

Si Yohseph ay ipinagbili ng kanyang mga kapatid sa mga Ismaalita at dinala sa Masry (Egypt) na pinagbili naman bilang alipin at dumating ang panahon na naging tagapamahala ng Pharaoh at naging Malaya at pinalitan ang pangalan na Zaphenathpaneah. Ang isang alipin ay ibabalik sa kanyang magulang ngunit si Yohseph ay binili sa lahi ng Ismaalita kaya ibinalik siya sa Ismaalita at binigyan ng asawa na pangalan ay Asenath na anak na babae ng Pari ng Ismaalita na si Potiphera sa lahi ni Ismaale na nagkaroon ng 12 prinsesa na kagaya ni Yahshurun na nagkaroon ng 12 anak at ang isa ay si Levi na naatasan sa pamamahala ng Pagpapari sa Exodus 29, Genesis 17:7, 17:23, 16:12 ―siya ay kahalubilo ng kanyang mga kapatid‖. Nang si Abraham ay mamatay sina Ismaale at Yahshaak ang naglibing sa kanya sa kweba ng Machpelah katabi ng kanyang asawang si Sarah sa Genesis 25:9. Ang anak at lahi ni Ismaale ay nadala ng dalawang anak ni Yohseph sina Manase at Efraim, samantalang ang anak at lahi ni Yahshaak ay nadala ng 12 Tribo ng Yahshurun (Jacob tinawag ni Yahweh na Yahshear) sa lupain ng Masry at inilabas sila ni Yahweh sa Exodus 12:51, upang matupad ang sinalita ni Yahweh sa Genesis 15:13-14.

YISRAWALE (ISRAEL) KING
1Samuel 8:5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. 1Samuel 8:6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto . 1Samuel 12:19 And all the people said unto Samuel, Pray for thy servants unto thy Elohim, that we die not: for we have added unto all our sins this evil, to ask us a king.

King Saul (BenYahmin) Kohath ang Pari King David (Yahuwdah) Kohath ang Pari King Solomon (Yahuwdah) Kohath ang Pari
5

DALAWANG KAHARIAN
Lumipas ang panahon pagkamatay ni Haring Solomon ay nahati sila sa dalawang kaharian, sa Kaharian ng Yisrawale at Kaharian ng Yahuwdah. Ang Katiwala ni Haring Solomon na mula sa Tribo ng Efraim (1Kings 11:26) si Yeroboam ang naging Hari ng Yisrawale na sumama ang 10 Tribo ay pinagsisilbihan naman ng mga Levitang Pari (Yahshear-Dath o Secerdote) mula kay Yahshear Dath Cohat, Yahshear Dath Gerson at Yahshear Dath Merari. Ang anak ni Haring Solomon si Rehoboam ang naging Hari ng 2 Tribo ng Yahuwdah na pinagsisilbihan ng mga Levitang Pari (Yahshear-Dath o Secerdote) mula kay Yahshear Dath Cohat.

King Jeroboam sa Tribong Efraim ---- King Rehoboam sa Tribong Yahuwdah
YISRAWALE (ISRAEL) King Jeroboam (Efraim) 10 tribo ng Yisrawale (Israel) Samaria City YAHUWDAH (JEWS) ----------------------------- King Rehoboam (Yahuwdah) ----------------------------- 2 tribo ng Yahuwdah at BenYahmin (Jews) ----------------------------Jerusalem City

Nakatalagang Sacerdote: ---------------------------- Nakatalagang Sacerdote: Sacerdote o Yahshear Dath Merari ----------------------- Sacerdote o Yahshear Dath ang Pari ng Tribo nila Ruben, Gad, Kohath ang Pari ng Tribo nila Zabulon Yahuwdah at BenYahmin Sacerdote o Yahshear Dath Kohath ang Pari ng Tribo nila Simeon, Dan, ½Manaseh, Efraim Sacerdote o Yahshear Dath Gershon ang Pari ng Tribo nila Nepthali, Asher, Isachar, , ½Manaseh

KAHARIAN NG YAHUWDAH

Dalawang (2) Tribo ang sumama kay Haring Rehoboam ng Yahuwdah (Yahuwdah at BenYahmin) at ang lungsod ay ang Yahrusalem (Jerusalem) na pinagsisilbihan ng mga Levitang Pari (Yahshear-Dath o Secerdote) mula kay Yahshear Dath Cohat.

6

KAHARIAN NG YISRAWALE

Sampung (10) Tribo ang sumama kay Haring Yeroboam (Jeroboam) ng Kaharian ng Yisrawale at ang lungsod ay ang Samaria na pinagsisilbihan ng mga Levitang Pari (Yahshear-Dath o Secerdote) mula kay Yahshear Dath Cohat, Yahshear Dath Gerson at Yahshear Dath Merari na mababasa sa Joshua 21:1-8 at 1Chronicles 6:63-81.

Si Haring Yeroboam ng Yisrawale ay TINANGGAL ang Pagsisilbi ng mga Levitang YahshearDath o Secerdote sina YahshearDath-Cohat, YahshearDath-Gerson at YahshearDath-Merari at PINALITAN sila ng mga pangkaraniwang tao lamang na HINDI LEVITA.

Si Haring Yeroboam ng Yisrawale ay nagtayo ng templo sa mataas na lugar at ginawang Tigapagsilbing Pari ay pangkaraniwang tao lamang na HINDI LEVITA at itinalaga ang Kapistahan sa ika-Walong Buwan na dapat ay ika-Pitong buwan na ginaganap ng Kaharian ng Yahuwdah sa pagdiriwang ng mga kapistahan sa 1 Kings 12:31-32, 1 Kings 13:33-34.

Tatlong (3) Taon

Levitang YahshearDath o Secerdote mula kay YahshearDath Cohat, Gerson at Merari ay Tinanggal Bilang Tigapagsilbing YahshearDath o Secerdote sa Kaharian ng Yisrawale at sila ay Lumayas sa lupain ng Yisrawale na dala ang kanilang mga ari-arian ay tumungo sa Kaharian ng YAHUWDAH sa lungsod ng Yahrusalem at nanatili sa loob ng tatlong (3) taon

2Chronicles 11:13-17 ‗at ang lahat ng mga Secerdoteng Pari at Levita na nasa Yisrawale at sa lahat ng baybayin ay lumayas na dala ang kanilang ari-arian at tumungo sa Yahuwdah at sa lungsod ng Yahrusalem: dahil si Haring Yeroboam at kanyang mga anak ay Pinalayas sila bilang Tigapagsilbing Secerdote para kay Yahweh at si Haring Yeroboam ay nagtalaga ng mga Secerdoteng Paring Hindi Levita sa matataas na lugar at para sa Demonyo at sa Istatwang Guya na kanyang ginawa. Ang mga Levitang YahshearDath o Secerdoteng Pari mula sa tribo ng Yisrawale, ay itinalaga ang kanilang sarili at puso na hanapin si Yahweh na Makapangyarihan ng Yisrawale sa pagpunta nila sa Yahrusalem upang magsakripisyo para kay Yahweh na Makapangyarihan ng kanilang 7

mga magulang. Naging matatag ang Kaharian ng Yahuwdah at maging si Haring Rehoboam na anak ni YahdidiYah (Solomon) ay naging matatag, sa loob ng tatlong taon; dahil tatlong taon silang sumunod sa palatuntunan kagaya sa pagsunod ni DowDow (David) at YahdidiYah‖.

Ang mga Levitang YahshearDath o Secerdoteng Pari na lahi ni Yahshear Dath Cohat, Gerson at Merari na pinalayas sa Kaharian ng Yisrawale ay hindi nagtagal sa Kaharian ng YAHUWDAH: 2 Chronicles 20:18-19

Ang mga Levitang YahshearDath o Secerdoteng Pari mula sa lahi ni YahshearDath Cohat, Gerson at Merari na pinalayas sa Kaharian ng Yisrawale na tumungo sa Kaharian ng YAHUWDAH sa Yahrusalem ay nawala sa kapanahunan ni Haring Yahoshaphat. (776 B.C.E. 1Kings 22:51, 62 taon mula sa paghahari ni Haring Yeroboam) sa 2Chronicles 20:18-19 ―at ang mga Levita mula sa mga anak ni (Cohat) Cohathites at mga anak ni Corhites ay tumayo upang purihin si Yahweh ang nag-iisang Makapangyarihan ng Yisrawale sa napaka-lakas na boses na mataas.‖

Mga Barko Patungong OPHIR Naglakbay ng Pabalik sa loob ng Tatlong Taon

Mga Barko na ipinagawa ni Haring YahdidiYah (Solomon) ay pumupunta parin sa OPHIR para kumuha ng mga ginto 1Kings 9:26, at nagpagawa pa ng mga panibagong Barko si Haring Yahoshaphat sa 1 Kings 22:48 ngunit hindi na ito natuloy. Ang mga Levitang YahshearDath o Sacerdoteng Pari mula sa lahi ni YahshearDath Gerson, YahshearDath Cohat at YahshearDath Merari na pinalayas sa Kaharian ng Yisrawale na tumungo sa Kaharian ng Yahuwdah ay hindi nagtagal sa Kaharian ng Yahuwdah. Walang tanging pupuntahan sila kundi ang sumama sa mga barkong ipinagawa ni Haring YahdidiYah na kanilang nadatnan sa Yahrusalem sa pagtigil nila ng tatlong (3) taon dahil tatlong (3) taon din ang paglalakbay ng mga barko patungong Tarshish at Ophir pabalik sa Yahrusalem na mababasa sa 2 Chro.9:21 at 2Chronicles 11:13-17. Bago pa magpagawa ng panibagong Barko si Haring Yahoshaphat sa 1Kings 22:48. Naisulat sa 2Chronicles 20:18-19 sa paghahari ni Haring Yahoshaphat na 62 taon na ang lumipas mula sa paghahari ni Haring Yeroboan na katiwala ni Haring YahdidiYah (Solomon) sila ay hindi na natagpuan sa Yahrusalem sa 2 Chronicles 20:18-19.

8

MGA NAGANAP SA MGA NAIWAN SA SAMARIA AT SA YAHRUSALEM KASALANAN NG SAMBAHAYAN NI HARING JEROBOAM NG YISRAWALE

1 Kings 12:31-32, 1 Kings 13:33-34

Si Haring Yeroboam ng Yisrawale ay nagtayo ng templo sa mataas na lugar at ginawang Tigapagsilbing Pari ay pangkaraniwang tao lamang na HINDI LEVITA at itinalaga ang Kapistahan sa ika-Walong Buwan na dapat ay ika-Pitong buwan na ginaganap ng Kaharian ng Yahuwdah sa pagdiriwang ng mga kapistahan ni Yahweh. 1Kings 13:33 Si Jeroboam ay Hindi nagbago sa kanyang Masamang Ginagawa, patuloy parin siyang nagtatalaga ng mga Pari na Hindi Levita kundi pangkaraniwang tao lamang na kanyang naisin. 1Kings 13:34 At ito ang naging kasalanan ng sambahayan ni Jeroboam, kaya‘t pinutol ito at winasak sa buong lupain.

LIMANG (5) NASYON ANG PINATIRA SA LUPAIN NG ISRAEL SA SAMARIA KAPALIT NG MGA ISRAELITA NA IPINATAPON SA MGA LUNGSOD NG ASSYRIA

Yisrawale (Israel) 2Kings 17:23 Hanggang inalis sila ni Yahweh sa Kanyang paningin kagaya ng ipinasabi Niya sa mga Propeta. Ang mga Israelita ay Dinalang Bihag sa mga lupain ng Assyria. 2Kings 17:24 At ang Hari ng Assyria ay nagdala ng mga tao mula sa Babylon, at mula sa Cuthah, at mula sa Ava, at mula sa Hamath, at mula sa Sepharvaim, at pinatira sa lungsod ng Samaria kapalit ng mga Anak ni Israel: at kanilang inangkin ang Samaria at tuluyang nanirahan doon. 2Kings 17:27 Ang hari ng Assyria ay nag-utos na dalhin pabalik sa Samaria ang isang Pari na dinalang bihag sa Assyria at manirahan na sa Samaria upang siyang magturo ng pamamaraan sa Sinasamba sa lupaing iyon. 2Kings 17:28 At isa nga sa mga Pari na dinalang-bihag sa Assyria ay dumating at tumira sa Beth-el ay nagturo kung paano sila magkakaroon ng takot sa Sinasamba ng lupaing iyon. Ang Pari na dinalang pabalik sa Beth-el na lupain ng Israel ay ang Pari na itinalaga ni Haring Jeroboam na pangkaraniwang tao lamang na HINDI LEVITA.

9

2Kings 17:24 Ang limang nasyon na pinatira sa Israel, ang bawat nasyon ay gumawa ng kani-kanilang istatwang sinasamba na kanilang inilagay sa mataas na sambahan sa kani-kanilang lungsod. Ang taga Babylonia ay gumawa ng istawa ni Succoth-benoth, ang taga Cuthah gumawa ng istatwa ni Nergal, ang taga Hamath ginawa ang istatwa ni Ashima, Ang taga Ava ginawa ang istatwa ni Nibhaz at Tartak, ang taga Separvaim ay nagsusunog naman ng kanilang anak para sa kanilang istatwang si Adrammelech at Anammelec. 2Kings 17:24 Sila ay may takot sa Makapangyarihan ngunit pinagsisilbihan nila ang kani-kanilang istatwa. (Dito nagsimula na hindi na tawagin ang pangalan ni Yahweh kundi pinalitan ng El na naging Elohim). Ang mga Tunay na Levitang Yahshear-dath (Sacerdote) ang may hawak ng mga aklat ni Moses kaya ang HINDI-LEVITANG PARI ay kumatha rin ng kanilang sariling kwento patungkol sa mga naganap noon. Dahil hindi nila alam ang kahalagahan ng Banal na Pangalan ni Yahweh ay pinalitan nila ito ng ‗El‘ o ‗Elohim‘ upang maintindihan ng mga taga Babylonia, at taga Cuthah, at taga Ava, at taga Hamath, at taga Sepharvaim. Ang ‗El‘ ay ang pangkaraniwang tawag sa mga istatwa ng mga bansang ito. Ang mga Tunay Na Israelita na Ipinadalang Bihag sa mga lupain ng Assyria ay nagpalit ng wika mula sa Hebreo ay napilitang magsalita ng Assyrian Aramaic. 2Kings 18:26 ‗At nagsalita sina Eliakim na anak ni Hilkiah, at Shebna, at Joah kay Rab-shakeh, magsalita ka sa wikang Syrian-Aramaic dahil naiintidihan namin at huwag kang makipag-usap sa amin sa wika ng Hudyo na Hebreo na naririnig ng maraming tao sa tabi ng pader.

ANG MGA LEVITANG PARI AY TINATAWAG NA SACERDOTE O YAHSHEARDATH SA WIKANG HEBREO, ANG MGA HINDI LEVITANG PARI AY TINAWAG NA „KAHEN‟-3549 SA WIKANG ARAMAIC

3547 kahan kaw-han' a primitive root, apparently meaning to mediate in religious services; but used only as denominative from 3548; to officiate as a priest; figuratively, to put on regalia:--deck, be (do the office of a, execute the, minister in the) priest('s office). 3548 kohen ko-hane' active participle of 3547; literally, one officiating, a priest; also (by courtesy) an acting priest (although a layman):--chief ruler, X own, priest, prince, principal officer. 3549 kahen kaw-hane' (Aramaic) corresponding to 3548:--priest. (KAHEN IS ARAMAIC)

10

Kaharian ng Yahuwdah Ay Hindi Rin Sumunod sa mga Utos ni Yahweh kaya Ipinagapi sila sa Kaharian ng Babylonia
Yahuwdah (Jews) 2Kings 17:19 Ganoon din ang Yahuwdah ay hindi rin sumunod sa mga kautusan ni Yahweh na kanilang Makapangyarihan, sila ay gumaya sa pamamaraan ng mga Israelita. Daniel 1:1 Sa ikatlong taon ng paghahari ni Jehoiakim Hari ng Yahuwdah ay dumating sa Yahrusalem si Nebuchadnezzar na Hari ng Babylonia at sinakop ito. Jeremiah 44:2 Sinabi ni Yahweh na Makapangyarihan ng Israel, nakita ninyong lahat ang kasamaan na ipinadala ko sa Yahrusalem at sa lahat ng lungsod ng Yahuwdah at ngayon lahat ng lugar doon ay walang tao na tumitira. Jeremiah 44:7 ‗Nagsalita si Yahweh na Makapangyarihan ng Israel, dahil ginawa ninyo ang nakakamanghang kasalanan laban sa inyong kaluluwa samakatwid tatapusin na mula sa lalaki at babae at bata at pati sumususo pa ay aalisin sa lugar ng Yahuwdah upang wala ng matira Kahit-Isa‘. Jeremiah 44:11 ‗At sinabi pa ni Yahweh ang makapangyarihan ng Israel, aking ihaharap ang aking mukha laban sa inyo para sa Kasamaan at Puputulin lahat ang mga Yahuwdah‘. Jeremiah 44:12 ‗at aking kukunin ang mga NATIRANG TAO ng Yahuwdah na tumungo sa Egypto upang tumira at lahat sila ay lilipulin sa itak at kalamidad at mangamamatay mula sa mababa hanggang sa mataas at sila ay magiging sumpa at kamangha-mangha at isang kapulaan‘. Jeremiah 44:28 ‗Ngunit may Kakaunting-Nakatakas sa itak ang babalik mula sa lupain ng Egypto patungo sa lupain ng Yahuwdah, at lahat ng Natira ng Yahuwdah ay malalaman kung kaninong salita ang mananaig, ang salita nila o ang aking sinalita‘.

Kaharian ng Babylonia ay Nagapi ng Kaharian ng Persia

Naka-ukit sa kabundukan ng Iran ang Behistun Rock kung paano ang Kaharian ng Persia ay nagapi ang Kaharian ng Babylonia kasama ang Egypt at kasama ang Yahuwdah ay naging parte ng Kaharian ng Persia. Ang namumuno sa Kaharian ng Persia ay si Cyrus ay nag utos sa isang Royal Decree na pinayagan ang mga Yahuwdah na Bumalik sa Yahrusalem upang itayong muli ang kanilang mga tahanan at ang Templong sambahan.

11

Pagbabalik sa Lupang Pangako
Ang mga nakabalik sa Yahrusalem ay pinamunuan ni Sheshbazzar at Zerubbabel na kapwa galing sa lahi ng Yahuwdah. Ang gumanap na Pari ay si Ezra na galing sa lahi ni Aaron na may dalang mga aklat ni Moses at Karapatan na ibinigay ni Artaxerxes na Emperador noon ng Persia. Si NehemiYah naman ang naatasan ng Emperador na maging Governador at ipinatupad ang pagganap ng mga Sabbath at Kapistahan ni Yahweh, ipinagbawal ang pag-aasawa ng Yahuwdah sa ibang lahi at pinahiwalay ang mga Yahuwdah na nakapag-asawa ng ibang lahi. Ang lupain ng Yahuwdah ay naging isang probinsya ng Persia. Ipinatawag ni Ezra ang lahat sa Kapistahan ng Tabernakulo sa ika-pitung buwan at binasa ang Torah ni Moses na napakinggan ng lahat at ang lahat ay sumumpang susundin muli ang kontrata at kasunduan ni Yahweh at ng mga Yahuwdah.

LIMANG AKLAT NI MOSES
Ang Torah ni Moses o ang limang aklat ay binuo ni Ezra na lahi ni Aaron ay nakasama ang mga teksto at komentaryo ng mga Pari na hindi nagmula sa lahi ng Levitang si Aaron, Nehemiah 7:64. Ang Yahweh (J) Text at ang Elohim (E) Text at ang Sacerdotal (P) Text at ang Deuteronomy (D) Text ay magkakasama sa nabuong mga aklat na tinawag ngayon na Torah ni Moses. Mapapansin ang nakasulat sa Torah ni Moses ay inuulit-ulit ng J, E, P at D text. Ang J Text o Yahweh Text ay mula sa pag-iingat ng mga Levitang lahi ni Aaron, na tanging mga Levitang lahi sa anak ni Aaron lamang ang inatasan ni Yahweh na hahawak at mag-iingat ng mga banal na kasulatan o mga aklat ni Moses (2Samuel 6:6-7, Deuteronomy 10:8, 31:26). Ang E text o Elohim Text ay mula sa mga Israelitang Hindi Levita na itinalagang Pari ni Haring Jeroboam ay hindi naatasan na mag-ingat ng mga kasulatan na tanging Levita na lahi ni Aaron lamang ang may karapatang humawak. Ang P Text at D Text ay mula sa mga Pari na nagmula sa limang bansa (Neh 7:64) na walang talaan na lahi sila ng Levita at naturuan lamang ng Paring Israelita na Hindi Naman Levita na pinabalik ng Hari ng Assyria sa lupain ng Israel (2Kings 17:27-28).

Inulit-ulit ang Nakasulat sa Torah ni Moses
Genesis 1 ay Elohim (E) Text ay inulit sa Genesis 2 na Yahweh (J) Text, nadagdag ang Sacerdotal (P) Text at Deuteronomy (D) Text 12

Ang istorya nila Adam at Eve at Cain at Abel ay Yahweh (J) Text ay tinutukoy ang pagiging malapit sa anghel (tunay na anghel hindi istatwa), sa mga halaman at pakikipag usap sa ahas. Ang Sacerdotal (P) Text ay walang kwento tungkol dito. At binangit ang henerasyon mula kay Adam hanggang kay Noah. Ang istorya sa naganap na malaking baha sa Yahweh (J) Text ay 40 araw na umulan. Ang Sacerdotal (P) Text ay halos isang taong delubyo. Ang Yahweh (J) Text ay may 14 na malilinis na mga hayop at 2 di-malinis na hayop. Ang Sacerdotal (P) Text ay 2 malinis at 2 di-malinis na hayop. Yahweh (J) Text ay nagpadala si Noah ng 3 kalapati o tatlong beses na nagpalipad ng kalapati, ang Sacerdotal (P) Text ay isang uwak ang pinalipad ni Noah. Ang J at E Text sa Kontrata ni Abraham sa Gnesis 15 ay siningitan ng ibang istorya at sa Genesis 17 naman ang P Text, lumalabas na dalawang beses nagkita sila Abraham at Yahweh. Mas dramatiko ang J at E Text sa Exodus 17 nang si Moses ay kumuha ng tubig sa bato, samantalang ang P Text sa dalawang aklat sa Numbers 20 ay lumalabas na dalawang insidente sa dalawang magkaibang pankakataon o panahon samantalang naganap iyon sa isang lugar sa Meriba at sa isang pagkakataon. Ang Ten Commandment ay inulit muli ni Moses sa Deuteronomy 5 kahit ito ay magkaiba sa Exodus 20.

Sa Exodus 20: Remember the sabbath day to sanctify i t . . . because in six days Yahweh made the heavens and the earth, the sea and ail that is in them, and he rested on the seventh day Therefore Yahweh blessed the sabbath day and sanctified it.20 Ngunit sa Deuteronomy, nang inulit ni Moses : Keep the sabbath day to sanctify i t . . . and you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and Yahweh your God brought you out from there with a strong hand and an outstretched arm. There' fore Yahweh your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day21 Ang unang bersyon galing sa P text, ang dahilan sa pag iingat sa Sabbath: ‗because God rested on the seventh day‘. Ang ikalawang bersyon mula sa D Text, ang dahilan sa pag iingat sa Sabbath: ‗because God freed you from slavery‘. Sa Dead Sea Scroll na natagpuan ay parehas na hindi itong dalawang bersyon ang dahilan sa pag iingat sa Sabbath: Sa lahat ng ito ay walang pamamaraan na nag uutos na pamahalaan ang pag iingat ng Sabbath. (In all of this, no one method governs the process).

13

Alexander The Great Nasakop Ang Kaharian ng Persia Itinayo ang Alexandria Library sa Egypt
Nasakop ni Alexander the Great ang Kaharian ng Persia na pinaghaharian noon ni Darius III. Nasakop din ni Alexander the Great ang Syria, Egypt, Mesapotamia, Bactria at ang India. Itinatag niya ang Alexandria sa Egypt na sentro ng kanyang kaharian, at ang pumalit sa kanya bilang Pharaoh ay si Ptolemy II Soter ay itinayo naman ang Museum at Library ng Alexandria. Ang kanyang mga General si Ptolemy at Nearchus, Aristobulus at Onesicritus. Siya rin ang naging dahilan ng paglaganap ng mga Grego. Ang mga dokumento mula sa Assyria, Greece, Persia, Egypt, India at maraming nasyon ay nakalagak sa Alexandria Library at Museum. Maraming scholars ang tumira sa Museum upang mag-saliksik, magsulat, magsalin at maglimbag ng mga dokumento.

Greek Pentateuch
Si Ptolemy II ay nagpatawag ng 72 Hebrew scholars at nag utos na isalin sa wikang Grego ang mga Kasulatan ng mga Hebreo ang limang aklat ni Moses na tinawag sa Grego na ‗Pentateuch‘. Sinulatan ni Ptolemy II si Eleazar ang Punong Pari sa Yahrusalem upang maglagay ng anim (6) na Hudyong Tigapagsalin na nanggaling sa bawat Tribo ng Israel (12 x 6 = 72). Tinawag ang unang limang aklat ni Moses na ‗Pentateuch‘ na ibig sabihin ay Limang- aklat.

ROMAN TIME Nasira ang Alexandria Library sa Egypt
Tinalo ng mga Romano ang mga Grego at nasira ang Alexandria Library sa pagkubkub ng mga Romano sa Alexandria na sentro ng mga Grego.

GREEK PENTATEUCH NAGING LATIN SEPTUAGINT Ipinagpatuloy ni Ptolemy ang pagsasalin ng 72 Hebrew scholars ng limang aklat ni Moses sa Hebrew ay isinasalin sa wikang Grego at ang iba pang mga Kasulatan ng mga Hebreo ay idinagdag dito.

14

Paglipas ng panahon ang iba pang mga aklat sa Hebreo ay ipinasalin na rin sa wikang Grego at maraming beses itong neribisa sa pagkasalin sa wikang Grego at ang ‗Pentateuch‘ ang pinaka-unang naisalin sa Makabagong-wikang Koine Greek sa wikang Grego din. Naisalin naman ang wikang Gregong ‗Pentateuch‘ (ibig sabihin ay LimangAklat) sa wikang Latin at tinawag na Septuagint sa Latin o LXX (dahil hindi na ito Limang Aklat kundi marami na) na siya namang pinagbasehan ng mga bersyon ng Slavonic, Syriac, Old Armenian, Old Georgian at Coptic na bersyon. At ito rin ang mga pinagbasehan ng mga Apostolic Fathers at Christian New Testament. Ang Septuagint o LXX ay ang pinagbasehan na ―PINANIWALAAN‖ (canon) at ang iba pang aklat na idinagdag na mga sulat ng mga Propeta kagaya ng aklat na Maccabees, Wisdom of Ben Sira, Daniel at Esther ay mas mahaba pa sa Masoretic Text. Ang ilan na bagong dagdag, ang aklat na Wisdom of Solomon, 2 Macabees at iba pa ay galing sa orihinal na Gregong pagkakasulat. Hindi naisama sa Septuagint ang sikat na mga aklat na ‗Enosh o Jubilees‘ at iba pang mga kasulatan. Ang Septuagint ay galing sa salitang Latin na ibig sabihin ay ‗pitumpong tigapagsalin‘ o LXX. Sumunod na panahon ay masusing nirebisa at isinalin sa Makabagong Greek bersyon na tinawag na ‗Aquila, Symmachus at Theodotion. Ang tatlong ito ang Masmakabagong Greek bersyon ng kasulatang Septuagint na hango sa Pentateuch na hango sa aklat ni Moses sa Hebreo at iba pang nadagdag na mga aklat sa Hebreo at Grego.

ANG MGA PINANINIWALAAN NG MGA GREGO AT ROMANO NA MGA ALAMAT BAGO REBISAHIN ANG PENTATEUCH GREEK O SEPTUAGINT LATIN OLD TESTAMENT NG MGA GREGO AT ROMANONG MANUNULAT

ALAMAT NI MYTHRA (1200 B.C.E.) Si Mythra ng Persia ay ipinanganak ng inang Birhen noong December 25, ipinako sa krus hanggang mamatay at „Nabuhay Na Muli‟ sa ikatlong araw. ALAMAT NI ATTIS (1200 B.C.E.) Si Attis ng Gresya ay ipinanganak ng inang Birhen noong December 25, ipinako sa krus hanggang mamatay at „Nabuhay Na Muli‟ sa ikatlong araw. ALAMAT NI KRISHNA (900 B.C.E.) Si Krishna ng India ay ipinanganak ng inang Birhen noong December 25, ipinako sa krus hanggang mamatay at „Nabuhay Na Muli‟ sa ikatlong araw. 15

ALAMAT NI TAMMUZ Ezekiel 8:14 (597 B.C.E) Si Nimrod II ay tinawag naTammuz ng mga Babylonia, Azur naman ang tawag ng mga Asyrian, at Osiris naman ang tawag ng mga Egyptian. Si Nimrod II ay napatay at ang kanyang asawa ay nagbuntis sa ibang lalaki at pinalabas na ang bata ay si Nimrod II na „NABUHAY NA MULI‟. Mula noon ang Alamat na ito ay naging bantog sa mga Alamat ng Griyego at Romano kahanay nila Jupiter at Zeus. ALAMAT NI HORUS (300 B.C.E.) Si Horus ng Egypt ay ipinanganak ng inang Birhen noong December 25, ipinako sa krus hanggang mamatay at „Nabuhay Na Muli‟ sa ikatlong araw.

NAKILALA NG MARAMING TAO SI YAHSHU‟A ANG MESSIAH NA TAGA NAZARETH NA MAY 12 DISIPOLO Ang pangalan ni Yahshu‘a ang Messiah ng Nazareth ay isinusulat sa Aramaic na Yeshu‘a. Ang Aramaic ang umiiral na pangkalahatang wika sa Yahrusalem noong panahong iyon. Mula sa Aramaic ay isinalin ito sa wikang Grego na IESOUS na binibigkas na ‗Yeh-soos‘ at nang maisalin ang Gregong pangalan sa Latin ay naging IESUS na binibigkas sa Latin na ‗Yay-soos‘. Nang maimbento ang letrang ‗J‘ ay naging JESUS na bigkas ay ‗Jay-zus‘.

MARAMING BESES SINIRA ANG ALEXANDRIA LIBRARY Si Theophilus ay Patriarka ng Alexandria noong 385 hanggang 412 A.D. ang mga Hudyo, Christian at pagano ay sama-samang naninirahan sa Alexandria. Nagkaroon ng pagkaka-alitan sila-sila at nawasak na naman ang Alexandria. Ang huling sinisisi sa pagkakasunog sa Alexandria ay si Moslem Caliph Omar noong 640 A.D. pagkatapos na malaman niya na nasa Alexandria ang lahat ng kasulatan at talino sa mundo na kumokontra sa Koran ay lahat ng aklat sa Alexandria ay sinunog na tumagal ng halos anim na buwan.

16

SAAN GALING ANG NEW TESTAMENT?
Si Origen noong 235 A.D. na isang Christian scholar ng Alexandria ay binuo ang ‗Hexapla‟ na binubuo ng anim na hanay na sa unang hanay ang bersyong Hebrew Text. Sa unang hanay ay Hebreo at sa ikalawang hanay ay Hebrew sa Greek bersyon at ang ikatlong hanay ay ang Makabagong Greek bersyon na Aquila ng Sinope‘s Greek bersyon, ika-apat ang Pinaka-lumang Greek Septuagint bersyon Symmachus ang Ebionite‘s bersyon, ang ika-lima ay ang LXX o Septuagint na pinagsama-sama ang lahat ng Greek bersyon na may mga paliwanag kung saang bersyon ito nagmula. Ang ika-limang hanay na kumbinasyon ng pinagsama-samang bersyon ng Greek ay kinopya ng marami beses at isinalin muli ngunit tinanggal ang mga paliwanag kung saang bersyon nagmula, at ang Lumang Greek bersyon ng Septuagint ay hindi isinama sa pagkakasalin. Ang pang-anim ang Theodotion bersyon. Itong mga pinagsama-samang mga teksto ay naging unang paniniwala ng mga Christian rebisyon ng Septuagint na tinawag na “HEXAPLAR RECENSION”. Ang New Testament o Tinatawag na Greek New Testament o Greek Scriptures

Ang orihinal na indibidwal na aklat ay naisulat noong 45 A.D. sa Koine Greek dahil iyan ang pangkalahatang wikang umiiral noong panahong iyon sa Emperyo ng Roman. Nagmula ang ilan sa Hebreo at Greek na sulatin. Ang Rylands Papyrus 52 ay pangkalahatang tinanggap na pinaka- unang naitalang New Testament na umiidad noong 117 A.D at 138 A.D.

NAKILALANG MGA CHURCH FATHERS: Ang mga Church Fathers ay ang mga naunang maimpluwensyang manunulat sina Clement ng Rome, Ignatius ng Antioch at Polycarp ng Smyrna. Ang kasulatan na Didache at Shepherd of Hermas ay kasulatan ng mga Church Fathers ngunit hindi lang alam kung sino ang sumulat. Si Clement ng Roma ay sinulat ang 1 Clement noong 96 A.D., siya ay nanawagan sa mananampalataya ng Corinto. 17

Si Ignatius ng Antioch ay istudyante ng Desipolong si John (YahYah) ay sumulat sa mga naunang Christians bago siya patayin sa Roma. Binanggit siya sa mga sulat ni Apostol Pablo. Polycarp ng Smyrna ay isang Bishop ng Smyrna (ngayon ay Izmir, Turkey). Siya ay Desipolo ni John (YahYah) na anak ni Zebedee na pinaniniwalaan na sumulat ng ikaapat na Gospel. Samantalang si Eusebius na ipinagpipilitan na si Polycarp ay kasama ni John the Evangelist. Si Polycarp ay pinakiusapan si Anicetus na Bishop ng Rome na ipagdiwang ang Easter sa 14 Nisan ay hindi siya pumayag, kahit sa paggamit sa kalendaryo ng mga taga Kanluran. Si Polycarp ay pinatay ng mga taga Smyrna noong 155 A.D. Hindi siya nasunog sa apoy na pinaglagyan sa kanya, kaya siya ay sinaksak hanggang mamatay at dahil sa dugo niya ay namatay ang apoy sa kanyang paligid.

GREEK FATHERS: Clement ng Rome, Irenaeus ng Lyons, Clement ng Alexandria, Athanasius ng Alexandria, John Chrysostom, Cyril ng Alexandria ang Cappadocian Fathers (Basil ng Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzus, Peter ng Sebaste & Gregory ng Nyssa), at Maximus ang Confessor.

Irenaeus ng Lyons

Saint Irenaeus, (b. 2nd century; d. end of 2nd/beginning of 3rd century) ay bishop ng Lugdunum sa Gaul, sa ngayon ay Lyons, France. Siya ay disipolo ni Polycarp. Siya ang unang tumanggap na ang apat na Gospel ay katanggap-tanggap na piliin, noon nagsimula ang pagkalikha ng New Testament noong 180 A.D.

Clement ng Alexandria

Clement of Alexandria (Titus Flavius Clemens) (c.150-211/216), ay kaanib ng iskwelahan at simbahan ng Alexandria. Sinulat niya ang Clement of Alexandria.

18

Origen of Alexandria Origen, o Origen Adamantius (c 185 - c254) isa sa mga naunangChristian eskolar at isang Egyptian na nagtuturo sa Alexandria kung saan nagturo rin si Clement. Ang Patriarka ng Alexandria una ay sumusuporta sa kanya ngunit siya ay tinanggal dahil naordinahan ng walang permiso ng Patriarka. Sa kanyang kaalaman sa Hebreo itinuwid niya ang Septuagint at sumulat ng mga komentaryong napasama nang isalin sa mga aklat sa Biblia. Sa kanya si Yahweh ay hindi makapangyarihan kundi isa lamang Unang Prinsipyo at ang antas ng Messiah ay mas mababa, ang kanyang pagkaka- unawa sa Trinity ang pre-existence ng kaluluwa ay idineklara na isang paglait. Sumulat siya ng mahigit 6,000 aklat. Si Origen noong 235 A.D. na isang Christian scholar ng Alexandria ay binuo ang ‗Hexapla‟ na binubuo ng anim na hanay na sa unang hanay ang bersyong Hebrew Text. Sa unang hanay ay Hebreo at sa ikalawang hanay ay Hebrew sa Greek bersyon at ang ikatlong hanay ay ang Makabagong Greek bersyon na Aquila ng Sinope‘s Greek bersyon, ika-apat ang Pinaka-lumang Greek Septuagint bersyon Symmachus ang Ebionite‘s bersyon, ang ika-lima ay ang LXX o Septuagint na pinagsama-sama ang lahat ng Greek bersyon na may mga paliwanag kung saang bersyon ito nagmula. Ang ika-limang hanay na kumbinasyon ng pinagsama-samang bersyon ng Greek ay kinopya ng marami at isinalin muli ngunit tinanggal ang mga paliwanag kung saang bersyon nagmula, at ang Lumang Greek bersyon ng Septuagint ay hindi isinama sa pagkakasalin. Ang pang-anim ang Theodotion bersyon. Itong pinagsama-samang mga teksto ay naging unang paniniwala ng mga Christian rebisyon ng Septuagint na tinawag na “HEXAPLAR RECENSION”. Si Philo at Josephus ay nagtiwala at pinagbasehan ang Septuagint sa kanilang mga sinulat na patungkol sa mga kasulatan ng Hudyo.

The term "hexapla" signifies "six-fold" or "six-columned", and describes the arrangement of the six English versions underneath the Greek text in the book. The term "hexapla" is also applied to Origen's 3rd century edition of the Old Testament, which present six versions of the old testament, in Hebrew, Hebrew in Greek letters, Aquila of Sinope's Greek version, Symmachus the Ebionite's version, the LXX or Septuagint, and Theodotion's version.
MGA AKLAT NG NEW TESTAMENT Maraming aklat ang unti-unting nakolekta upang maging isang aklat ang Greek New Testament na binubuo ng 27 aklat. Ang pinagbasehan nito ay ang ―Hexaplar Recension‖ na Greek bersyon, Apat na aklat ay ang Gospel, isa dito ay salaysay ng sina-unang paniniwala ng mga Apostol na sinulat ni Luke na isa sa gumawa ng Gospel, 21 sulat at Apocalyptic prophecy.

19

Gospels Bawat isa sa Gospel ay nagsasalaysay ng naging takbo ng buhay ni Iesous ( Jesus) ng Nazareth. Ang mga nagsulat ay inakala na sina:

Ang Gospel ni Matthew, sa tradisyon ay sinulat ni Apostle Matthew, anak ni Alphaeus ayon kay Papias, ( Gospel according to the Hebrews) Clement ng Alexandria, Irenaeus at Eusebius. Ang Gospel ni Mark, sa tradisyon ay sinulat ni Mark the Evangelist, na sumulat sa mga koleksyon ni Apostle Simon Peter ayon kay Papias, Clement ng Alexandria, Irenaeus, Eusebius. Ang Gospel ni Luke, sa tradisyon ay sinulat ni Luke, isang Doktor at nakasama ni Apostle Paul ayon kay Clement ng Alexandria, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Canon Muratori. Ang Gospel of John, sa tradisyon ay sinulat ni Apostle John, anak ni Zebedee ayon kay Papias, Clement ng Alexandria, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Canon Muratori, Codex Vaticanus Alexandrinus. Book of Acts of the Apostles

Ang aklat ng Gawa ng mga Apostol (The book of Acts of the Apostles), ay kadugtong ng Gospel ni Lukas ayon kay Clement ng Alexandria, Eusebius, Canon Muratori.

Mga Sulat ni Paul Ang mga sulat ni Paul (or Corpus Paulinum) ay tradisyon na sinulat ni Paul.).
             

Epistle to the Romans First Epistle to the Corinthians Second Epistle to the Corinthians Epistle to the Galatians Epistle to the Ephesians Epistle to the Philippians Epistle to the Colossians First Epistle to the Thessalonians Second Epistle to the Thessalonians First Epistle to Timothy Second Epistle to Timothy Epistle to Titus Epistle to Philemon Epistle to the Hebrews – sinabi ni Origen (254 A.D.) "ang mga tao noon ay ibinigay kay Paul ang epistle na ito ngunit ang sumulat ay ang Lumikha lamang ang nakakaalam) ngunit maraming eskolars ang naniniwala na sinulat ito noon ni Paul.

20

General Epistles

Kasama ang mga sulat sa mga simbahan,(catholic ang ibig sabihin ay universal).
      

Epistle of James, sa tradisyon sinulat ni James, kapatid ni Iesous (Jesus ) at Jude Thomas. First Epistle of Peter, sa tradisyon ay sinulat ni Apostle Simon, tinawag na Peter. Second Epistle of Peter, sa tradisyon ay sinulat ni Apostle Simon, tinawag na Peter. First Epistle of John, sa tradisyon ay sinulat ni Apostle John, anak ni Zebedee. Second Epistle of John, sa tradisyon ay sinulat ni Apostle John, anak ni Zebedee. Third Epistle of John, sa tradisyon ay sinulat ni Apostle John, anak ni Zebedee. Epistle of Jude, sa tradisyon ay sinulat ni Apostle Jude Thomas, kapatid ni Iesous(Jesus) at James.

Revelation

Ang huling aklat ng Biblia sa New Testament ay ang Book of Revelation, sa tradisyon ay sinulat ni Apostle John of Patmos, ang aklat na ito ay hindi binabasa ng Eastern Orthodox church.

PAGKAKAAYOS NG MGA AKLAT SA NEW TESTAMENT

Ang mga aklat ng New Testament ay iba ang pagkakaayos sa bawat religion. Sa Protestant Bibles ay gumaya sa Roman Catholic na pagkakaayos ngunit ang Lutheran ay iba ang pagkakaayos. Sa labas ng Western European Catholic/Protestant ay iba rin ang pagkakaayos sa Slavonic, Syriac at Ethiopian Bibles (Gospels, Acts, Catholic epistles, Pauline epistles, at Apocalypse).

21

Apocrypha

Ang mga Apocrypha na mga aklat ang Gospel of Thomas ang Epistle to the Laodiceans. Ang 4th century Codex Sinaiticus ay isinama ang Old at New Testaments ang Epistle of Barnabas at The Shepherd of Hermas. Ang Pinagtatalunang Sulatin, ang Epistle of James at kay Jude, at second epistle of Peter, at lahat ng second at third of John, nagdududa sila kung ito ay ginawa niya o ng ibang tao na parehas ang pangalan. Ang Acts of Paul, at ang Shepherd, at ang Apocalypse of Peter, at ang epistle of Barnabas, at ang Teachings of the Apostles. Ang Apocalypse of John, at ang Gospel according to the Hebrews... ay ang mga pinagtatalunang mga aklat. Ang mga aklat na Gospels of Peter, ni Thomas, ni Matthias, at ang ilan at ang Acts of Andrew at John at nang ibang Apostoles ay napatunayan na mga kathang isip lamang kaya hindi sila naisama sa New Testament. Noong 1611 A.D. King James Version sa English New Testament ay naisalin mula sa Textus Receptus, texto mula sa bagong edisyon ni Erasmus' na nailathala sa Greek New Testament na lumalabas na binasehan ay ang tipo ng Byzantine text. Karamihan sa modernong English bersyon ng New Testament ay binase sa kritikal na pagbuo ng Greek text, kagaya ng Nestle-Alands' Novum Testamentum Graece o Greek New Testament o United Bible Societies'.

Mga Bagong Idinagdag na Texto sa New Testament
      

Matt 16:2b-3 Mark 16:9-20 Luke 22:19b-20,43–44 John 5:4 John 7:53-8:11 1 John 5:7b–8a Romans 16:24

Christian New Testament
Sa sumunod na panahon dalawang pangunahing pinag-ingatang rebisyon ang pinagbasehan ni Lucian at Hesychius, ito ay pinatunayan ni Jerome. Ito rin ang pinagbasehan at palaging binabanggit sa Christian New Testament. Masoretic Text ay Hebrew text na siyang Biblia (Tanakh) ng mga Hudyo na naisulat noong 700 A.D. hanggang 1000 A.D. Ito rin ang pinagbasehan ng mga Protestanteng Biblia at ganoon din ng mga Katolikong Biblia.

22

Pope Theonas of Alexandria ay ang Punong Papa ng Alexandria na naging Coptic Church at ang Greek Church ng Alexandria noong 282 hanggang 300 A.D. Pope Achillas of Alexandria ang pang 18 Papa ng Coptic Orthodox Church at ng Greek Church ng Alexandria noong 312 hanggang 313 A.D. Si Achillas naman ay inordinahan na Pari ni Pierius, at naging lider ng Catechetical School of Alexandria sa pagkawala ni Pierius na naging martir ng Alexandria. Siya ay kasing galing sa Greek philosophy at theological science kapantay ni Athanasius ng Alexandria at tinawag siyang "Achillas the Great". Siya ang pumalit pagkamatay ni Peter ng Alexandria sa kapanahunan ng Pagpapahirap ni Diocletian . Minana niya ang mga problema ng simbahan kagaya ng Meletian heresy at ang patuloy na alitan sa Arianism. Sa pamumuno ni Achillas bilang Patriarka, siya ay naimpluwensyahan ng mga sumusuporta kay Arius upang tanggalin ang suspensyon kay Arius. Sa resulta nito ay ibinalik si Arius bilang Pari sa Bucalis na isang pinakamatanda at maimpluwensyang simbahan sa Alexandria.

EMPEROR CONSTANTINE

Caesar Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus (27 February c. 272 – 22 May 337), commonly known in English as Constantine I, Constantine the Great, or (among Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic Christians) Saint Constantine (pronounced /ˈ kɒnstɛntaɪn/), was Roman emperor from 306, and the sole holder of that office from 324 until his death in 337A.D. Kilala bilang kauna-unahang Roman Emperor na naging Christian , at binigyang laya ang mga religion sa kanyang nasasakupang emperyo. Ginawa siya at ang kanyang ina si Reyna Helena bilang Santo ng Eastern Orthodox Church at Eastern Catholic Churches of Byzantine. Sa Latin Church kahit hindi siya ginawang santo ngunit siya ay tinawag nila na ―Constantine The great‖ sa kanyang kontribusyon sa Christianity. Si Constantine ay ginawa ang sina-unang Greek colony ng Byzantium bilang bagong imperial residence ang Constantinople na nanatiling kapital ng Byzantine Empire sa loob ng 1,000 taon.

23

50 KOPYA NG BIBLIA NI CONSTANTINE

Noong 322 A.D. inutusan ni Emperor Constantine si Eusebius na gumawa ng 50 kopya ng Banal na Kasulatan na ginawa ng Kilalang-Manunulat at isulat na maliwanag na madaling maintindihan at sa tatlo o apat na kopya ay ihatid sa kanya upang siyasatin at gamitin ang dalawang karwahe ng kaharian sa paghahatid. Si Eusebius ay kumuha ng mga aklat sa kanyang lugar sa Caesarea ng mga bagong-salin na mga aklat mula sa Hexaplar Recension na nagmula sa sulat ni Origen na ―Hexapla”. Ang 27 aklat na pinagbasehan ay ang rebisyon ng ―HEXAPLAR RECENSION”.

The Bibles of Constantine
There is another piece of evidence that bears on the subject of the canon - even though we may not know how to interpret it. About the year 322 CE, the emperor Constantine, wishing to promote and organize Christian worship in the growing number of churches in Constantinople, directed Eusebius to have 50 copies of the sacred Scriptures made by practiced scribes and written legibly on prepared parchment. At the same time the emperor informed him, in a letter still preserved to us, that everything necessary for doing this was placed at his command, among other things two public carriages for conveying the completed manuscripts to the emperor for his personal inspection. According to Eusebius:
Such were the emperor's commands, which were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself, which we sent him in magnificent and elaborately bound volumes of a threefold and fourfold form. (Vita Const. 4.36.37)

The exact meaning of the concluding words has been taken in a half dozen different senses. Two of the most popular are, that the pages had 'three or four columns of script', or that as the copies were completed, they were sent off for the emperor's inspection 'three or four at a time'. The astonishing thing is that Eusebius, who took care to tell us at some length about the fluctuations of opinion in regard to certain books, has not one word to say regarding the choice he made on this important occasion. Of course, 50 magnificent copies, all uniform, could not but exercise a great influence on great influence on future copies, at least within the bounds of the patriarchate of Constantinople, and would help forward the process of arriving at a commonly accepted New Testament in the East.

24

Some have suggested that the codex Sinaiticus is one of the 50 bibles commissioned by Constantine, but its Alexandrian type of text makes this unlikely.

Around AD 235, Origen, a Christian scholar in Alexandria, completed the Hexapla, a comprehensive comparison of the ancient versions and Hebrew text side-by-side in six columns, with diacritical markings (a.k.a. "editor's marks", "critical signs" or "Aristarchian signs"). Much of this work was lost, but several compilations of the fragments are available. In the first column was the contemporary Hebrew, in the second a Greek transliteration of it, then the newer Greek versions each in their own columns. Origen also kept a column for the Old Greek (the Septuagint) and next to it was a critical apparatus combining readings from all the Greek versions with diacritical marks indicating to which version each line (Gr. στἰχος) belonged. Perhaps the voluminous Hexapla was never copied in its entirety, but Origen's combined text ("the fifth column") was copied frequently, eventually without the editing marks, and the older uncombined text of the LXX was neglected. Thus this combined text became the first major Christian recension of the LXX, often called the Hexaplar recension. In the century following Origen, two other major recensions were identified by Jerome, who attributed these to Lucian and Hesychius.

Alexander Bishop ng Alexandria
Alexander ng Alexandria ay pang 19 na Patriarka ng Alexandria mula 313 A.D. hanggang pagkamatay niya noong 326 A.D. siya ang nagtala ng Easter, siya ay ang lider na kontra sa Arianism sa First Council of Nicaea. Siya rin ang adviser ni Athanasius ng Alexandria na pumalit sa kanya bilang lider ng Church fathers.

Athanasius ng Alexandria
Athanasius ng Alexandria (c 293-2 May 373) isang theologian, pumalit kay Bishop Alexander ng Alexandria, Pope ng Alexandria, ay isang Egyptian. Siya ay kilala sa aral niyang Trinity.

Arius
Arius (AD ca. 250 or 256 - 336) isang Paring Christian mula sa Alexandria, Egypt ang nagpasimuno ng Arianism. Siya ay mula sa Libya na sakop pa ng Egypt, ang kanyang ama ay si Ammonius. Si Arius ay estudyante ni Saint Lucian ng Antioch. Siya ay na excommunikado ni Bishop Peter ng Alexandria sa kanyang pagsuporta sa paniniwala ni Meletius. Si Bishop Peter ay pinalitan ni Bishop Achillas ay muling tinanggap bilang Pari si Arius sa simbahan ng Baucalis sa distrito ng Alexandria.. Noong 318 A.D. nakipagtalo siya sa kanyang Bishop si Alexander ng Alexandria na pumalit kay Bishop Achillas. Ipinilit niya na si Iesous ( Jesus) "ang Son of God," ay hindi katulad o hindi 25

parehas na mananatili magpakailanman (co-eternal) kagaya ng God the Father, at minsan binanggit niya na hindi tutuo ang Iesous (Jesus). Si Arius kasama ang kanyang tigasunod na mga Pari ay na excommunikado, ngunit ang debate ay nagpatuloy sa Eastern Roman Empire. Maraming bishops lalo na ang mga nakapag-aral kay Lucian ng Antioch ay naniwala kay Arius. Sa panahong iyon si Constantine I ay ang naging Emperador ng Silanganan noong 324 A.D. at ang mga debate ay matitindi sa panahong iyon. Maraming sinulat si Arius ngunit walang natira, inutos ni Emperor Constantine ang pagsunog sa lahat ng sulat ni Arius at ang mga natira sa sinulat ni Arius ay sinira ng mga nakalaban ni Arius. Ang tatlong natira sa sinulat ni Arius ang sulat niya kay Alexander ng Alexandria na naitago ng mga Athanasius, On the Councils of Arminum and Seleucia, 16; Epiphanius, Refutation of All Heresies, 69.7; and Hilary, On the Trinity, 4.12), Ang sulat niya kay Eusebius ng Nicomedia (as recorded by Epiphanius, Refutation of All Heresies, 69.6 and Theodoret, Church History, 1.5) . Ang kanyang kumpisal kay Constantine (as recorded in Socrates Scholasticus, Church History 1.26.2 and Sozomen, Church History 2.27.6-10).

COUNCIL OF NICAEA

Noong 325 A.D. si Emperor Constantine ay binuo ang Council of Nicaea . Sa 1,800 na Bishop na imbitado, 318 na Bishop lamang ang nakadalo. Natalo sa debate si Arius at si Athanasius na ipinadala ni Bishop Alexander ng Alexandria ang pinanigan ni Constantine na ang itinuturo ay ang Trinity. Ang pananatili ni Athanasius ay hindi tumagal nang namatay si Bishop Alexander sa Alexandria noong 327 A.D., pinalitan siya ni Athanasius bilang Bishop. Si Eustathius ng Antioch na sumusuporta kay Athanasius ay natanggal dahil sa pakikipagtalo ka Eusebius ng Caesaria. Si Marcellus ng Ancyra na isa pang kakampi ni Athanasius ay kinasuhan ng Sabellianism sa kanyang pag-depensa sa Nicene Christology ay tinanggal noong 336 A.D. Si Eusebius ng Nicomedia naman ay pinagbuntunan ng galit, si Athanasius ay sumulat kay Emperor Constantine at pinabalik ni Emperor Constantine si Arius na nagtatago sa Palestine. Inutusan din ni Constantine si Athanasius na tanggaping muli si Arius sa komunyon, ngunit hindi pumayag si Athanasius kaya si Athanasius ay na exile sa Trier. Ipinatawag si Arius ni Constantine upang husgahan at inutusan si Alexander ng Constantinople na muling tanggapin si Arius sa komunyon, ngunit sa huling araw na dapat magkomunyon si Arius ay bigla itong namatay. Ang sinabi ng mga kalaban ni Arius ay ‗himala o miracle‘, samantalang sinabi ni Constantine ay ‗pinaslang o murder‘ dahil si Arius ay nilason ng kanyang mga kalaban. Ang mga panig kay Arius sina Eusebius ng Nicomedia at Eusebius ng Caesarea ay maimpluwensya ay ipinaglaban ang mga doktrina ni Arius. 26

Doktrina ni Arius
Na ang makapangyarihan (God) ay hindi laging ang Ama (Father) kundi may panahon na hindi siya Ama, at ang mga salita ng Makapangyarihan (God) ay hindi Magpakailanman (Eternity) kundi galing lang sa wala. Dahil ang Nananatiling Makapangyarihan (Existing God) sa (‗the I AM‘—the eternal One) ay ginawa dahil hindi siya dati nang nag- e-exist. (made him who did not previously exist) na nagmula sa wala, at ang Anak ay Nilikha o isang ginawa. Hindi siya ang Ama kundi isa lang na Nilikha ng Kanyang gawa at mali na tawaging Salita at Talino dahil isa rin siyang Nilikha ng Salita ng Maykapal, na kung saan ay nilikha ng Ama ang lahat kasama siya. Kaya sa kanyang natural na pagkatao ay makadadanas ng pagbabago kagaya ng lahat ng nilikha. Ang Salita ay iba sa Ama at ang Ama ay hindi kayang ipaliwanag ng Anak at hindi niya nakikita at ang Salita ay hindi kilala ang Ama at di nakikita. Ang Anak ay hindi alam ang natural na pagkakakilanlan ng kanyang sarili dahil siya ay nilikha dahil sa atin upang likhain tayo sa pamamagitan niya, kagaya ng instrumento. Nilikha Siya ng Ama dahil ninais ng Ama na likhain tayo.

Emperor Constantine Nagpabautismo sa Arian Priest
Ang asawa ni Constantine si Constantina ay naniniwala sa aral ni Arius. Si Emperor Constantine ang kauna-unahang Roman Emperor na naging Christian. Siya ay nabautismuhan ni Eusebius ng Nicomedia na isang Arian Priest. Eusebius of Nicomedia (died 341) was the man who baptised Constantine. He was a bishop of Berytus (modern-day Beirut) in Phoenicia, then of Nicomedia where the imperial court resided in Bithynia, and finally of Constantinople from 338 up to his death.

Ang Mga Sumunod na Mga Bishop ng Alexandria
Cyril ng Alexandria Cyril ng Alexandria (ca. 378 - 444) ay Bishop ng Alexandria sa kapanahunan ng kasikatan ng Emperyo ng Romano ". John Chrysostom John Chrysostom (c 347– c 407), Pangunahing Bishop ng Constantinople, sinulat niya ang Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom . Cappadocian Fathers Ang mga eskolar sina Saint Macrina the Younger , Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa at Peter of Sebaste na naging Bishop ng Sebaste. Ang mga eskolar kasama ang kanilang kaibigan si Gregory Nazianzus ay ipinakita na ang mga Christian ay kayang makipag usap sa mga mataas ang aral na nagsasalita ng Grego kahit na ang kanilang paniniwala ay talihis kay Plato at Aristotle at iba pang Pilosopong Grego ay nakapag-dagdag ng malaki sa pagkaka-kilala sa Trinity na tinapos sa First Council of Constantinople noong 381 A.D at ang pinal na bersyon ng Nicene Creed. 27

Mga Latin Fathers
Ang mga sumulat sa wikang Latin ay ang tinawag na Latin Fathers sila Tertullian, si Cyprian ng Carthage, si Gregory the Great, si Augustine ng Hippo, si Ambrose ng Milan, at si Jerome. Tertullian Promotor ng Tawag na Old Testament at New Testament Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus (c 160 - c 225), ay naging Christian noong 197 A.D. ay isang manunulat at theologian ay isang anak ng Romanong Centurion. Siya ay isang abogado sa Roma at binansagang ―Father of the Latin Church‖. Siya ang nag lunsad ng salitang ―Trinitas‖ ng Christian Devine Trinity sa wikang Latin kahit na nauna ng naisulat ni Theophilus of Antioch (c. 115 - c. 183) na nagmula sa Koine Greek at ang ―vetus testamentum (Old Testament) at "novum testamentum" (New Testament). Siya rin ang nauna na tumawag ng "vera religio", na naging sistema ng Religion ng Roman Empire at iba pang tinanggap na Kulto na tinawag na "superstitions". Sa sumunod na panahon sumali siya sa sektang Montanists na kontra sa umiiral na paniniwala. Cyprian ng Carthage Saint Cyprian (Thascius Caecilius Cyprianus) ay bishop ng Carthage ay isang importanteng manunulat na ipinanganak sa Carthage na naging Bishop noong 249 A.D. Ambrose ng Milan Saint Ambrose (c. 338 – 4 April 397), ay bishop ng Milan na naging maimpluwensya at isa sa apat na orihinal na Doctors of the Church. Jerome of Stridonium Saint Jerome (c 347 – September 30, 420) ay kilala na translator ng Biblia sa Latin mula sa Grego at Hebreo na gumawa ng Vulgate Bible na ginagamit ng Roman Catholic Church. Siya ay tinawag na Doctor of the Church. Augustine ng Hippo Saint Augustine (November 13, 354 – August 28, 430), ay ipinanganak sa Algeria ay naging Bishop ng Hippo, isang philosopher at theologian ay isang Latin Father at Doctor of the Church. Siya ay importante sa paglaganap ng Western Christianity. Siya ay naimpluwensyahan ng Platonism. Ang mga ginawa niya ay ipinagpatuloy ni Pope Gregory the Great. Gregory the Great Saint Gregory I the Great (c. 540 – March 12, 604) ay ang pope mula September 3, 590 A.D. hanggang mamatay. Kilala rin siya bilang Gregorius Dialogus (Gregory the Dialogist) sa Eastern Orthodoxy ay Doctor of the Church at pang apat sa great Latin Fathers of the Church (ang ibang Latin Fathers sina Ambrose, Augustine, at Jerome).

28

Apologetic Fathers Sina St. Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoras of Athens, Hermias at Tertullian. Ang Pangalawang Council of Nicea noong 787 A.D. Ang ika-pitong Economical Council ng Roman Catholic sa Nicaea (Iznik sa Turkey) ay ibinalik ang pagpuri sa mga imahen na pinatigil noong panahon ng Byzantine Empire sa panahon ni Leo III. Modern positions Sa Roman Catholic Church, si St. John ng Damascus, na nabuhay noong ika-walong siglo ay ang pinaka-huling Church Fathers at ang una sa susunod na Church writers, scholasticism. Si St. Bernard ay isa pa rin sa huling Church Fathers.

PINAGMULAN NG ENGLISH BIBLE
Mula sa Hexaplar Recension ay isinalin ito sa English Hexapla na New Testament ng Wiclif's Bible noong 1380 A.D., William Tyndale's Bible noong 1534A.D., Cranmer's the Great Bible noong 1539 A.D., ang Geneva Bible noong 1557 A.D., Rheims Bible noong 1582 A.D., at ang Authorised, o King James Bible noong 1611 A.D., at naisalin na sa kasalukuyang New King James Bible, NIV Bible, Holy Bible, Catholic Bible.

Hexapla (Ἑξαπλά: Gr. for "sixfold") is the term for an edition of the Bible in six versions. Especially it applies to the edition of the Old Testament compiled by Origen of Alexandria, which placed side by side in six (6) columns:
1. Hebrew Culturally, it is considered a Jewish language 2. Hebrew transliterated into Greek characters 3. Aquila of Sinope native of Pontus in Anatolia known for producing an exceedingly literal translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek around 130 CE 4. Symmachus the Ebionite (fl. late 2nd century) was the author of one of the Greek versions of the Old Testament 5. Septuagint 72 Jewish scholars first translated the Torah into Koine Greek in the third century BC 6. Theodotion (d. ca. 200 A.D.) was a Hellenistic Jewish scholar

The English Hexapla is an edition of the New Testament in Greek, along with what were considered the six most important English language translations in parallel columns underneath, preceded by a detailed history of English translations and translators by S. P. Tregelles.
29

The six English language translations provided are Wiclif's (1380), William Tyndale's (1534), Cranmer's (the Great Bible 1539), the Geneva Bible (1557), Rheims (1582), and the Authorised, or King James Bible, (1611). The term "hexapla" signifies "six-fold" or "six-columned", and describes the arrangement of the six English versions underneath the Greek text in the book. The term "hexapla" is also applied to Origen's 3rd century edition of the Old Testament, which present six versions of the old testament, in Hebrew, Hebrew in Greek letters, Aquila of Sinope's Greek version, Symmachus the Ebionite's version, the LXX or Septuagint, and Theodotion's version. The English Hexapla was published by Samuel Bagster and Sons, of Paternoster Row, London, who are described on the title page as being a "warehouse for Bibles, New Testaments, Prayer-books, Lexicons, Grammars, Concordances, and Psalters, in ancient and modern languages." It was published in 1841

Protestant
Ang Protestant religioun kahit na nagbase sa Sola Scriptura (the principle that the Bible itself is the ultimate authority in doctrinal matters), ang unang Protestant reformers, kagaya ng Catholic at Orthodox churches, ay nagbase sa theological interpretations ng scripture na itinatag ng mga naunang Church Fathers. Ang orihinal na Lutheran Augsburg Confession ng 1531 A.D. at ang Formula of Concord ng 1576-1584 ay kagaya ng doktrina ng First Council of Nicea. Ang John

30

Calvin's French Confession of Faith of 1559 A.D. ay naglahad ng mga naitatag na ng sina-unang council. Binigyan nila ng importansya ang Tradisyon at ang Interpretasyon ng mga sina-unang Fathers kagaya ng Paleo-Orthodoxy. Ang American Protestant ay ang United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church USA, Episcopal Church, at ang Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, ay iba ang doktrina at nag ordina ng babaeng pastora at pati homosexual. Sila ay di naniniwala sa mga naunang simbahan at naniniwala na ang lahat ay pwedeng dumerekta sa Maykapal kaya hindi na kailangan ng guidance o doktrina ng simbahan.

Latter-day Saints
Ang mga kaanib ng The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (o Mormons) ay tinatanggap ang Biblia kasama ang New Testament bilang salita ng Maykapal kung ito ay naisalin ng tama.

Messianic Judaism
Messianic Judaism ay kagaya ng pagkilala ng maraming evangelical Protestants sa atoridad ng New Testament.

Dead Sea Scroll
Ang natagpuan noong 1947 A.D. na maraming kasulatan sa Dead Sea Scroll lalo na ang mga nakasulat sa Aramaic ay mas malapit at mas pumapabor sa Septuagint kaysa Masoretic text. Sa simula noong 200 A.D. ang mga Hudyo ay maraming dahilan kaya hindi ginamit ang Septuagint, dahil ang mga naunang mga Hentil (hindi tuli Epeso 2:11) na Christian ay pinaniniwalaan at ginagamit ang Septuagint dahil hindi sila nakaka- intindi ng wikang Hebreo kundi ng wikang Grego lamang. Si Jerome ay isinalin ang Septuagint na wikang Latin (Vulgate Bible) ay napatunayan niya na ang Hebrew text ay mas maraming nagpapatunay tungkol sa Messiah kaysa sa Septuagint kaya siya ay Lumabas sa Tradisyon ng Simbahang Katoliko at isinalin niya ang Old Testament mula sa Hebreo sa tinawag na Vulgate Bible. Ang kanyang pagpuna sa Septuagint ay pinulaan ng mga Augustine at pinalabas na si Jerome ay isang (Forger) mandaraya ng kasulatan ngunit sa paglipas ng panahon ay ang kanyang Old Testament na Vulgate Latin Bible ay sinapawan ang Septuagint. Sa aklat ng Septuagint ay maraming aklat na hindi makikita sa Hebrew Bible. Marami sa mga biblia ng Protestante ay sumunod sa Jewish canon at hindi isinama ang ibang aklat. Ang Simbahang Katoliko naman ay isinama ang mga aklat na iyon, samantalang ang Simbahan ng Eastern Orthodox ay ginagamit lahat ang mga aklat sa Septuagint, ganoon din ang Anglical maliban lang sa Psalm 151. Ang King James Version naman ay isinama lahat ng nadagdag na aklat at inilagay sa isang seksyon na tinawag na ‗Apocrypha‘.

31

ITUTURO SA LAHAT SA IBANG BANSA ANG PAGSISISI AT KAPATAWARAN NG MGA KASALANAN SA KANYANG PANGALANG YAHSHU‟A NA NAGSIMULA SA YAHRUSALEM Luke 24:47 ‗and the repentance and remission of sins should be preached in HIS NAME among all nations beginning at Jerusalem‘ Nagsimula sa Yahrusalem ang Pagtuturo sa pagsisisi at kapatawaran ng mga kasalanan sa Kanyang Pangalan na Yahshu‟a at mula sa Yahrusalem ay itinuro ito sa ibat-ibang Bansa na ang pagsisisi at kapatawaran ng mga kasalanan ay sa Pangalan ni Yahshu‟a ngunit inilihis at ginawa na ang pagsisisi at kapatawaran ng mga kasalanan ay sa ibang pangalan - kay Iesus o Jesus na.

How Yeshu‟a Become Jesus
By:JOSEPH STALLINGS

32

Published in Catholic Digest January 1992 vol.32,no.6 page 17 The Mystery of the Magi
We usually don‟t think about it, but our Lord‟s name was not always Jesus. It was in fact originally the popular Aramaic name *Yeshu’a. In first century Judea and Galilee, the name Yeshu‟a was very common and shared fifth place with Eleazar (Lazarus) in popularity as a name for Jewish men. The most popular male names at that time were Shime‟on (Simon), Yosef (Joseph), Yehuda (Judah or Judas) and Yochanan (John). In the Holy Land at the time of Christ, Aramaic had replaced Hebrew in everyday conversation, but Hebrew remained the holy language and was used in worship and daily prayers. The rabbis also used Hebrew when instructing their disciples. The two languages were closely related, however, as close as Italian is to Spanish, and both used the same alphabet. Yeshu‟a was the Aramaic version of the Hebrew name Yehoshu‟a (Joshua), and means “Yahweh saves”. Throughout Christ‟s lifetime in Galilee, Samaria and Judea of course the name Yeshu‟a presented no problem for those who spoke Aramaic and read the Bible and prayed in Hebrew. But outside the Holy Land it become a different story as Good News spread. The Gentiles of the Roman Empire spoke Greek and Latin and simply could not pronounce Yeshu‟a. It contained sounds that did not exist in their language. When the Gospels were written in Greek, therefore, the Evangelists had a real problem regarding how they might render our Lord‟s name into acceptable Greek. The initially „Y‟ (Hebrew and Aramaic letter „yod‟) was easy. The Evangelists could use the Greek letter „iota‟, written „I,‟ since it was pronounced like the „y‟ in yet. The next sound was a vowel, and that was a little more difficult. Unlike Greek, all the letters of the Aramaic-Hebrew alphabet are consonants. The marks for the vowels were not invented until some centuries after Christ and were simple dots and dashes, placed above or beneath the letters. At the time of Christ apparently, the first vowel in our Lord‟s name was pronounced like the „a‟ in gate. And the Evangelists believed they could approximate that sound by using the Greek letter „eta‟. (The capital Greek letter looks just like our English letter H). Then followed the first of two almost insurmountable problems with Hebrew and Aramaic pronunciation. There was no letter for the „sh‟ sound in the Greek alphabet. Such a familiar name as Solomon was actually Sh‟lomo in Hebrew, Samson was Shimson and Samuel was Sh‟mu-El. Like the Greek translators of these Old Testament Hebrew names, the Evangelists used the Greek sigma (s) for the Hebrew shin (sh) when rendering Christ‟s name. The first three Greek letters „iota‟, „eta‟, and „sigma‟, moreover came to be used in early Byzantine religious art as an abbreviation of Jesus name. As they look very much like the Latin letters IHS, the letters were adapted in Western European religious paintings and church architecture as a symbol for Christ‟s name.

33

The next letter in the Aramaic name Yeshu‟a was the Hebrew letter „waw‟, which here represents the sound „oo‟, as in too. It was easy for the Evangelists to duplicate this sound in Greek. It takes two letters, however, the omicron (o) and upsilon (u). But that easy substitution was followed by the biggest problem of all: the final „a‟ sound. In Greek, there was no substitute for the Hebrew letter „aiyin‟. Though the „aiyin‟ has no sound of its own, it causes the vowel that it controls to be pronounced deep in the throat. The Greek couldn‟t do that, and neither could the Romans when speaking in Latin. Usually, a Greek or Roman would pronounce an „aiyin‟-controlled „a’ like the „a‟ in father. A final „a‟ on a name however was most commonly feminine in both Greek and Latin. Thus it was decided to drop the Hebrew „aiyin‟ completely and replace it with the final Greek sigma (s) which most often indicates the masculine gender in nouns. Throughout the Roman Empire then our Lord‟s Aramaic name Yeshu‟a, had become the Greek name Iesous, pronounced yeh-SOOS. And this remained Christ‟s name throughout the Roman Empire as long as Greek remained the dominant language. But after some centuries Greek lost its favored position and Latin took its place. In the last quarter of the fourth century, the Bible was translated from Greek into Latin by *St. Jerome who had no trouble rendering the Greek Iesous into Latin, it became Iesus. The accent, however, was moved to the first syllable and the name pronounced YAY-soos, since the Romans liked to accent the second from the last syllable. In about 14th century, in the scriptoria of the monasteries where Bibles were copied by hand, Monks began to elongate the initial „I‟ of the words into a „J‟. (The pronounciation remained the same-like the „y‟ in yet but the Monks thought a „J‟ looked better). Probably the first Monks to do this were Germans because the letter „j‟ in that language sounds the same as the „y‟ in English. The name Iesus, consequently, evolved into the familiar written form of Jesus by the 17th century. Everyone still pronounced it YAY-soos, however, as it was in the official liturgical Latin. Way back in the fifth and sixth centuries, some pagan Germanic tribes called the Angles and Saxons invaded England. St Augustine of Canterbury came to convert them to Christianity in A.D.396. Of course St. Augustine established Jerome‟s Latin translation as England‟s official Bible. The Anglo-Saxon learned that our Lord‟s official Latin name was Iesus. Naturally the Germanic Anglo-Saxon converted the initial Latin „I‟ into the German „J‟. They pronounced the name, however, as YAY-zoos, since a single „s‟ between two vowels is sounded like our „z‟ in Germanic languages. When the Normans invaded England in A.D.1066 they brought with them the French language. Since neither the Anglo-Saxons nor the Normans would surrender their language to the other, the two become wedded and eventually evolved into Modern English. The Normans did influence the pronunciation of the first letter of Our Lord‟s name, though, they brought the French pronunciation of j (jh), which evolved into our English sound of j. When King James commissioned the first official translation of the Bibles into English in the early 17 th century, the Latin Jesus was carried over unchanged into the new English Bible. The average English citizen of the day probably pronounced the name JAY-zus which ultimately evolved into our modern English JEE-zus. The long process was now complete. A name that began as the Aramaic Yeshu’a would remain written in English as it was in Medieval Latin, but now would be pronounced in English speaking countries as the familiar and loving name of the One who is our Savior, JESUS.

* Yeshu’a pronounced Yah-shua in Aramaic from Hebrew name Yahshu’a * St. Jerome name is Eusebius Hieronymus A.D.347 – A.D.419
34

PINAGKUNAN NG SALIKSIK
The English Hexapla is an edition of the New Testament in Greek, along with what were considered the six most important English language translations in parallel columns underneath, preceded by a detailed history of English translations and translators by S. P. Tregelles. The six English language translations provided are Wiclif's (1380), William Tyndale's (1534), Cranmer's (the Great Bible 1539), the Geneva Bible (1557), Rheims (1582), and the Authorised, or King James Bible, (1611). The term "hexapla" signifies "six-fold" or "six-columned", and describes the arrangement of the six English versions underneath the Greek text in the book. The term "hexapla" is also applied to Origen's 3rd century edition of the Old Testament, which present six versions of the old testament, in Hebrew, Hebrew in Greek letters, Aquila of Sinope's Greek version, Symmachus the Ebionite's version, the LXX or Septuagint, and Theodotion's version. The English Hexapla was published by Samuel Bagster and Sons, of Paternoster Row, London, who are described on the title page as being a "warehouse for Bibles, New Testaments, Prayer-books, Lexicons, Grammars, Concordances, and Psalters, in ancient and modern languages." It was published in 1841

Origen's Hexapla General Information
Although most of his writings have disappeared, Origen's literary productivity was enormous. The Hexapla was the first attempt to establish a critical text of the Old Testament. Text edited by Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson and first published by T&T Clark in Edinburgh in 1867. Additional introductionary material and notes provided for the American edition by A. Cleveland Coxe, 1886.

Origen's Hexapla Catholic Information

a

Hexapla was the name given to Origen's edition of the Old Testament in Hebrew and Greek, the most colossal critical production of antiquity. This work was urgently demanded by the confusion which prevailed in Origen's day regarding the true text of Scripture. The Church had adopted the Septuagint for its own; this differed from the Hebrew not only by the addition of several books and passages but also by innumerable variations of text, due partly to the ordinary process of corruption in the transcription of ancient books, partly to the culpable temerity, as Origen called it, of correctors who used not a little freedom in making "corrections", additions, and suppressions, partly to mistakes in translation, and finally in great part to the fact that the original Septuagint had been made from a Hebrew text quite different from that fixed at Jamnia as the one standard by the Jewish Rabbis, under Akiba the founder of Rabbinical Judaism. Aquila, a proselyte from Christianity, gave (c. A.D. 130) a very accurate translation of this text, aiming above all at being literal; still he borrows quite freely from the Septuagint when its rendering is consistent with his own chief aim. Symmachus and Theodotion both flourished towards the end of the second century, but it is uncertain which had priority as translator. Symmachus, who was an Ebionite according to Eusebius and Jerome, a Jewish proselyte from Samaritanism according to Epiphanius, gave a new translation which was to a considerable extent a more idiomatic and elegant rendering of Aquila. It was followed extensively by Jerome in his own work as translator of the Old Testament. Both Aquila and Symmachus produced two editions to which Jerome refers. Theodotion, who was an Ebionite or a Jew, and perhaps had been a Christian, gave a version much closer than the others to the Septuagint. The circulation of these versions, each so insistent in its claim to superiority, in so many instances differing from the Septuagint and yet so close to it in many others, made a comparison between them and the Septuagint imperative for a knowledge of the true text of Holy Scripture. The Hexapla, the concept of a great genius executed with unexampled patience and industry, is Origen's attempt to show the exact relations of the Septuagint to these versions and especially to the Hebrew text. The work itself has perished; its character, however, has been pretty well known to scholars through statements in early Church writers, through scholia on numerous manuscripts of the Bible, and through chance quotations found in the works of certain Fathers. Quite recently (1896 and 1900) fragments of the Hexaplar Psalms were fortunately discovered, which give us our only specimens of connected portions of Origen's work and afford a good idea of its general appearance. Our earliest authorities, Eusebius of Cæsarea, St. Epiphanius, and St. Jerome, agree that Origen made a collection into one work of texts and versions of the entire Old Testament, arranging them in parallel columns according to the following order: First, the Hebrew text in Hebrew characters; second, the Hebrew text transliterated into Greek characters; third, the version of Aquila; fourth, that of Symmachus; fifth, the Septuagint; sixth, the version of Theodotion. The recovered fragments corroborate this testimony, though they lack the first column. Aquila's version was placed next to the Hebrew, most probably because it was the most literal rendering; Symmachus next to Aquila, because his version was largely a revision of the other; for a similar reason, Theodotion's version came after the Septuagint. To these six columns, according to the same testimony, Origen added, but for certain books only, a seventh and an eighth column containing two more Greek versions, which were called respectively the Quinta and the Sexta, because they were the fifth and sixth versions in Origen's arrangement. Eusebius and Jerome mention a seventh Greek version, however nothing seems to be known of the character of the Septima. It may have been a very fragmentary version, a collection of variant readings which later editors did not consider worth preserving. Concerming the Quinta and Sexta, St. Jerome tells us that their authors were Jews. Field finds traces of the Quinta not only in Psalms, Job, Proverbs, and the Canticle of Canticles, but also in the Pentateuch and 2 Kings, though, in regard to 2 Kings, Burkitt has advanced good reasons for considering the Quinta a collection of variant readings, probably rejected from the Septuagint. The Sexta is quoted for Exodus, 1 Kings, Psalms, Job, Canticle of Canticles, Amos, and Habacuc. The presence of these two additional versions in the Hexapla has led to a discussion of that term and of others applied to Origen's work. By some the "six-fold" Bible was considered so called because it contained six Greek versions of certain books; but the common opinion has been that the name designates probably the six columns (the two of Hebrew and the four of the chief Greek versions, which consititute the bulk of the work), and came to be extended to the entire work. The terms Pentapla, Heptapla, Octapla, were also used of Origen's work, according as it contained five, seven, or eight columns. Since the six or seven columns, as the case might be, were visible at every opening of the Hexapla, each column must have been quite narrow. The fragments show, in fact, that one or at most two Hebrew words were placed on each line, with the transliteration in the adjoining column and the various renditions in the succeeding columns, all on the same level. This arrangement would naturally necessitate, at times, a shifting of the Greek words from their proper order, although this was not always done. An arrangement so minute and liberal must produce a work of enormous bulk. Swete estimated 3250 leaves, or 6500 pages, but Nestle considers 6000 leaves not far beyond the number. In addition to these columns of texts and versions, Origen copied out on the margins or between the lines other readings which he cited as given by ‗o ‗Ebrâios, ‗o E&úros, tò Samareitikón, the meaning of which is obscure. Field considers "the Hebrew" to be the Hebrew author of a Greek version, otherwise unknown, of certain books; "the Syrian", the author of another Greek version made in Syria; while "the Samaritan" gives Greek readings taken, not from the current Hebrew text, but from the Samaritan Pentateuch (thirty-six out of fortythree readings agree with that text). Loisy's opinion, not the mention many others, is that "the Hebrew" denotes citations from a Targum, "the Syrian", from the Peschito. Origen's purpose, as regards the Septuagint, was to indicate very clearly its exact relation to the Hebrew text, and incidentally to the other Greek versions. With this in view, he adopted (and placed in the Septuagint column only) the symbols used by Aristarchus in his edition of Homer. "As employed by Origen in the fifth column of the Hexapla, the obelus was prefixed to words or lines which were wanting in the Hebrew, and therefore, from Origen's point of view, of doubtful authority, while the asterisk called attention to words or lines wanting in the Septuagint, but present in the Hebrew. The close of the context to which the obelus or asterisk was intended to apply was marked by another sign known as the metobelus" (Swete). The fifth column, therefore, contained not the mere text of the Septuagint only, but in addition a translation taken generally from Theodotion (occasionally from Aquila) of these words or lines of the Hebrew which were lacking in the Septuagint. In certain instances, where the Septuagint translation differed widely from the Hebrew meaning, Origen inserted the true rendering (from Theodotion or Aquila) alongside the false; he deleted nothing from the

b

Septuagint text. By this arrangement and these symbols, any reader, even if ignorant of Hebrew, could generally tell at a glance the exact relation of the Septuagint text to the Hebrew. The principles which guided Origen in his work as textual critic are partly explained by Origen himself. He began by assuming the correctness of the current Hebrew textus receptus, and considered the Septuagint as more or less pure according to the degree in which it approximated to the Hebrew. He frequently changed the spelling of proper names to conform with the Hebrew. The symbols were intended not only to indicate a difference between the two texts, but to mark a departure from the Hebrew verity or genuine text. These principles are rightly discredited by modern scholars, who recognize that the Septuagint often bears plain witness to a Hebrew original different from the textus receptus and older than it in some parts. Moreover, of two readings, one a free, the other a literal, translation of the Hebrew, the free is more likely to be the original rendering of the Septuagint translator, while the literal is more apt to represent the effort of correctors, who very frequently endeavoured to bring the Greek into greater conformity with the Hebrew. Origen's critical principles were at fault, then, but his use of symbols ought to have guarded others from being led by his work into error. Unfortunately, the symbols were not reproduced in many copies which were taken of the fifth column - the Septuagint together with the readings from Theodotion and Aquila. After the completion of the Hexapla, Origen prepared a minor edition, or extract from it, consisting of the four principal versions, Aquila, Symmachus, the Septuagint, and Theodotion; this is the Tetrapla. It has been sometimes maintained, however, that the Tetrapla is the earlier work and was expanded into the Hexapla, principally on the ground that the Hexapla, which in a few instances has a superior reading, as at Ps. lxxxvi, 5, presents light missing to Origen when he composed the Tetrapla, a very unstable ground, we judge, for the Hexapla did not leave the hand of Origen as a printed work becomes independent of a modern author, but received occasional additions and corrections with the progress of his knowledge. The language of Eusebius implies that the Tetrapla was the later work. The dates of the two works, however, cannot be definitely fixed; all we know, says Field, is that the Hexapla or the Tetrapla was composed before Origen's letter to Africanus (c. 240). No copy of the entire Hexapla, on account of the immense labour and expense involved, seems ever to have been made, but the Psalter, minus the first column, was copied, as the two fragments prove. A reading in Isaias is quoted from the Pentapla, which possibly (though very doubtfully) implies the existence of a similar copy. Shortly after the beginning of the fourth century, Pamphilus, the martyr, and Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea, gave out an edition of the fifth column of the Hexapla, containing the Septuagint, the insertions from Theodotion and Aquila, and the symbols, together with variant readings on the margin, in the belief that they were bestowing on the Church the purest text. It was through the reproduction of this edition by later scribes, without Origen's critical signs, that arose the Hexaplar text which so greatly increased the confusion of Septuagint manuscripts. However, it hardly circulated outside of Palestine. It was translated into Syriac, "with the Origenic signs scrupulously retained", by Paul, Bishop of Tella, in Mesopotamia, who accomplished the work at Alexandria about 616-17. Several books and large portions of this Syro-Hexaplar text survive, and are the source, in a very great measure, of our knowledge of Origen's work. The Hexaplar text also influenced St. Jerome very strongly in his first two translations of the Psalter into Latin, the Psalterium Romanum and (particularly) the Gallicanum. Saint Jerome also followed the Hexaplar text, for which he had a very high regard, as the basis of his translations, no longer extant, of other books. The same influence is further seen in the Coptic (Sahidic), the Arabic, and the Armenian versions. If the original Septuagint text be taken as the standard, it is unquestionable that Origen's influence, both upon the Septuagint and its daughter versions, ultimately availed, through the negligence of copyists, to remove them further from the pristine purity of the Biblical text; but by all those who regard the Hexaplar text, by reason of its insertions and corrections from the textus receptus, as nearer to the original Hebrew than is the Septuagint, his influence must be judged to have worked, on the whole, for the spread of a truer text. The Hexaplar manuscript was kept at Cæsarea in Palestine, where it was consulted by Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome; it disappeared from sight shortly after the beginning of the seventh century. The first attempt to collect its disjecta membra, scattered over Biblical manuscripts and patristic writings, was made by Drusius (Driesch) in his work "In Psalmos Davidis Veterum Interpretum quæ extant Fragmenta", Antwerp, 1581 (so Mercati). Additions were made by Peter Morin in his notes to the Greek Bible authorized by Sixtus V (158), as also in the posthumous work of Drusius (1622), and the monumental work of Montfaucon (1713). The publication of the Syro-Hexaplar text by Ceriani and others gave back to the world a great part of Origen's work. Frederick Field in his "Origenis Hexaplorum quæ supersunt … fragmenta" (Oxford, 1875) collected into one grand work the results of two centuries of investigation and discovery. Since his day, Pitra's "Analecta Sacra", III (Venice, 1883), Klosterman's "Analecta zur … Hexapla" (Leipzig, 1895), and Dom Morin's "Anecdota Maredsolana", III, i, have given the world further discoveries. Add to these, to complete the history of the Hexapla's recovery, the palimpsest fragments of several of the psalms discovered by Mercati in the Ambrosian Library of Milan (1896), and the palimpsest fragment of Ps. xxii recovered from a genizah of Cairo (1900), which reproduce almost the exact form of Origen's work. Though much has been lost, including most of the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, still, by these patient, untiring labours, vast materials have been gathered for the reconstruction of a purer Sacred Text. [See MANUSCRIPTS OF THE BIBLE; ORIGEN; SEPTUAGINT; VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE Greek)]. Publication information Written by John Francis Fenlon. Transcribed by WG Kofron. With thanks to Fr. John Hilkert and St. Mary's Church, Akron, Ohio The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII. Published 1910. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York Septuagint From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

c

The Septuagint: A column of uncial text from 1 Esdras in the Codex Vaticanus, the basis of Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton's Greek edition and English translation. The Septuagint (pronounced ), or simply "LXX", referred to in critical works by the abbreviation 𝔊 or 𝔖,[1] is the Koine Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, translated in stages between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC in Alexandria.[2] It is the oldest of several ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean Basin from the time of Alexander the Great (356-323 BC).

d

The Septuagint was held in great respect in ancient times; Philo and Josephus ascribed divine inspiration to its authors.[3] Besides the Old Latin versions, the LXX is also the basis for the Slavonic, the Syriac, Old Armenian, Old Georgian and Coptic versions of the Old Testament.[4] Of significance for all Christians and for Bible scholars, the LXX is quoted by the Christian New Testament and by the Apostolic Fathers Contents

   

1 Creation of the Septuagint 2 Naming and designation 3 Textual history o 3.1 Relationship between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text o 3.2 Dead Sea Scrolls 4 Use of the Septuagint o 4.1 Jewish use o 4.2 Christian use o 4.3 Apocrypha 5 Language of the Septuagint 6 Books of the Septuagint 7 Printed editions 8 English Translations of the Septuagint 9 International Septuagint Day 10 Defining Septuagint 11 Table of Books 12 References 13 See also 14 Other References 15 External links o 15.1 General o 15.2 Texts and translations o 15.3 The LXX and the NT

          

Creation of the Septuagint Jewish scholars first translated the Torah into Koine Greek in the third century BC[5]. Further books were translated over the next two centuries. It is not altogether clear which was translated when, or where; some may even have been translated twice, into different versions, and then revised.[6] The quality and style of the different translators also varied considerably from book to book, from the literal to paraphrasing to interpretative. According to one assessment "the Pentateuch is reasonably well translated, but the rest of the books, especially the poetical books, are often very poorly done and even contain sheer absurdities". [7] As the work of translation progressed gradually, and new books were added to the collection, the compass of the Greek Bible came to be somewhat indefinite. The Pentateuch always maintained its pre-eminence as the basis of the canon; but the prophetic collection changed its aspect by having various hagiographa incorporated into it. Some of the newer works, those called anagignoskomena in Greek, are not included in the Jewish canon. Among these books are Maccabees and the Wisdom of Ben Sira. Also, the Septuagint version of some works, like Daniel and Esther, are longer than those in the Masoretic Text.[8] Some of the later books (Wisdom of Solomon, 2 Maccabees, and others) apparently were composed in Greek.[9] The authority of the larger group of writings, out of which the ketuvim were selected, had not yet been determined, although some sort of selective process must have been employed because the Septuagint did not include other well-known Jewish documents such as Enoch or Jubilees or other writings that are now part of the Pseudepigrapha. It is not known what principles were used to determine the contents of the Septuagint beyond the "Law and the Prophets", a phrase used several times in the New Testament. Naming and designation The Septuagint derives its name from Latin Interpretatio septuaginta virorum, (Greek: ἡ μεηάθραζις ηῶν ἑβδομήκονηα, hē metáphrasis tōn hebdomēkonta), "translation of the seventy interpreters".[2]

e

The word septuaginta[10] means "seventy" in Latin (hence the abbreviation LXX). The Latin title refers to a legendary account in the pseudepigraphic Letter of Aristeas of how seventy-two Jewish scholars were asked by the Greek King of Egypt Ptolemy II Philadelphus in the 3rd century BC to translate the Torah (or Pentateuch) from Hebrew into Greek for inclusion in the Library of Alexandria.[3] A later version of that legend narrated by Philo of Alexandria states that although the translators were kept in separate chambers, they all produced identical versions of the text in seventy-two days. Although this story may be improbable, it underlines the fact that some ancient Jews wished to present the translation as authoritative.[3] A version of this legend is found in the Tractate Megillah of the Babylonian Talmud (pages 9a-9b), which identifies fifteen specific unusual translations made by the scholars. Only two of these translations are found in the extant LXX. Textual history Modern scholarship holds that the LXX was written during the 3rd through 1st centuries BC. But nearly all attempts at dating specific books, with the exception of the Pentateuch (early- to mid-3rd century BC), are tentative and without consensus. [3] Later Jewish revisions and recensions of the Greek against the Hebrew are well attested, the most famous of which include the Three: Aquila (AD 128), Symmachus, and Theodotion. These three, to varying degrees, are more literal renderings of their contemporary Hebrew scriptures as compared to the Old Greek. Modern scholars consider one or more of the 'three' to be totally new Greek versions of the Hebrew Bible.[11] Around AD 235, Origen, a Christian scholar in Alexandria, completed the Hexapla, a comprehensive comparison of the ancient versions and Hebrew text side-by-side in six columns, with diacritical markings (a.k.a. "editor's marks", "critical signs" or "Aristarchian signs"). Much of this work was lost, but several compilations of the fragments are available. In the first column was the contemporary Hebrew, in the second a Greek transliteration of it, then the newer Greek versions each in their own columns. Origen also kept a column for the Old Greek (the Septuagint) and next to it was a critical apparatus combining readings from all the Greek versions with diacritical marks indicating to which version each line (Gr. ζηἰρνο) belonged. [12] Perhaps the voluminous Hexapla was never copied in its entirety, but Origen's combined text ("the fifth column") was copied frequently, eventually without the editing marks, and the older uncombined text of the LXX was neglected. Thus this combined text became the first major Christian recension of the LXX, often called the Hexaplar recension. In the century following Origen, two other major recensions were identified by Jerome, who attributed these to Lucian and Hesychius.[3] The oldest manuscripts of the LXX include 2nd century BC fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957), and 1st century BC fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Minor Prophets (Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943). Relatively complete manuscripts of the LXX postdate the Hexaplar rescension and include the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus of the 4th century and the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century. These are indeed the oldest surviving nearly-complete manuscripts of the Old Testament in any language; the oldest extant complete Hebrew texts date some 600 years later, from the first half of the 10th century.[4] While there are differences between these three codices, scholarly consensus today holds that one LXX — that is, the original pre-Christian translation — underlies all three. The various Jewish and later Christian revisions and recensions are largely responsible for the divergence of the codices. [3] Relationship between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text The sources of the many differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text have long been discussed by scholars. The most widely accepted view today is that the original Septuagint provided a reasonably accurate record of an early Semitic textual variant, now lost, that differed from ancestors of the Masoretic text. Ancient scholars, however, did not suspect this. Early Christians—who were largely unfamiliar with Hebrew texts, and were thus only made aware of the differences through the newer Greek versions— tended to dismiss the differences as a product of uninspired translation of the Hebrew in these new versions. Following the Renaissance, a common opinion among some humanists was that the LXX translators bungled the translation from the Hebrew and that the LXX became more corrupt with time. These issues notwithstanding, the text of the LXX is in general close to that of the Masoretes. For example, Genesis 4:1-6 is identical in both the LXX and the Masoretic Text. Likewise, Genesis 4:8 to the end of the chapter is the same. There is only one noticeable difference in that chapter, at 4:7, to wit:

Genesis 4:7, LXX (NETS)

Genesis 4:7, Masoretic (NRSV)

If you offer correctly but do not divide correctly, have you

If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do

f

not sinned? Be still; his recourse is to you, and you will rule over him.

well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.

This instance illustrates the complexity of assessing differences between the LXX and the Masoretic Text. Despite the striking divergence of meaning here between the two, nearly identical consonantal Hebrew source texts can be reconstructed. The readily apparent semantic differences result from alternative strategies for interpreting the difficult verse and relate to differences in vowelization and punctuation of the consonantal text. The differences between the LXX and the MT thus fall into four categories. [13] 1. Different Hebrew sources for the MT and the LXX. Evidence of this can be found throughout the Old Testament. Most obvious are major differences in Jeremiah and Job, where the LXX is much shorter and chapters appear in different order than in the MT, and Esther where almost one third of the verses in the LXX text have no parallel in the MT. A more subtle example may be found in Isaiah 36.11; the meaning ultimately remains the same, but the choice of words evidences a different text. The MT reads "...al tedaber yehudit be'ozne ha`am al ha-homa" [speak not the Judean language in the ears of (or — which can be heard by) the people on the wall]. The same verse in the LXX reads according to the translation of Brenton "and speak not to us in the Jewish tongue: and wherefore speakest thou in the ears of the men on the wall." The MT reads "people" where the LXX reads "men". This difference is very minor and does not affect the meaning of the verse. Scholars at one time had used discrepancies such as this to claim that the LXX was a poor translation of the Hebrew original. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, variant Hebrew texts of the Bible were found. In fact this verse is found in Qumran (1QIsaa) where the Hebrew word "haanashim" (the men) is found in place of "haam" (the people). This discovery, and others like it, showed that even seemingly minor differences of translation could be the result of variant Hebrew source texts. Differences in interpretation stemming from the same Hebrew text. A good example is Genesis 4.7 shown above. Differences as a result of idiomatic translation issues (i.e. a Hebrew idiom may not easily translate into Greek, thus some difference is intentionally or unintentionally imparted). For example, in Psalm 47:10 the MT reads "The shields of the earth belong to God". The LXX reads "To God are the mighty ones of the earth." The metaphor "shields" would not have made much sense to a Greek speaker; thus the words "mighty ones" are substituted in order to retain the original meaning. Transmission changes in Hebrew or Greek (Diverging revisionary/recensional changes and copyist errors)

2. 3.

4. Dead Sea Scrolls

The discovery of many Biblical fragments in the Dead Sea scrolls that agree with the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic Text proved that many of the variants in Greek were also present in early Semitic manuscripts. [14] Many of the oldest Biblical fragments among the Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly those in Aramaic, correspond more closely with the LXX than with the Masoretic text (although the majority of these variations are extremely minor, e.g. grammatical changes, spelling differences or missing words, and do not affect the meaning of sentences and paragraphs). [2][15][16] This confirms the scholarly consensus that the LXX represents a separate Hebrew-text tradition from that which was later standardized as the Masoretic text. [2][17] Use of the Septuagint Jewish use In the 3rd century BC, most Jewish communities were located in the Hellenistic world where Greek was the lingua franca. It is believed that the LXX was produced because many Jews outside of Judea needed a Greek version of the scripture for use during synagogue readings[18][19] or for religious study.[20] Some theorise that Hellenistic Jews intended the septuagint as a contribution to Hellenistic culture.[3] Alexandria held the greatest diaspora Jewish community of the age and was also a great center of Greek letters. Alexandria is thus likely the site of LXX authorship, a notion supported by the legend of Ptolemy and the 72 scholars. [21] The Septuagint enjoyed widespread use in the Hellenistic Jewish diaspora and even in Jerusalem, which had become a rather cosmopolitan (and therefore Greek-speaking) town. Both Philo and Josephus show a reliance on the Septuagint in their citations of Jewish scripture. Starting approximately in the 2nd century AD (see also Council of Jamnia), several factors led most Jews to abandon use of the LXX. The earliest gentile Christians of necessity used the LXX, as it was at the time the only Greek version of the bible, and most, if not all, of these early non-Jewish Christians could not read Hebrew. The association of the LXX with a rival religion may have rendered it suspect in the eyes of the newer generation of Jews and Jewish scholars.[4] Perhaps more importantly, the Greek language—and

g

therefore the Greek Bible—declined among Jews after most of them fled from the Greek-speaking eastern Roman Empire into the Aramaic-speaking Persian Empire when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. Instead, Jews used Hebrew/Aramaic Targum manuscripts later compiled by the Masoretes; and authoritative Aramaic translations, such as those of Onkelos and Rabbi Yonathan ben Uziel.[22] What was perhaps most significant for the LXX, as distinct from other Greek versions, was that the LXX began to lose Jewish sanction after differences between it and contemporary Hebrew scriptures were discovered. Even Greek-speaking Jews — such as those remaining in Palestine — tended less to the LXX, preferring other Jewish versions in Greek, such as that of Aquila, which seemed to be more concordant with contemporary Hebrew texts.[4] While Jews have not used the LXX in worship or religious study since the second century AD, recent scholarship has brought renewed interest in it in Judaic Studies. Christian use The early Christian Church used the Greek texts since Greek was a lingua franca of the Roman Empire at the time, and the language of the Church. In addition the Church Fathers tended to accept Philo's account of the LXX's miraculous and inspired origin. Furthermore, the New Testament writers, when citing the Jewish scriptures or when quoting Jesus doing so, freely used the Greek translation, implying that the Apostles and their followers considered it reliable. [23] When Jerome undertook the revision of the Old Latin translations of the Septuagint, he checked the Septuagint against the Hebrew texts that were then available. He came to believe that the Hebrew text better testified to Christ than the Septuagint. [24] He broke with church tradition and translated most of the Old Testament of his Vulgate from Hebrew rather than Greek. His choice was severely criticized by Augustine, his contemporary; a flood of still less moderate criticism came from those who regarded Jerome as a forger. But with the passage of time, acceptance of Jerome's version gradually increased until it displaced the Old Latin translations of the Septuagint.[4] The Hebrew text diverges in some passages that Christians hold to prophesy Christ[25] and the Eastern Orthodox Church still prefers to use the LXX as the basis for translating the Old Testament into other languages. The Eastern Orthodox also use LXX untranslated where Greek is the liturgical language, e.g. in the Orthodox Church of Constantinople, the Church of Greece and the Cypriot Orthodox Church. Many modern critical translations of the Old Testament, while using the Masoretic text as their basis, consult the Septuagint as well as other versions in an attempt to reconstruct the meaning of the Hebrew text whenever the latter is unclear, undeniably corrupt, or ambiguous.[4] Apocrypha Main article: Biblical Apocrypha The Septuagint includes some books not found in the Hebrew Bible. Many Protestant Bibles follow the Jewish canon and exclude the additional books. Roman Catholics, however, include some of these books in their canon while Eastern Orthodox Churches use all the books of the Septuagint. Anglican lectionaries also use all of the books except Psalm 151, and the full Authorized (King James) Version includes these additional books in a separate section labelled the "Apocrypha". Language of the Septuagint Some sections of the Septuagint may show Semiticisms, or idioms and phrases based on Semitic languages like Hebrew and Aramaic.[23] Other books, such as LXX Daniel and Proverbs, show Greek influence more strongly.[3] The book of Daniel that is found in almost all Greek bibles, however, is not from the LXX, but rather from Theodotion's translation, which more closely resembles the Masoretic Daniel.[3] The LXX is also useful for elucidating pre-Masoretic Hebrew: many proper nouns are spelled out with Greek vowels in the LXX, while contemporary Hebrew texts lacked vowel pointing.[26] One must, however, evaluate such evidence with caution since it is extremely unlikely that all ancient Hebrew sounds had precise Greek equivalents. [27] Books of the Septuagint See also Table of books below. All the books of western canons of the Old Testament are found in the Septuagint, although the order does not always coincide with the Western ordering of the books. The Septuagint order for the Old Testament is evident in the earliest Christian Bibles (5th century).[3] Some books that are set apart in the Masoretic text are grouped together. For example the Books of Samuel and the Books of Kings are in the LXX one book in four parts called Βαζηιεηῶλ ("Of Reigns"); scholars believe that this is the original arrangement before the

h

book was divided for readability. In LXX, the Books of Chronicles supplement Reigns and it is called Paraleipoménon (Παξαιεηπνκέλωλ—things left out). The Septuagint organizes the minor prophets as twelve parts of one Book of Twelve. [3] Some scripture of ancient origin are found in the Septuagint but are not present in the Hebrew. These include additions to Daniel and Esther. For more information regarding these books, see the articles Biblical apocrypha, Biblical canon, Books of the Bible, and Deuterocanonical books. The New Testament makes a number of allusions to and may quote the additional books. The books are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus Sirach, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremy (which later became chapter 6 of Baruch in the Vulgate), additions to Daniel (The Prayer of Azarias, the Song of the Three Children, Sosanna and Bel and the Dragon), additions to Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, Odes, including the Prayer of Manasses, and Psalm 151. The canonical acceptance of these books varies among different Christian traditions, and there are canonical books not derived from the Septuagint; for a discussion see the article on Biblical apocrypha. Printed editions All the printed editions of the Septuagint are derived from the three recensions mentioned above.

  

The editio princeps is the Complutensian Polyglot. It was based on manuscripts that are now lost, but seems to transmit quite early readings.[28] The Aldine edition (begun by Aldus Manutius) appeared at Venice in 1518. The text is closer to Codex Vaticanus than the Complutensian. The editor says he collated ancient manuscripts but does not specify them. It has been reprinted several times. The most important edition is the Roman or Sixtine, which reproduces the Codex Vaticanus" almost exclusively. It was published under the direction of Cardinal Caraffa, with the help of various savants, in 1586, by the authority of Sixtus V, to assist the revisers who were preparing the Latin Vulgate edition ordered by the Council of Trent. It has become the textus receptus of the Greek Old Testament and has had many new editions, such as that of Robert Holmes and James Parsons (Oxford, 1798-1827), the seven editions of Constantin von Tischendorf, which appeared at Leipzig between 1850 and 1887, the last two, published after the death of the author and revised by Nestle, the four editions of Henry Barclay Swete (Cambridge, 1887-95, 1901, 1909), etc. Grabe's edition was published at Oxford, from 1707 to 1720, and reproduced, but imperfectly, the "Codex Alexandrinus" of London. For partial editions, see Fulcran Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de la Bible, 1643 sqq. Alfred Rahlfs, a longtime Septuagint researcher at Göttingen, began a manual edition of the Septuagint in 1917 or 1918. The completed Septuaginta was published in 1935. It relies mainly on Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus, and presents a critical apparatus with variants from these and several other sources.[29] The Göttingen Septuagint (Vetus Testamentum Graecum: Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum) is a major critical version, comprising multiple volumes published from 1931 to 2006 and not yet complete. Its two critical apparatuses present variant Septuagint readings and variants from other Greek versions.[30] In 2006, a revision of Alfred Rahlfs's Septuaginta was published by the German Bible Society. This editio altera includes over a thousand changes to the text and apparatus.[31] The Apostolic Bible Polyglot contains a Septuagint text derived mainly from the agreement of any two of the Complutensian Polyglot, the Sixtine, and the Aldine texts.[32]

    

English Translations of the Septuagint The Septuagint has been translated a few times into English, the first one (though excluding the Apocrypha) being that of Charles Thomson in 1808; his translation was later revised and enlarged by C. A. Muses in 1954. The translation of Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton, published in 1851, is a long-time standard. For most of the time since its publication it has been the only one readily available, and has continually been in print. It is based primarily upon the Codex Vaticanus and contains the Greek and English texts in parallel columns. There also is a revision of the Brenton Septuagint available through Stauros Ministries, called The Apostles' Bible, released in January 2008. [2] The International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (IOSCS) has produced A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under that Title (NETS), an academic translation based on standard critical editions of the Greek texts. It was published by Oxford University Press in October 2007. The Apostolic Bible Polyglot, published in 2007, includes the Greek books of the Hebrew canon along with the Greek New Testament, all numerically coded to the AB-Strong numbering system, and set in monotonic orthography. Included in the printed edition is a concordance and index.

i

The Orthodox Study Bible was released in early 2008 with a new translation of the Septuagint based on the New King James Version. It also includes extensive commentary from an Eastern Orthodox perspective.[33] The Eastern / Greek Orthodox Bible (EOB) is an extensive revision and correction of Brenton‘s translation which was primarily based on Codex Vaticanus. Its language and syntax has been modernized and simplified. It also includes extensive introductory material and footnotes featuring significant inter-LXX and LXX/MT variants. International Septuagint Day The International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (IOSCS), a nonprofit, learned society formed to promote international research in and study of the Septuagint and related texts, [34] has established February 8 annually as International Septuagint Day, a day to promote the discipline on campuses and in communities. Defining Septuagint Although the integrity of the Septuagint as a text distinct from the Masoretic text is supported by Dead Sea scroll evidence, the LXX does show signs of age in that textual variants are attested. There is at least one highly unreliable nearly complete text of the LXX, Codex Alexandrinus. Nearly complete texts of the Septuagint are also found in the Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209 and Codex Sinaiticus, which do not perfectly coincide. But the LXX is a particularly excellent text when compared to other ancient works with textual variants. It has been argued that it is unjustified to reject the existence of a Septuagint merely on the basis of variation due to editorial recension and typographical error.[35][36] The title "Septuagint" should not to be confused with the seven or more other Greek versions of the Old Testament, most of which do not survive except as fragments. These other Greek versions were once in side-by-side columns of Origen's Hexapla, now almost wholly lost. Of these the most important are "the three:" those by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, which are identified by particular Semiticisms and placement of Hebrew and Aramaic characters within their Greek texts. One of two Old Greek texts of the Book of Daniel has been recently rediscovered and work is ongoing in reconstructing the original form of the Septuagint as a whole.[3] Table of Books The Orthodox Old Testament [2][15][37] Greek-based name Conventional English name

Law

Γένεςισ Ἔμνδνσ

Génesis

Genesis

Éxodos

Exodus

Λευϊτικόν Ἀξηζκνί

Leuitikón

Leviticus

Arithmoí

Numbers

Δευτερονόμιον

Deuteronómion

Deuteronomy

History Ἰεζνῦο Nαυῆ

Iêsous Nauê

Joshua

Κριταί

Kritaí

Judges

j

Ῥνύθ
[38] Βαςιλειῶλ Αʹ

Roúth

Ruth

I Reigns

I Samuel

Βαςιλειῶλ Βʹ

II Reigns

II Samuel

Βαςιλειῶλ Γʹ

III Reigns

I Kings

Βαςιλειῶλ Δʹ

IV Reigns I Paralipomenon[39]

II Kings

Παραλειπομένων Αʹ

I Chronicles

Παραλειπομένων Βʹ Ἔζδξαο Αʹ Ἔζδξαο Βʹ Ἐζζήρ Ἰνπδίθ Σωβίτ[40]

II Paralipomenon

II Chronicles

I Esdras

1 Esdras;

II Esdras

Ezra-Nehemiah

Esther

Esther with additions

Ioudith

Judith

Tobit

Tobit or Tobias

Μακκαβαίων Αʹ

I Maccabees

1 Maccabees

Μακκαβαίων Βʹ

II Maccabees

2 Maccabees

Μακκαβαίων Γʹ

III Maccabees

3 Maccabees

Wisdom

Ψαλμοί

Psalms

Psalms

Ψαλμόσ ΡΝΑʹ

Psalm 151

Psalm 151

Προςευχὴ Μανάςςη Ἰώβ

Prayer of Manasseh

Prayer of Manasseh

Iōb

Job

Παροιμίαι Ἐθθιεζηαζηήσ

Proverbs

Proverbs

Ecclesiastes

Ecclesiastes

k

Ἆζκα Ἀζκάηων

Song of Songs

Song of Solomon

΢οφία ΢αλoμῶληνσ ΢οφία Ἰεζνῦ ΢ειράχ

Wisdom of Solomon

Wisdom

Wisdom of Jesus the son of Seirach

Sirach or Ecclesiasticus

Prophets

Δώδεκα Ὡζεέ Αʹ Ἀκώο Βʹ

The Twelve

Minor Prophets

I. Osëe

Hosea

II. Ämōs

Amos

Μιχαίασ Γʹ Ἰωήι Γʹ
[41] Ὀβδίνπ Δʹ

III. Michaias

Micah

IV. Ioel

Joel

V. Obdias

Obadiah

Ἰωλᾶο Ϛ'

VI. Ionas

Jonah

Ναοφμ Ζʹ Ἀκβαθνύκ Ηʹ

VII. Naoum

Nahum

VIII. Ambakum

Habakkuk

΢οφονίασ Θʹ Ἀγγαῖνο Ιʹ

IX. Sophonias

Zephaniah

X. Ängaios

Haggai

Ζαχαρίασ ΙΑʹ Ἄγγεινο ΙΒʹ Ἠζαΐασ Ἱεξεκίασ

XI. Zacharias

Zachariah

XII. Messenger

Malachi

Hesaias

Isaiah

Hieremias

Jeremiah

Βαροφχ

Baruch

Baruch

Θρῆλνι

Lamentations

Lamentations

Επιςτολή Ιερεμίου

Epistle of Jeremiah

Letter of Jeremiah

l

Ἰεδεθηήλ

Iezekiêl

Ezekiel

Δανιήλ

Daniêl

Daniel with additions

Appendix

Μακκαβαίων Δ' Παράρτημα

IV Maccabees

4 Maccabees

References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ^ Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, for instance. ^ a b c d e Karen Jobes and Moises Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint ISBN 1-84227-061-3, (Paternoster Press, 2001). - The current standard for Introductory works on the Septuagint. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Jennifer M. Dines, The Septuagint, Michael A. Knibb, Ed., London: T&T Clark, 2004 ^ a b c d e f Ernst Würthwein, The Text of the Old Testament, trans. Errol F. Rhodes, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995. ^ Josephus, Flavius, Antiquities of the Jews, 12.2.11-15; Whiston, William; The Complete Works of Josephus; Hendrickson Publishers, (Nashville, Tennessee, 1987); ISBN 0-913573-86-8 ^ Joel Kalvesmaki, The Septuagint ^ Sir Godfrey Driver, Introduction to the Old Testament of the New English Bible (1970) ^ Rick Grant Jones, Various Religious Topics, "Books of the Septuagint," (Accessed 2006.9.5). ^ See Books of the Bible ^ The Canon Debate, McDonald & Sanders editors, chapter by Sundberg, page 72, adds further detail: "However, it was not until the time of Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) that the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures came to be called by the Latin term septuaginta. [70 rather than 72] In his City of God 18.42, while repeating the story of Aristeas with typical embellishments, Augustine adds the remark, "It is their translation that it has now become traditional to call the Septuagint" ...[Latin omitted]... Augustine thus indicates that this name for the Greek translation of the scriptures was a recent development. But he offers no clue as to which of the possible antecedents led to this development: Exod 24:1-8, Josephus [Antiquities 12.57, 12.86], or an elision. ...this name Septuagint appears to have been a fourth- to fifth-century development." ^ Compare Dines, who is certain only of Symmachus being a truly new version, with Würthwein, who considers only Theodotion to be a revision, and even then possibly of an earlier non-LXX version. ^ Jerome, From Jerome, Letter LXXI (404 AD), NPNF1-01. The Confessions and Letters of St. Augustin, with a Sketch of his Life and Work, Phillip Schaff, Ed. ^ See, Jinbachian, Some Semantically Significant Differences Between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, [1]. ^ Jones, Table: Dead Sea Scrolls-Septuagint Alignments Against the Masoretic Text. ^ a b Timothy McLay, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research ISBN 0-8028-6091-5. — The current standard introduction on the NT & LXX. ^ V.S. Herrell, The History of the Bible, "Qumran: Dead Sea Scrolls." ^ William Priestly, "The Dead Sea Scrolls." — A detailed explanation with scholarly apparatus. ^ L.L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian. I. Persian and Greek Periods. II. Roman Period, London: SCM Press, 1994. ^ Joachim Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. ^ H. Orlinsky, "The Septuagint and its Hebrew Text," in The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. II, The Hellenistic Age, W. Davies and L. Finkelstein, Eds., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. ^ There is some debate, however, regarding the location of the translations of the non-Pentateuch books. See Dines. One theory, that even the Pentateuch reflects variant "local" forms, is criticized in Emmanuel Tov, The Text Critical Use of The Septuagint in Biblical Research, 2nd edn., Jerusalem: Simor, 1997. ^ Greek-speaking Judaism (see also Hellenistic Judaism), survived, however, on a smaller scale into the medieval period. Cf. Natalio Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Bible, Leiden: Brill, 2000. ^ a b H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, revised by R.R. Ottley, 1914; reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1989. ^ Jerome; Translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb (2007-09-06). "Beginning of the Prologue of Saint Jerome the Presbyter on the Pentateuch". http://www.bombaxo.com/prologues.html. Retrieved 2009-02-04. ^ name=http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/psalms/psalm40.htm ^ Hoffman, Book Review,, 2004. ^ Paul Joüon, SJ, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, trans. and revised by T. Muraoka, vol. I, Rome: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 2000. ^ Joseph Ziegler, "Der griechische Dodekepropheton-Text der Complutenser Polyglotte," Biblica 25:297-310, cited in Würthwein. ^ Rahlfs, A. (Ed.). (1935/1979). Septuaginta. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

m

30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

^ IOSCS: Critical Editions of Septuagint/Old Greek Texts ^ German Bible Society ^ Introduction to the Apostolic Bible ^ About the Orthodox Study Bible ^ http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/ioscs/ ^ Priestly ^ "A New Look at the Septuagint" ^ The canon of the original Old Greek LXX is disputed. This table reflects the canon of the Old Testament as used in Orthodoxy currently. ^ Βαςιλειῶν (Basileiōn) is the genitive plural of Βαςιλεῖα (Basileia). ^ That is, supplementary material for Reigns ^ also called Σωβείτ or Σωβίθ in some sources. ^ Obdiou is genitive from "The vision of Obdias," which opens the book.

Diocletian's destruction and Constantine's production of scripture

Introduction: 1. 303 AD the Roman Emperor, Diocletian calls for the destruction of all the scriptures of the Christians. Obviously there must have been a set of books (a canon) so well defined and universally accepted, that even outsiders knew which books the Christians considered as scripture. The edict of Diocletian, therefore shows that long before the first extant "canon lists" came along, a canon already existed. It also forced the Christians to meditate on the subject of which books were most sacred and inspired. So with the solders knocking at the door and the Christian inside, as Everet puts it: "for the most part they knew what books the soldiers were looking for". (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; Everett Ferguson, Factors Leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon, p 317, 2002) There must have been a well defined canon at this time. In a most providential twist of events, Roman Emperor Constantine a few years later, enlisted the help of Eusebius, to create 50 copies in codex form, of the entire Bible. Although know one knows for sure what was in this Bible and no definite copies have been located, it proves a definite canon existed in the time period of 275 - 315 AD.

2. 3.

4. 5.

Discussion: 1. Two major attempts to establish conformity in the empire in the early fourth century C.E. probably also affected the scope of the New Testament canon by causing the church to make conscious decisions about what literature it considered sacred. The first of these was an edict of Diocletian on February 23, 303, to promote religious uniformity. This edict, which remained in effect until 313, led to the persecution of the church and called for the burning of its sacred writings. Diocletian also compelled Christians to turn over their sacred books to the authorities to be burned. The Christians tried to salvage as much of their sacred literature as possible by turning over to them less important texts that were not considered sacred. Those who gave in to pressure and handed sacred scripture over to the authorities were called "traitors" (traditores). On the other hand, those who refused and consequently were imprisoned or killed were called confessors and martyrs (homologetai and martyres). Such distinctions presume, of course, that by this time individual congregations had determined which literature was sacred and which was not, what was worth dying for and what was not. Second, and just as compelling, was Constantine's push for religious unity and conformity within the Christian communities, threatening banishment for those who did not conform. This call to unity is the context in which discussions of biblical canons begin to appear, first in the writings of Eusebius and subsequently in other lists, discussions, an church councils. What may well have triggered Eusebius's interest in defining or delimiting'' the scope of the Christian scriptures was Constantine's request that he produce fifty copies of the Christian scriptures for use in the churches in the new capital of the Roman empire Constantinople. These two historical factors provide the social context that led to the closing of the biblical canon. (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; Lee Martin McDonald, Identifying Scripture and Canon in the Early Church: The Criteria Question, p 417, 2002) By the time of the Diocletianic persecution in 303 Roman authorities, in their campaign to confiscate Christian property, included the requirement that Christian books be handed in and burned. In the words of Eusebius, "We saw with our very eyes ... the inspired and sacred scriptures committed to the flames in the marketplaces" in response to the imperial letter "ordering the destruction by fire of the scriptures" (Hist. eccl. 8.2.l and 4). The requirement showed that the authorities knew Christians had an identifiable set of holy writings and knew their importance to the Christian communities. Hierocles, governor of Bithynia and the chief promoter of the persecution, knew the Christian Bible, and had already attempted in two books against the Christians "to prove the falsehood of sacred scripture," by which was meant Christian sacred writings, as the reference to Paul and Peter makes clear. Christians themselves thought they had an identifiable

2.

n

3.

set of scriptures, for they immediately experienced a moral dilemma over giving up documents to the authorities, an issue that became the occasion for the Donatist schism. Christians might hide writings, try to pass off apocryphal and heretical texts, or in some cases debate what to hand over and what not to, but for the most part they knew what books the soldiers were looking for. (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; Everett Ferguson, Factors Leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon, p 317, 2002) When the situation reversed under Constantine, the Roman government financed the multiplication of copies of scriptures instead of destroying them. Constantine directed Eusebius to have prepared for the churches in Constantinople fifty copies "of the sacred scriptures which you know to be especially necessary for the restoration and use in the instruction of the church." Eusebius says his prompt fulfillment of the request was acknowledged by letter from Constantine (Vit. Const. 4.37). Constantine knew there was such an entity as the Christian scriptures, required for public reading in the new churches being built in Constantinople, and certain books were copied and others left out. Constantine's commission did not require that Christians decide what the contents of scripture were; it was intended to replace those copies of the scriptures destroyed in the persecution. (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; Everett Ferguson, Factors Leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon, p 318, 2002) Constantine Wrote Matthew 28:19 Into Your Bible!

What Did Matthew Actually Write, "Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," OR "Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations IN MY NAME"? This article is based on a publication which was originally written in 1961 and titled ―A Collection of the Evidence For and Against the Traditional Wording of the Baptismal Phrase in Matthew 28:19‖. The author was a minister, presumably Protestant. He signed his work simply as A. Ploughman. He lived in Birmingham, England. The author had not encountered anything dealing with the authenticity of Matthew 28:19, during his 50 years of Biblical study except from out of print articles, books and encyclopedias. I would have never considered reviewing this information except for the fact that a trusted friend was quite zealous about the importance of the conclusions reached. In this article, only the secular historical quotations have been retained as written from Ploughman‘s research. Questioning the authenticity of Matthew 28:19 is not a matter of determining how easily it can or cannot be explained within the context of established doctrinal views. Rather, it is a matter of discovering the very thoughts of our God, remembering that His truth, and not our traditions, is eternal. The information presented is extremely relevant to our faith. The amount of information supporting the conclusions presented may seem overwhelming, but for the serious seeker of truth, the search is well worth effort. I hope that you will allow the facts contained in this article to stir you into action. If you discover that you have not been baptized into the name of the true God, and have knowingly accepted a substitute, how would God respond? However, it must be remembered that we have no known manuscripts that were written in the first, second or even the third centuries. There is a gap of over three hundred years between when Matthew wrote his epistle and our earliest manuscript copies. (It also took over three hundred years for the Catholic Church to evolve into what the ―early church fathers‖ wanted it to become.) No single early manuscript is free from textual error. Some have unique errors; other manuscripts were copied extensively and have the same errors. Again, our aim is to examine all of the evidence and determine as closely as possible what the original words were. Considering the fact that all of the scriptures from Genesis thru Malachi make no reference to a Trinitarian God, and that from Mark thru Revelation we also find no evidence for a Trinity, we must consider the possibility that all the existing manuscripts may have one or more textual errors in common. According to the Biblical historian Dr. C. R. Gregory: The Greek manuscripts of the text of the New Testament were often altered by the scribes, who put into them the readings which were familiar to them, and which they held to be the right readings. More on these changes will be addressed later. Another writer said: A great step forward is taken when we propose to give manuscripts weight, not according to their age, but according to the age of the text which they contain. By proving how honest a text is rather than strictly how old it is provides us with a text which has content that is truly ancient. When we verify that a text is older than the fourth century, that it was current in the third or better still the second century, we still cannot be sure that it has not been altered. We need to try to verify that the text is pure text. There is reason to believe that the very grossest errors that have ever deformed the text had entered it already in the second century. What we wish to ascertain, however, is not merely an ancient text but an accurate text.

o

Of course, ―the grossest errors,‖ that this writer is referring to are not doctrinal errors, but the errors in the text itself. Not surprisingly tho, some of these textual corruptions occurred simultaneously with the respective doctrinal changes as they were being introduced in the early church. This historic falling away will be addressed later. Just as with the manuscripts, all extant Versions, containing the end of Matthew, also contain the Triune name. But, of course, there is more to be considered than what is present in a document. One must also take into consideration what is absent. Again quoting from the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics: ―In all extant versions the text is found in the traditional [Trinitarian] form ...though it must be remembered that the best manuscripts, both of the African Old Latin and of the Old Syriac Versions are defective at this point.‖ F.C. Conybeare further elaborated: In the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading, namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages are gone which contained the end of Matthew. So then, though all early Versions contain the traditional Triune name in Matthew 28:19, the earliest of these Versions do not contain the verse at all. And curiously, not due to omission, but due to removal! We can not be certain of the motives why these pages were destroyed, but for the sake of our study we are now compelled to consult the early historical writings Excerpts of Early Catholic Writers Before we make references concerning these early writers, it should be emphatically stated, that if the question under consideration were one of doctrine, the written records of these Catholic writers would be totally irrelevant. Doctrine must be obtained from the pure Word of God alone, and not from Catholics, Jews or other sources. These self proclaimed ―fathers‖ lived in an age of unrestrained heresy. Their testimony is valuable only because they provide an incidental and independent verification of scriptural texts much older than our current complete copies. In the course of my reading I have been able to substantiate these doubts of the authenticity of the text of Matthew 28:19 by adducing patristic [L. pater: "father"] evidence against it, so weighty that in the future the most conservative of divines will shrink from resting on it any dogmatic fabric at all, while the more enlightened will discard it as completely as they have its fellow-text of the „Three Witnesses‟. - F.C. Conybeare in the Hibbert Journal Could this bold statement be true? While not a single manuscript from the first three centuries remains in existence, we do have ―eye witness‖ observations of at least two men who actually had access to manuscripts dating much earlier than our earliest. Others also quoted Matthew 28:19, whose written works have been preserved, dating to much earlier times than our best manuscript copies. We are about to examine who these men were and what the circumstances were. We will attempt to determine if these are reliable quotations of the original scriptures. How did they quote Matthew 28:19? Did their comments imply an existing controversy surrounding the use of the scriptures being quoted? Was a Trinity implied? These are questions that can be answered. In the pages ahead, we will consider evidence from the following men, either via quotations from their writings, or as commented upon thru the writings of their contemporaries: 1) Eusebius of Caesurae, 2) The unknown author of De Rebaptismate, 3) Origen, 4) Clement of Alexandria, 5) Justin Martyr, 6) Macedonius, 7) Eunomius and 8) Aphraates. Our search through their writings is not to establish any doctrine, but to find early witnesses to the verse in question. Eusebius of Caesurae Our first witness will be Eusebius of Caesurae, also known as Eusebius Pamphili. He was born around 270 A.D., and died around 340 A.D. He lived in times of rampant doctrinal change, was a Trinitarian, and in later life assisted in the formation of the Nicene Creed. Regarding our inquiry into Matthew 28:19, Eusebius is our key witness. Therefore, to establish his veracity as a credible witness, let us consider the following quotes: ―Eusebius of Caesurae, to whom we are indebted for the preservation of so many contemporary works of antiquity, many of which would have perished had he not collected and edited them.‖ Robert Roberts, in Good Company, vol. III, pg. 10 Eusebius, the greatest Greek teacher of the Church and most learned theologian of his time...worked untiringly for the acceptance of the pure Word of the New Testament as it came from the Apostles...Eusebius...relies throughout only upon ancient manuscripts, and always openly confesses the truth when he cannot find sufficient testimony. E.K. in the Christadelphian Monatshefte, Aug, 1923 from Mosheim, in an editorial footnote. Eusebius Pamphili, Bishop of Caesurae in Palestine, a man of vast reading and erudition, and one who has acquired immortal fame by his labors in ecclesiastical history, and in other branches of theological learning. Chapter 2, 9...Till about 40 years of age he lived in great intimacy with the martyr Pamphilus, a learned and devout man of Caesurae, and founder of an extensive library there, from which Eusebius derived his vast store of learning. Dr. Wescott, in ―General Survey,‖ page 108

p

Eusebius, to whose zeal we owe most of what is known of the history of the New Testament. Peake Bible Commentary, page 596 The most important writer in the first quarter of the fourth century was Eusebius of Caesurae...Eusebius was a man of little originality or independent judgment. But he was widely read in the Greek Christian literature of the second and third centuries, the bulk of which has now irretrievably perished, and subsequent ages owe a deep debt to his honest, if somewhat confused, and at times not a little prejudiced, erudition. Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature Some hundred works, several of them very lengthy, are either directly cited or referred to as having been read by Eusebius. In many instances he would read an entire treatise for the sake of one or two historical notices, and must have searched many others without finding anything to serve his purpose. Under the head the most vital question is the sincerity of Eusebius. Did he tamper with the materials or not? The sarcasm of Gibbon (Decline and Fall, c. xvi) is well known...The passages to which Gibbon refers do not bear out his imputation...Eusebius contents himself with condemning these sins...in general terms, without entering into details...but it leaves no imputation on his honesty. Mosheim, again in an editorial note. Eusebius was an impartial historian, and had access to the best helps for composing a correct history which his age afforded. Mosheim Of the patristic witnesses to the text of the New Testament as it stood in the Greek Manuscripts from about 300-340 A.D., none is so important as Eusebius of Caesurae, for he lived in the greatest Christian Library of that age, that namely which Origen and Pamphilus had collected. It is no exaggeration to say from this single collection of manuscripts at Caesurae derives the larger part of the surviving ante-Nicene literature. In his Library, Eusebius must have habitually handled codices of the gospels older by two hundred years than the earliest of the great uncials that we have now in our libraries. F.C. Conybeare, in the Hibbert Journal, October 1902. Considering the honesty, ability and opportunity of Eusebius as a witness to the ―New Testament‖ text, let us now move on to the his evidence concerning Matthew 28. The Evidence of Eusebius According to Ludwig Knupfer, the editor of the Christadelphian Monatshefte, Eusebius, among his many other writings compiled a file of corrupted variations of the Holy Scriptures, and: …the most serious of all the falsifications denounced by him, is without doubt the traditional reading of Matthew 28:19. His source material has been lost, as he later wrote: …through events of war I have lost all of my files and other materials connected with the magazine. But various authorities mention a work entitled Discrepancies in the Gospels, and another work entitled The Concluding Sections of the Gospels. According to Conybeare: Eusebius cites this text (Matt. 28:19) again and again in works written between 300 and 336, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany ...in his famous history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew 28:19, and always in the following form: „Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in My name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.‟ Ploughman‘s research uncovered all of these quotations except for one, which is in a catena published by Mai in a German magazine, the Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, edited by Dr. Erwin Preuschen in Darmstadt in 1901. Eusebius was not content merely to cite the verse in this form, but he more than once commented on it in such a way as to show how much he confirmed the wording “in my name”. Thus, in his Demonstratio Evangelica he wrote the following: For he did not enjoin them “to make disciples of all the nations” simply and without qualification, but with the essential addition “in his name”. For so great was the virtue attaching to his appellation that the Apostle says, "God bestowed on him the name above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth." It was right therefore that he should emphasize the virtue of the power residing in his name but hidden from the many, and therefore say to his Apostles, "Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations in my name.‟ (col. 240, p. 136)

q

Conybeare proceeded, in Hibbert Journal, 1902: It is evident that this was the text found by Eusebius in the very ancient codices collected fifty to a hundred and fifty years before his birth by his great predecessors. Of any other form of text he had never heard and knew nothing until he had visited Constantinople and attended the Council of Nice. Then in two controversial works written in his extreme old age, and entitled, the one „Against Marcellus of Ancyra,‟ and the other „About the Theology of the Church,‟ he used the common reading. One other writing of his also contains it, namely a letter written after the Council of Nice was over, to his seer of Caesurae. In his Textual Criticism of the New Testament Conybeare wrote: It is clear therefore, that of the manuscripts which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesurae in Palestine, some at least preserved the original reading, in which there was no mention either of baptism or of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. It has been conjectured by Dr. David-son, Dr. Martineau, by the Dean of Westminster, and by Prof. Harnack (to mention but a few names of the many) that here the received text could not contain the very words of Jesus this long before anyone except Dr. Burgon, who kept the discovery to himself, had noticed the Eusebian form of the reading. Naturally an objection was raised by Dr. Chase, Bishop of Ely, who argued that Eusebius indeed found the traditional text in his manuscripts, but substituted the briefer wording in his works for fear of vulgarizing the ―sacred‖ Trinitarian wording. Interestingly, a modern Bishop revived the very argument used 150 years earlier, in support of the forged text of 1 John 5:7-8: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. According to Porson (in a preface to his Letters): Bengel...allowed that the words (The Three Witnesses) were in no genuine manuscripts...Surely then, the verse is spurious! No! This learned man finds a way of escape. „The passage was of so sublime and mysterious a nature that the secret discipline of the Church withdrew it from the public books, till it was gradually lost.‟ Under what a lack of evidence must a critic labor who resorts to such an argument!? Conybeare continued, refuting the argument of the Bishop of Ely: It is sufficient answer to point out that Eusebius‟ argument, when he cites the text, involves the text „in my name.‟ For, he asks, „in whose name?‟ and answers that it was the name spoken of by Paul in his Epistle to the Philippians 2:10. Finally, the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics states: The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 twenty-one times, either omitting everything between „nations‟ and „teaching,‟ or in the form „make disciples of all the nations in my name,‟ the latter form being the more frequent. Having considered the evidence of Eusebius, let us also consider some other early writers. Other Early Writings The anonymous author of De Rebaptismate in the third century so understood them, and dwells at length on „the power of the name of Jesus invoked upon a man by Baptism‟. (The Author of De Rebaptismate, from Smith‘s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. I, page 352.) In Origen‟s works, as preserved in the Greek, the first part of the verse is cited three times, but his citation always stops short at the words „the nations‟; and that in itself suggests that his text has been censored, and the words which followed, „in my name‟, struck out. – Conybeare In the pages of Clement of Alexandria a text somewhat similar to Matthew 28:19 is once cited, but from a Gnostic heretic named Theodotus, and not as from the canonical text, but as follows: „And to the Apostles he gives the command: Going around preach ye and baptize those who believe in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.‟" - Excerta cap. 76, ed. Sylb. page 287, quote from Conybeare.

r

Justin [Martyr]...quotes a saying of Christ...as a proof of the necessity or regeneration, but falls back upon the use of Isaiah and apostolic tradition to justify the practice of baptism and the use of the triune formula. This certainly suggests that Justin did not know the traditional text of Matthew 28:19. - Enc. of Religion and Ethics In Justin Martyr, who wrote between A.D. 130 and 140, there is a passage which has been regarded as a citation or echo of Matthew 28:19 by various scholars, e.g. Resch in his Ausser canonische Parallelstellen, who sees in it an abridgement of the ordinary text. The passage is in Justin‟s dialogue with Trypho 39, p. 258: „God hath not afflicted nor inflicts the judgment, as knowing of some that still even today are being made disciples in the name of his Christ, and are abandoning the path of error, who also do receive gifts each as they be worthy, being illuminated by the name of this Christ.‟ "The objection hitherto to these words being recognized as a citation our of text was that they ignored the formula „baptizing them in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.‟ But the discovery of the Eusebian form of text removes the difficulty: and Justin is seen to have had the same text as early as the year 140, which Eusebius regularly found in his manuscripts from 300 to 340. - Conybeare (Hibbert Journal) We may infer that the text was not quite fixed when Tertullian was writing, early in the third century. In the middle of that century Cyprian could insist on the use of the triple formula as essential in the baptism even of the orthodox. The pope Stephen answered him that the baptisms even of the heretics were valid, if the name of Jesus alone was invoked. (This decision did not prevent the popes of the seventh century from excommunicating the entire Celtic Church for its remaining faithful to the old use of invoking in Jesus name). In the last half of the fourth century, the text „in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost‟ was used as a battle cry by the orthodox against the adherents of Macedonius, who were called „pneumato-machi‟ or „fighters against the Holy Spirit‟, because they declined to include the Spirit in a Trinity of persons as co-equal, consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father and Son. They also stoutly denied that any text in the New Testament authorized such a coordination of the Spirit with the Father and Son. Whence we infer that their texts agreed with that of Eusebius. - Conybeare (Hibbert Journal) Exceptions are found which perhaps point to an old practice dying out. Cyprian (Ep. 73) and the „Apostolic Canons‟ (no. 50) combat the shorter formula, thereby attesting to its use in certain quarters. The ordinance of the Apostolic Canon therefore runs: „If any bishop or presbyter fulfill not three baptisms of one initiation, but one baptism which is given (as) into the death of the Lord, let him be deposed.‟ "This was the formula of the followers of Eunomius (Socr. 5:24), „for they baptized not into the Trinity, but into the death of Christ.‟ They accordingly used single immersion only. - Encyclopedia Biblia (Article on ―Baptism‖) There is one other witness whose testimony we must consider. He is Aphraates...who wrote between 337 and 345. He cites our text in a formal manner, as follows: „Make disciples of all the nations, and they shall believe in me‟. The last words appear to be a gloss on the Eusebian reading „in my name‟. But in any case, they preclude the textus receptus with its injunction to baptize in the triune name. Were the writing of Aphraates an isolated fact, we might regard it as a loose citation, but in the presence of the Eusebian and Justinian texts this is impossible. – Conybeare How the Manuscripts Were Changed The following quotations demonstrate how freely the scribes altered the manuscripts of the ―New Testament‖, in stark contrast to the scribes of the ―Old Testament‖ scriptures who copied the holy writings with reverence and strict accuracy. These quotations also show the early heretical beginning of Trine immersion at a time when the doctrine of the Trinity was being formulated, and how the ―New Testament‖ writings were changed to conform to the syncretized practice. In the case just examined (Matt. 28:19), it is to be noticed that not a single manuscript or ancient version has preserved to us the true reading. But that is not surprising, for as Dr. C.R. Gregory, one of the greatest of our textual critics, reminds us: „The Greek Manuscripts of the text of the New Testament were often altered by scribes, who put into them the readings which were familiar to them, and which they held to be the right readings.‟ (Canon and Text of the N.T. 1907, pg. 424). “These facts speak for themselves. Our Greek texts, not only of the Gospels, but of the Epistles as well, have been revised and interpolated by orthodox copyists. We can trace their perversions of the text in a few cases, with the aid of patristic citations and ancient versions. But there must remain many passages which have been so corrected, but where we cannot today expose the fraud. It was necessary to emphasize this point, because Dr. Wescott and Hort used to aver that there is no evidence of merely doctrinal changed having been made in the text of the New Testament. This is just the opposite of the truth, and such distinguished scholars as Alfred Loisy, J. Wellhausen, Eberhard Nestle, Adolf Harnack, to mention only four names, do not scruple to recognize the fact.” While this is perfectly true, nevertheless, “there are a number of reasons why we can feel confident about the general reliability of our translations.” - Peter Watkins, in an excellent article ‗Bridging the Gap‘ in The Christadelphian, January, 1962, pp. 4-8. Codex B. (Vaticanus) would be the best of all existing manuscripts...if it were completely preserved, less damaged, (less) corrected, more easily legible, and not altered by a later hand in more than two thousand places. Eusebius therefore, is not without ground for accusing the adherents of Athanasius and of the newly arisen doctrine of the Trinity of falsifying the Bible more than once. - Fraternal Visitor 1924, page 148, translation from Christadelphian Monatshefte.

s

We certainly know of a greater number of interpolations and corruptions brought into the Scriptures...by the Athanasians, and relating to the Doctrine of the Trinity, than in any other case whatsoever. While we have not, that I know of, any such interpolation or corruption, made in any one of them by either the Eusebians or Arians. Whiston - in Second Letter to the Bishop of London, 1719, p. 15. While trine immersion was thus an all but universal practice, Eunomius (circa 360) appears to have been the first to introduce (again) simple immersion „unto the death of Christ.‟ This practice was condemned on pain of degradation, by the Canon Apostolic 46 (al 50). But it comes before us again about a century later in Spain; but then, curiously enough, we find it regarded as a badge of orthodoxy in opposition to the practice of the Arians. These last kept to the use of trine immersion, but in such a way as to set forth their own doctrine of a gradation in the three Persons. Smith‘s Dictionary of Christian Antiquities (Article on Baptism) In the „Two Ways‟ of the Didache, the principal duties of the candidates for baptism and the method of administering it by triple immersion or infusion on the head are outlined. This triple immersion is also attested to by Tertullian (Adverses Prax 26)...The most elaborate form of the rite in modern Western usage is in the Roman Catholic Church. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church - pp. 125-126 The threefold immersion is unquestionably very ancient in the Church...Its object, of course, to honor the three Persons of the Holy Trinity in whose name it is conferred. Catholic Encyclopedia - page 262 If it be thought, as many critics think, that no manuscript represents more than comparatively late recensions of the text, it is necessary to set against the mass of manuscript evidence the influence of baptismal practice. It seems easier to believe that the traditional text was brought about by this influence working on the „Eusebian‟ text, than that the latter arose out of the former in spite of it. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics - Article on ―Baptism‖ The exclusive survival (of the traditional text of Matt. 28:19) in all manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, need not cause surprise...But in any case, the conversion of Eusebius to the longer text after the council of Nice indicates that it was at that time being introduced as a Shibboleth of orthodoxy into all codices...The question of the inclusion of the Holy Spirit on equal terms in the Trinity had been threshed out, and a text so invaluable to the dominant party could not but make its way into every codex, irrespective of its textual affinities. Conybeare - In the Hibbert Journal Athanasius...met Flavian, the author of the Doxology, which has since been universal in Christendom: „Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, etc.‟ This was composed in opposition to the Arian Doxology: „Glory to the Father, by the Son, in the Holy Spirit‟. Robert Roberts, in ―Good Company‖ (Vol. iii, page 49) Whiston, in Second Letter Concerning the Primitive Doxologies, 1719, page 17, wrote: The Eusebians...sometimes named the very time when, the place where, and the person by whom they (the forms of doxology) were first introduced...Thus Philoflorgius, a writer of that very age, assures us in „Photius‟ Extracts‟ that in A.D. 348 or thereabouts, Flavianus, Patriarch of Antioch, got a multitude of monks together, and did there first use this public doxology, „Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit‟. And regarding the alteration of scripture based on liturgical use, Hammond, in ―Textual Criticism Applied to the N.T.‖ (1890) page 23 wrote: There are two or three insertions in the New Testament which have been supposed to have their origin in ecclesiastical usage. The words in question, being familiarly known in a particular connection, were perhaps noted in the margin of some copy, and thence became incorporated by the next transcriber; or a transcriber‟s own familiarity with the words may have led to his inserting them. This is the source to which Dr. Tregelles assigns the insertion of the doxology at the close of the Lord‟s Prayer in Matthew 6, which is lacking in most of the best authorities. Perhaps also Acts 8:37, containing the baptismal profession of faith, which is entirely lacking in the best authorities, found its way into the Latin text in this manner. Considering the evidence of the manuscripts, the versions and now the early writings, you should by now have come to conclusion that in the early centuries some copies of Matthew did not contain the modern Triune wording. Regardless of the opinions or positions taken by our commentators, we must at the very least admit that fact. In legal practice where copies of an original lost document vary, the ―Internal Evidence‖ is used to resolve the discrepancy. That is, a comparison of the undisputed text with text in question, in order to determine which of the variant wordings is more likely to be the original. With both variants in mind, we will now turn to the scriptures themselves for our internal evidence. Internal Evidence

t

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21) In this verse, the Greek word translated as ―prove‖ is dokimazo, and it means, “to test, examine, prove, scrutinize (to see whether a thing is genuine or not), to recognize as genuine after examination, to approve, deem worthy.” In our efforts to determine which reading of Matthew 28:19 is original, we will submit both renderings to ten ―tests‖. In doing so, we will be able to recognize the genuine, and expose the spurious. 1. The Test of Context When examining the context, we find that today‘s Trinitarian wording lacks logical syntax, that is, the true understanding of the verse is obscured by a failure of the varying concepts to harmonize. If however, we read as follows, the whole context fits together and the progression of the instructions is comprehensible: All power is given unto me...go therefore...make disciples in my name, teaching them...whatsoever I have commanded ...I am with you... (Matthew 28:18-20) 2. The Test of Frequency Is the phrase ―in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit‖ used elsewhere in the scripture? Not once. Did Jesus use the phrase “in my name” on other occasions? Yes, 17 times to be exact, examples are found in Matt. 18:20; Mark 9:37,39 and 41; Mark 16:17; John 14:14 and 26; John 15:16 and 16:23. 3. The Test of Doctrine Is any doctrine or concept of scripture based on an understanding of a threefold name, or of baptism in the threefold name? None whatsoever. Is any statement in scripture based on the fact of baptism in the name of Jesus? Yes! This is clarified in 1 Corinthians 1:13: “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” These words, when carefully analyzed, suggest that believers should to be baptized in the name of the One who was crucified for them. The Father, in His unfathomable love, gave us His only Son to die in our stead, He being later raised to incorruptibility by the Spirit of God. But it is the Lord Jesus Himself who was crucified, and therefore in His name believers must be baptized in water. According to Dr. Thomas, in Revealed Mystery Article XLIV: There is but one way for a believer of „the things concerning the Kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ‟ to put Him on, or to be invested with His name, and that is, by immersion into His name. Baptism is for this specific purpose." "As for it‟s significance, baptism is linked inseparably with the death of Christ. It is the means of the believer‟s identification with the Lord‟s death. - God‘s Way, pg. 190. The Father did not die, nor the Holy Spirit. As the scripture says, “buried with Him (Jesus) in baptism,” not with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Romans 6:3-5) R. Roberts used this explanation in ―The Nature of Baptism‖, page 13): According to trine immersion, it is not sufficient to be baptized into the Son. Thus Christ is displaced from His position as the connecting link, the door of entrance, the „new and living way.‟ And thus there are three names under heaven whereby we must be saved, in opposition to the apostolic declaration, that „there is none other name (than the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth) under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.‟ (Acts 4:12). This, of course, is the same reasoning offered by Paul. Were ye baptized in the name of Paul? Or in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or in any other name that replaces Christ from His position as the sacrificial Lamb and the only name given to us for salvation? Based on the above understanding alone, we can ascertain the genuine text of Matthew 28:19 confirming the use of the phrase, “in my name.” 4. The Test of Analogy Does any other scripture make reference to baptism in the Triune name? No. Does any other scripture reference baptism in the name of Jesus? Yes! The Father baptized the disciples with the gift of the Holy Spirit, a promise that came according to Jesus “in His name.” (John 14:26) This is because Jesus is the ―common denominator‖ [Literally: Name] in both water baptism and baptism of the Holy Spirit, as made apparent by the following scriptures:

u

John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (See also John 7:39). Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Notice that they were baptized as a result of the preaching of the name of Jesus Christ, not the titles ―Father, Son and Holy Ghost.‖ By analogy, we should therefore be baptized in Jesus‘ name, because the invoking of His Name is the catalyst of understanding that prepares us for the baptism of the Spirit, which is also given in His name. (Acts 2:38-39, 19:1-5, John 3:3-5) 5. The Test of Consequence When we are baptized, do we ―put on‖ the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? No. Do we put on the name of Jesus? Yes. When we are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, according to all baptismal accounts recorded in scripture, we are quite literally being baptized ―into‖ the name of Jesus Christ. Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. No mention is made in scripture of any baptism being related to the titles of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Every actual account mentions a clear connection with the person of Christ, and His atoning sacrifice. 6. The Test of Practice Did the disciples, as they were implementing the ―Great Commission‖ ever once baptize into the Trinity? Never! Did they baptize in the name of Jesus? Always! (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48 (inferred); 19:5, etc.) The argument has been made when defending Triune immersion; ―I would rather obey Jesus, than to imitate the Apostles.‖ This kind of reasoning though, places the Apostles in rebellion, and makes all Apostolic baptisms contrary to the word of God. If all of God‘s Word was inspired, and it was, then we should not try to pit one verse against another, but rather seek to reconcile all of God‘s Word in proper context, and rightly apply it to our lives. It is easier to believe that the disciples followed the final instructions of Christ, than to believe that they immediately disobeyed His command. 7. The Test of Significance What significance is mentioned in scripture for baptizing believers in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? None. What significance is conveyed toward being baptized in the name of Jesus? First, scripture teaches that baptism in the name of Jesus is an act of repentance leading to the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). Second, baptism in His name alone is associated with the promise of God‘s Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38, 19:1-5). Third, baptism in the name of Jesus is compared to our personal willingness to be living sacrifices or even die with Christ. (Romans 6:1-4 and Colossians 2:12). Fourth, being baptized into Christ is how we ‗put on‘ Christ (Galatians 3:27). Fifth, baptism in His name is called the ―circumcision of Christ,‖ and reflects our ―putting off‖ of the man of sin, therefore becoming a ―new creature in Christ Jesus.‖ (Colossians 2:11-12, 2 Corinthians 5:17). Baptism in the name of Jesus expresses faith in the physical life of Jesus, the crucifixion of the Son of God for our sins, and the remission of sins through His name. Trinitarian baptism can only express faith in Catholic theology itself. 8. The Test of Parallel Accounts Matthew 28 is not the sole record in the gospels of the ―Great Commission‖ of the Church. Luke also recorded this event in great detail. In Luke 24:46-47, he wrote of Jesus speaking in the third person: “And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations.” This passage alone, in contradiction to the falsified text, establishes the correct wording of Matthew 28:19, where Jesus spoke in the first person, “in my name.” Further, the Gospel of Mark also records another version of the ―Great Commission,‖ using some of the same patterns of speech: “Go ye...all the world...preach the gospel...every creature ...baptized...in my name...” (Mark 16:15-18) Of course, it is not baptism that ―in my name‖ refers to here, but rather the works that the disciples would do. Yet compared to Matthew, the similarity is striking, for neither is baptism explicitly mentioned there, but that disciples should be made, “in my name.” 9. The Test of Complimentary Citation While there is no text that offers a complimentary citation of Trinitarian baptism, there is a striking resemblance between the actual wording of Matthew 28:18-20 and Romans 1:4-5. Matthew contains the Commission of Christ to His Apostles, while the Romans account is Paul‘s acceptance of his own commission as an apostle. Consider the following similarities:

v

Matthew 28:18-20........................................Romans 1:4-5 “all power is given unto Me”........................“the Son of God with power” ―Go ye‖ ....................................................... “received...apostleship” “teaching them to observe”...........................“for obedience to the faith” “all nations”..................................................“all nations” “in My name”................................................“for His name” 10. The Test of Principle It is written: "whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus...‖ (Colossians 3:17). In this principle laid down by Paul, the implication is clear. The word “whatsoever” would of certain necessity include baptism, which is a command involving both word and deed. The traditional wording of Matthew, containing the Trinitarian wording, is clearly not in accordance with the above principle. The shorter wording, without the falsified insertion, follows this principle. This establishes which of the two wordings is the contradictory one. God‘s Word does not contradict itself; rather it compliments and completes itself. Paul not only expressed this principle, but he applied it specifically to the topic of baptism. In Acts 19:1-6 there is an account concerning the disciples of John who had been baptized under his ministry. Like baptism in Jesus‘ name, John‘s baptism was one of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4, Acts 2:38). John message, which accompanied his baptism, was that One would come after him, who would “take away the sins of the world” and “baptize with the Holy Spirit.” Paul introduced these disciples to that One, and applied the above principle re-baptized them. “When they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came upon them…” And so, applying the test of principle to our two readings in Matthew 28:19, we find very strong support for the phrase “in My name.” Other Sources Sufficient evidence has been produced to enable the reader to decide whether or not the Trinitarian wording in Matthew 28:19 is genuine. The following quotations are presented by way of interest, and are not used in the arena of textual criticism thus far employed. The cumulative evidence of these three lines of criticism (Textual Criticism, Literary Criticism and Historical Criticism) is thus distinctly against the view that Matt. 28:19 (in the traditional form) represents the exact words of Christ. - Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Article: Baptism: Early Christian. The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost‟ we should probably read simply, „into my name‟. Dr. Peake Bible Commentary, page 723 There is the “triune” baptismal formula, which may prove a very broken reed when thoroughly investigated, but...we leave it for separate treatment. The thoughtful may well ponder, meantime, why one cannot find one single instance, in Acts or Epistles, of the words ever being used at any of the main baptisms recorded, notwithstanding Christ‟s (seemingly) explicit command at the end of Matthew‟s Gospel. F. Whiteley in The Testimony (Oct. 1959, pg. 351. ―Back to Babylon‖) The command to baptize in Matt. 28:19 is thought to show the influence of a developed doctrine of God verging on Trinitarianism. Early baptism was in the name of Christ. The association of this Trinitarian conception with baptism suggests that baptism itself was felt to be an experience with a Trinitarian reference. Williams R.R. - Theological Workbook of the Bible, page 29 Doubtless the more comprehensive form in which baptism is now everywhere administered in the threefold name...soon superseded the simpler form of that in the name of the Lord Jesus only. Dean Stanley - ―Christian Institutions‖ The striking contrast and the illogical internal incoherence of the passage...lead to a presumption of an intentional corruption in the interests of the Trinity. In ancient Christian times a tendency of certain parties to corrupt the text of the New Testament was certainly often imputed. This increases our doubt almost to a decisive certainty concerning the genuineness of the passage. E.K. in the Fraternal Visitor - Article: ―The Question of the Trinity and Matt. 28:19.‖ 1924, pg. 147-151, from Christadelphian Monatshefte. In his Literal Translation of the Bible, Dr. Robert Young placed the Trinitarian ―names‖ of Matthew 28:19 in parentheses, thus indicating the words to be of doubtful authenticity.

w

The very account which tells us that at last, after His resurrection, He commissioned His disciples to go and baptize among all nations, betrays itself by speaking in the Trinitarian language of the next century, and compels us to see in it the ecclesiastical editor, and not the evangelist, much less the Founder Himself. The Trinitarian formula (Matt. 28:19) was a late addition by some reverent Christian mind. James Martineau - Black‘s Bible Dictionary, article ―Seat of Authority‖, The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and that the triune formula is a later addition. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics Professor Harnack dismissed the text almost contemptuously as being “no word of the Lord‟.” Professor Harnack – History of Dogma (German Edition) Clerical conscience much troubled (see Comp. Bible App. 185) that the apostles and epistles never once employ the triune name of Matt. 28:19. Even Trinitarians, knowing the idea of the Trinity was being resisted by the Church in the fourth century, admits (e.g. Peake) „the command to baptize with the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion‟, but still prior to our oldest yet known manuscripts (Fourth Century). It‟s sole counterpart, 1 John 5:7 is a proven interpolation. Eusebius (A.D. 264-340) denounces the triune form as spurious, Matthew‟s actual writing having been baptizing them „in my name‟. F. Whiteley in The Testimony footnotes to Article: Baptism, 1958. Should we correct the text of Matthew 28:19? We could not find a more serious divinely appointed symbolism in the entire Bible. The symbolic value of baptism in Matthew 28:19 could not be of less concern to God than that of the Ark of the Covenant was in ancient Israel. Uzzah died when he touched it, and few would conclude that his motives were anything but commendable! Every symbolic action required by God is associated with actual cause and effect. Consider the following cause-and-effect examples. When Joshua pointed his spear there was victory (Joshua 8:18) Only three victories were given to Joash when he struck the ground only three times (2 Kings 13:19-25) The Passover Lamb had to be without blemish (even as was Christ), if a household was to be protected from the Death Angel (Exodus 12:5). None of God‘s rituals are without true meaning and consequences. When God speaks, it is done! Christ called Lazarus, and Lazarus arose! In matters of ritual, such as Baptism and the Passover, we are dealing with God‘s rituals, not man‘s. All man-made rituals, no matter how well intentioned, when they deviate from the Word of God, are nothing more than unprofitable traditions that “making the Word of God of no effect” (Mark 7:13). Obedience to God‘s commands, however, will always ―cause‖ a desirable ―effect‖. In the matter of establishing the original text of Matthew 28:19, it is indeed important to determine what is genuine, and what is spurious, in order to properly obey God's command. After all, that is the essence of our introductory text from Deuteronomy 4:2, “You shall not add...nor take from...that you may keep the commandments.” When we are obedient to the true command of our Lord, we can expect an eternal effect. Believers were taught to anoint the sick “with oil in the name of the Lord.” (James 5:14) The result would be “that you may be healed”. When two or three gather together ―in His name”, the result is that He is there in the midst of them. As our evidence reveals, Jesus commanded us to go and make disciples ―in His name”. As a result, He would be with them “always, even to the end of the age.” Anything we do “in His name” directly involves Him. It is no wonder that Paul so clearly charged those believers in Colosse: ―Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by Him!‖ Addendum 1. The Light is Dawning In 1960, The British and Foreign Bible Society published a Greek Testament, and the alternative rendering for Matthew 28:19 was phrased ―en to onomati mou‖ (―in my name‖). Eusebius was cited as the authority. The Jerusalem Bible, of 1966, a Roman Catholic production, has this footnote for Matthew 28:19: It may be that this formula...is a reflection of the liturgical usage established later in the primitive community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing in the name of Jesus. 2. But Matthew 28:19 and Luke 24:47 Say Nothing of Baptism!

x

This is true. They refer only of “making disciples of all nations” and “repentance and remission of sins.” However, once we have established that the original text of Matthew 28:19 simply says ―in my name,‖ we have essentially eliminated all support for baptizing ―in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost!‖ Because of this far reaching implication, we were forced to examine the internal evidence regarding baptism, in order to find any other possible support for the traditional reading, because the Trinitarian doctrinal concept that was added to Matthew 28:19 is connected with baptism. Though baptism is not specifically mentioned in Matthew 28:19 or Luke 24:47, it is inferred by the following two points: 1. In Matthew, the command is to ―make disciples in my name.‖ To ―make a disciple‖ of necessity includes baptism in the conversion process (Mark 16:15-16, John 3:3-5), and the entire process is under the umbrella of the specification to do so ―in His name.‖ 2. In Luke, “repentance and remission of sins” would be preached ―in His name.‖ By the testimony of other scriptures (Luke 3:3, Acts 2:38), it is clear that remission of sins comes through baptism, preceded by repentance. Both of these are to be preached ―in His name.‖ 3. The Evidence of Eusebius Jerome was born A.D. 331 and died in 420. He wrote many exegetical and controversial treatises and letters, as well as the renowned Latin Vulgate translation of the Scriptures.) He made an interesting statement which is is as follows (from the Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers): Matthew, who is also Levi...composed a gospel...in the Hebrew language and characters...Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesurae which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. Now Eusebius of Caesurae (260-340 A.D.) inherited from that Pamphilus (who died in A.D. 310) that famous Library, a library that was commenced by Origen (185-254 A.D.). The wording of that statement by Jerome apparently meant that the original Manuscript of Matthew was still to be seen in the Library at Caesurae. It could have meant that an early copy of Matthew‘s Hebrew writing was there, but the phraseology of Jerome appeared to indicate that it was the actual Manuscript written by Matthew himself. 4. The Mental Reservations of Eusebius On page 14, of the above reference, mention is made of the fact that after the Council of Nicaea Eusebius three times used the triune name-phrase in writing. The following three extracts shed light on this strange affair: 1. At the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) Eusebius took a leading part...He occupied the first seat to the emperor‟s right, and delivered the opening address to Constantine when he took his seat in the council chamber...Eusebius himself has left us an account of his doings with regard to the main object of the council in a letter of explanation to his church at Caesurae...This letter...is written to the Caesareans to explain that he would resist to the last any vital change in the traditional creed of his church, but had subscribed to these alterations, when assured of their innocence, to avoid appearing contentious. Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature; Eusebius 2. Our concern here is only with Nicaea as it affected Eusebius...his own account of the matter is transmitted to us...in the letter he addressed to his diocese an explanation of his actions at the Council, for with some misgiving he had signed the document bearing the revised text of the creed he had presented...But being satisfied that the creed did not imply the opposite Sabellian pitfall ...he signed the document. Wallace Hadrill, in ‗Eusebius of Caesurae,‘ (1960) 3. The Nicene Council followed, in the summer of A.D. 325. Eusebius, of course, attended and was profoundly impressed by the sight of that majestic gathering...He occupied a distinguished position in the Council; he was its spokesman in welcoming the Emperor...On the next day, as if yielding to those representations, and moved by the express opinion of Constantine, he signed the Creed, and even accepted the anathematism appended to it; but did so, as we gather from his own statement, by dint of evasive glosses which he certainly could not have announced at that time. While then he verbally capitulated in the doctrinal decisions of the Nicene Council...he did so reluctantly, under pressure, and in senses of his own...He knew that he would be thought to have compromised his convictions, and therefore wrote his account of the transaction to the people of his diocese, and, as Athanasius expresses it „excluded himself in his own way‟. William Bright in his Preface to Burton‘s „Text of Eusebius Ecclesiastical History‟ 5. Second Century Mutilations of the Sacred Text In the book, mention is made of the fact that textual critics have been able to reproduce the Sacred Text substantially correct as it existed in the second or third century. As was pointed out on page 7, ―there is every reason to believe that the grossest errors that have ever deformed the text had entered in already in the second century...If our touchstone only reveals to us texts that are ancient, we cannot hope to obtain for our result anything but an ancient text. What we wish however, is not merely an ancient, but the true text.‖ The following three excerpts are interesting and illustrate that pronouncement:

y

1. The Introduction contains the following: "It may be accepted with confidence that we have at command the New Testament substantially as the writings contained in it would be read within a century of their composition. The Authentic New Testament was translated by Dr. Hugh J. Schonfield, published in 1962. It is in that century, as has been pointed out, that the ―very grossest textual errors‖ deformed the Sacred Text. 2. The S.P.E.C. commenting on Matthew 28:19 stated: One would expect this name to be that of Jesus and it is surprising to find the text continuing with „the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost,‟ which are no names at all. The suspicion that this is not what Matthew originally wrote naturally arises. In „Father, Son and Holy Ghost‟ we have the Trinitarian formula...which was associated with Christian Baptism in the second century, as evidenced in the Didache, chapter seven. The S.P.C.K. published in 1964, Volume One, of the Clarified New Testament. 3. F.C. Kenyon, in The Text of the Greek Bible, pages 241-242 said: At the first each book had its single original text, which it is now the object of criticism to recover, but in the first two centuries this original Greek text disappeared under a mass of variants, created by errors, by conscious alterations, and by attempts to remedy the uncertainties thus created." 6. The Source of the Error The earliest reference to the Trinitarian doctrinal insertion is found in the Didache. The Didache is a collection of fragments of writings from five or more documents. They were originally written, it is thought, between A.D. 80 and 160. Although we now have only 99 verses, those verses contain the seeds of many false teachings that developed into the Papal Superstitions. The seeds of Indulgences, the Mass, the Confessional, the substitution of sprinkling for immersion and other gross errors are to be found in that disreputable pseudo-Christian document. (Refs: IV1, IX2-4, X2-6, XIII3, XIV1 and IV6.) In the Didache, among all the above mentioned apostate beliefs, is found the Trinitarian phrase that later wormed its way into the text of Matthew 28:19, displacing the authentic words of Christ. Here, then, is the source of the erroneous written teaching reflecting the practice of apostate ―Christians‖ in the second century. 7. Should you be Re-Baptized? After restoring the text of Matthew 28:19 to its original form, i.e., ―Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations in my name,‖ the following question naturally arises: ―I was baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Since this is not Biblical, should I be re-baptized?‖ Rather than answer according to our own wisdom or bias, let us find the answer to this important question in the Word of God itself, for that alone is the true standard against which to measure our experience with the Lord. Turning to Acts we find the answer. Acts19:1-6 And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?” So they said, “Into John's baptism.” Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. By reading the above narrative, it is easy to discover the answer to our question. Paul found disciples, who like most of us today, had heard the message of the Kingdom of God, and had responded to that message by being baptized following our repentance. However, in this situation, these "disciples" had yet to hear the full gospel message, namely that Jesus, in His death, burial and resurrection had purchased salvation for all mankind by becoming the very Lamb of God that John had preached about. Because of this, their baptism, under the ministry and authority of John (who preceded Christ) did not reflect an association with the death and burial of Jesus that made baptism in His name effective. While we responded to the complete gospel message, they affirmed their belief by a baptism that only associated them with a doctrinal creed, rather than the atoning blood of Jesus that is only appropriated through His name. For Paul, the next step was obvious. Knowing that the promise of the Holy Spirit was given to those who through the obedience of faith had repented of their sins, and been baptized in the name of Jesus, he instructed them to be re-baptized: Acts 4:12…for there is no other name under heaven, given among men by which we must be saved.

z

Was Paul mistaken? Or have we been? Certainly Paul was not, for according to God‘s promise, He laid hands on the people and they received the Holy Spirit only moments after being baptized in His name. Remember, baptism in the name of Jesus expresses faith in the Incarnation, the authentic human life of Jesus, the death of the Son of God on the stake for our sins, and the remission of sins through His name. In summary, using the name of Jesus in the baptismal formula expresses faith in: 1. The Person of Christ (who He really is); 2. The Work of Christ (His death, burial and resurrection for us); and 3. The Power and Authority of Christ (His ability to save us by Himself). For these very reasons, baptism was then, and should continue now to be administered in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. His Word, not the tradition and fabrications of men, should be the standard which we teach, believe and obey. As the opening scripture so aptly admonishes us: Deuteronomy 4:2 You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. It is extremely disconcerting to me that this glaringly problematic ―scriptural‖ assertion has been blindly accepted for centuries. On the day that I was baptized by a WCG minister back in 1973, I had serious reservations about the procedure as I watched those being baptized ahead of me, among a sizeable group of people, into the Trinity. I had not been able to confirm my suspicions about this scripture at that time, but I was bothered by this contradictory practice for 28 years before taking the appropriate action. I am indebted to Ploughman, now deceased, for his scholarly effort. He made a life long study of Matthew 28:19! He was quite passionate about exposing the fraud of early scribes. Were you baptized into apostasy?

Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 263 – c. 339[1]) (often called Eusebius Pamphili, "Eusebius [the friend] of Pamphilus") became the bishop of Caesarea Palaestina, the capital of Iudaea province, c 314.[1] He is often referred to as the Father of Church History because of his work in recording the history of the early Christian church, especially Chronicle and Ecclesiastical History His date and place of birth are unknown and little is known of his youth, however it is estimated that he was born in 265 [2]. He became acquainted with the presbyter Dorotheus in Antioch and probably received exegetical instruction from him. In 296 he was in Palestine and saw Constantine who visited the country with Diocletian. He was in Caesarea when Agapius was bishop and became friendly with Pamphilus of Caesarea, with whom he seems to have studied the text of the Bible, with the aid of Origen's Hexapla and commentaries collected by Pamphilus, in an attempt to prepare a correct version. In 307, Pamphilus was imprisoned, but Eusebius continued their project. The resulting defence of Origen, in which they had collaborated, was finished by Eusebius after the death of Pamphilus and sent to the martyrs in the mines of Phaeno located in modern Jordan. Eusebius then seems to have gone to Tyre and later to Egypt, where he first suffered persecution. Eusebius is next heard of as bishop of Caesarea Maritima. He succeeded Agapius, whose time of office is not certain, but Eusebius must have become bishop soon after 313. Nothing is known about the early years of his tenure. When the Council of Nicaea met in 325, Eusebius was prominent in its transactions. He was not naturally a spiritual leader or theologian, but as a very learned man and a famous author who enjoyed the special favour of the emperor, he came to the fore among the members of the council (traditionally given as 318 attendees). He presented the creed of his own church to the council for its approval. This creed was "a sweet-sounding confession, dating from before the controversy, and was, therefore, wholly indefinite as to the particular problems involved."[3] It was rejected in favor of a more specifically anti-Arian creed from Palestine which became the basis of the council's major theological statement, the Nicene Creed.[4] Eusebius was involved in the further development of the Arian controversies. For instance he was involved in the dispute with Eustathius of Antioch who opposed the growing influence of Origen, including his practice of an allegorical exegesis of scripture. Eustathius perceived in Origen's theology the roots of Arianism. Eusebius was an admirer of Origen and was reproached by Eustathius for deviating from the Nicene faith—he was even alleged to hold to Sabellianism. Eustathius was accused, condemned, and deposed at a synod in Antioch. Part of the population of Antioch rebelled against this action, and the anti-Eustathians proposed Eusebius as its new bishop—he declined. After Eustathius had been removed, Athanasius of Alexandria, a more powerful opponent, was attacked by the anti-Nicene party headed by Eusebius of Nicomedia (not to be confused with Eusebius of Caesarea). In 334, Athanasius was summoned before a synod in Caesarea; he did not attend. In the following year, he was again summoned before a synod in Tyre at which Eusebius of Caesarea presided. Athanasius, foreseeing the result, went to Constantinople to bring his cause before the emperor. Constantine called the bishops to his court, among them Eusebius. Athanasius was condemned and exiled at the end of 335. At the same synod, another

aa

opponent was successfully attacked: Marcellus of Ancyra had long opposed the ant-Nicene party and had protested against the reinstitution of Arius. He was accused of Sabellianism and deposed in 336. Constantine died the next year, and Eusebius did not long survive him. Eusebius' date of death is unknown. It is estimated that he died between 337 and 340 after the death of Constantine Of the extensive literary activity of Eusebius, a relatively large portion has been preserved. Although posterity suspected him of Arianism, Eusebius had made himself indispensable by his method of authorship; his comprehensive and careful excerpts from original sources saved his successors the painstaking labor of original research. Hence, much has been preserved, quoted by Eusebius, which otherwise would have been destroyed. The literary productions of Eusebius reflect on the whole the course of his life. At first, he occupied himself with works on Biblical criticism under the influence of Pamphilus and probably of Dorotheus of Tyre of the School of Antioch. Afterward, the persecutions under Diocletian and Galerius directed his attention to the martyrs of his own time and the past, and this led him to the history of the whole Church and finally to the history of the world, which, to him, was only a preparation for ecclesiastical history. Then followed the time of the Arian controversies, and dogmatic questions came into the foreground. Christianity at last found recognition by the State; and this brought new problems—apologies of a different sort had to be prepared. Lastly, Eusebius wrote eulogies in praise of Constantine. To all this activity must be added numerous writings of a miscellaneous nature, addresses, letters, and the like, and exegetical works that extended over the whole of his life and that include both commentaries and treatises on Biblical archaeology. Pamphilus and Eusebius occupied themselves with the textual criticism of the Septuagint text of the Old Testament and especially of the New Testament. An edition of the Septuagint seems to have been already prepared by Origen, which, according to Jerome, was revised and circulated by Eusebius and Pamphilus. For an easier survey of the material of the four Evangelists, Eusebius divided his edition of the New Testament into paragraphs and provided it with a synoptical table so that it might be easier to find the pericopes that belong together. These canon tables or "Eusebian canons" remained in use throughout the Middle Ages, and illuminated manuscript versions are important for the study of early medieval art. Eusebius explained detailed in Epistula ad Carpianum how to use his canons. In his Church History or Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius wrote what was in fact the second attempted history (the doctor Luke who wrote the Gospel and Acts is first) of the Christian Church, as a chronologically-ordered account, based on earlier sources, and complete from the period of the Apostles to his own epoch. He also wrote that Matthew composed the Gospel according to the Hebrews. The time scheme correlated the history with the reigns of the Roman Emperors, and the scope was broad. Included were the bishops and other teachers of the Church; Christian relations with the Jews and those deemed heretical; and the Christian martyrs. Estimate of Eusebius Doctrine From a dogmatic point of view, Eusebius stands entirely upon the shoulders of Origen. Like Origen, he started from the fundamental thought of the absolute sovereignty (monarchia) of God. God is the cause of all beings. But he is not merely a cause; in him everything good is included, from him all life originates, and he is the source of all virtue. God sent Christ into the world that it may partake of the blessings included in the essence of God. Christ is God and is a ray of the eternal light; but the figure of the ray is so limited by Eusebius that he expressly emphasizes the self-existence of Jesus. Eusebius was intent upon emphasizing the difference of the persona of the Trinity and maintaining the subordination of the Son (Logos, or Word) to God (he never calls him theos) because in all contrary attempts he suspected polytheism or Sabellianism. The Son (Jesus), as Arianism asserted, is a creature of God whose generation, for Eusebius, took place before time. Jesus acts as the organ or instrument of God, the creator of life, the principle of every revelation of God, who in his absoluteness and transcendent is enthroned above and isolated from all the world. This Logos, as a derivative creature and not truly God as the Father is truly God, could therefore change (Eusebius, with most early theologians, assumed God was immutable), and he assumed a human body without altering the immutable divine Father. The relation of the Holy Spirit within the Trinity Eusebius explained similarly to that of the Son to the Father. No point of this doctrine is original with Eusebius, all is traceable to his teacher Origen. The lack of originality in his thinking shows itself in the fact that he never presented his thoughts in a system. After nearly being excommunicated for his heresy by Alexander of Alexandria, Eusebius submitted and agreed to the Nicene Creed at the First Council of Nicaea. Caesar Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus[3] (27 February c. 272[2] – 22 May 337), commonly known in English as Constantine I, Constantine the Great, or (among Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic Christians) Saint Constantine (pronounced ˈ kɒ ɛ ɪ ), was Roman emperor from 306, and the sole holder of that office from 324 until his death in 337. Best known for being the first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine reversed the persecutions of his predecessor, Diocletian, and issued (with his co-emperor Licinius) the Edict of Milan in 313, which proclaimed religious toleration throughout the empire.

bb

The Byzantine liturgical calendar, observed by the Eastern Orthodox Church and Eastern Catholic Churches of Byzantine rite, lists both Constantine and his mother Helena as saints. Although he is not included in the Latin Church's list of saints, which does recognize several other Constantines as saints, he is revered under the title "The Great" for his contributions to Christianity. Constantine also transformed the ancient Greek colony of Byzantium into a new imperial residence, Constantinople, which would remain the capital of the Byzantine Empire for over one thousand years. Foundation of Constantinople Coin struck by Constantine I to commemorate the founding of Constantinople Licinius' defeat represented the passing of old Rome, and the beginning of the role of the Eastern Roman Empire as a center of learning, prosperity, and cultural preservation. Constantine rebuilt the city of Byzantium, which was renamed Constantinopolis ("Constantine's City" or Constantinople in English), and issued special commemorative coins in 330 to honor the event. The new city was protected by the relics of the True Cross, the Rod of Moses and other holy relics, though a cameo now at the Hermitage Museum also represented Constantine crowned by the tyche of the new city.[193] The figures of old gods were either replaced or assimilated into a framework of Christian symbolism. Constantine built the new Church of the Holy Apostles on the site of a temple to Aphrodite. Generations later there was the story that a Divine vision led Constantine to this spot, and an angel no one else could see, led him on a circuit of the new walls. The capital would often be compared to the 'old' Rome as Nova Roma Constantinopolitana, the "New Rome of Constantinople".[192][194] Religious policy Further information: Constantine I and Christianity and Constantine I and Judaism Constantine the Great, mosaic in Hagia Sophia, c. 1000 Constantine is perhaps best known for being the first Christian Roman emperor; his reign was certainly a turning point for the Christian Church. In 313 Constantine announced toleration of Christianity in the Edict of Milan, which removed penalties for professing Christianity (under which many had been martyred in previous persecutions of Christians) and returned confiscated Church property. Though a similar edict had been issued in 311 by Galerius, then senior emperor of the Tetrarchy, Galerius' edict granted Christians the right to practice their religion but did not restore any property to them. [195] Scholars debate whether Constantine adopted his mother St. Helena's Christianity in his youth, or whether he adopted it gradually over the course of his life.[196]. Constantine would retain the title of pontifex maximus until his death, a title emperors bore as heads of the pagan priesthood, as would his Christian successors on to Gratian (r. 375–83). According to Christian writers, Constantine was over 40 when he finally declared himself a Christian, writing to Christians to make clear that he believed he owed his successes to the protection of the Christian High God alone.[197] Throughout his rule, Constantine supported the Church financially, built basilicas, granted privileges to clergy (e.g. exemption from certain taxes), promoted Christians to high office, and returned property confiscated during the Diocletianic persecution.[198] His most famous building projects include the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and Old Saint Peter's Basilica. Constantine did not patronize Christianity alone, however. After gaining victory in the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, a triumphal arch—the Arch of Constantine—was built to celebrate; the arch is decorated with images of Victoria and sacrifices to gods like Apollo, Diana, or Hercules, but contains no Christian symbolism. In 321, Constantine instructed that Christians and non-Christians should be united in observing the "venerable day of the sun", referencing the esoteric eastern sun-worship which Aurelian had helped introduce, and his coinage still carried the symbols of the sun-cult until 324. Even after the pagan gods had disappeared from the coinage, Christian symbols appear only as Constantine's personal attributes: the chi rho between his hands or on his labarum, but never on the coin itself.[199] Even when Constantine dedicated the new capital of Constantinople, which became the seat of Byzantine Christianity for a millennium, he did so wearing the Apollonian sun-rayed Diadem. Constantine burning Arian books The reign of Constantine established a precedent for the position of the emperor in the Christian Church. Constantine himself disliked the risks to societal stability, that religious disputes and controversies brought with them, preferring where possible to establish an orthodoxy.[200] The emperor saw it as his duty to ensure that God was properly worshipped in his empire, and what proper worship consisted of was for the Church to determine.[201] In 316, Constantine acted as a judge in a North African dispute concerning the validity of Donatism. After deciding against the Donatists, Constantine led an army of Christians against the Donatist Christians. After 300 years of pacifism, this was the first intra-Christian persecution. More significantly, in 325 he summoned the Council of Nicaea, effectively the first Ecumenical Council (unless the Council of Jerusalem is so classified), Nicaea was to deal mostly with the heresy of Arianism. Constantine also enforced the prohibition of the First Council of Nicaea against celebrating Easter on the day before the Jewish Passover (14 Nisan) (see Quartodecimanism and Easter controversy).[202]

cc

Constantine made new laws regarding the Jews. They were forbidden to own Christian slaves or to circumcise their slaves. Eusebius of Nicomedia (died 341) was the man who baptised Constantine. He was a bishop of Berytus (modern-day Beirut) in Phoenicia, then of Nicomedia where the imperial court resided in Bithynia, and finally of Constantinople from 338 up to his death.

The Bibles of Constantine There is another piece of evidence that bears on the subject of the canon - even though we may not know how to interpret it. About the year 322 CE, the emperor Constantine, wishing to promote and organize Christian worship in the growing number of churches in Constantinople, directed Eusebius to have 50 copies of the sacred Scriptures made by practiced scribes and written legibly on prepared parchment. At the same time the emperor informed him, in a letter still preserved to us, that everything necessary for doing this was placed at his command, among other things two public carriages for conveying the completed manuscripts to the emperor for his personal inspection. According to Eusebius: Such were the emperor's commands, which were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself, which we sent him in magnificent and elaborately bound volumes of a threefold and fourfold form. (Vita Const. 4.36.37) The exact meaning of the concluding words has been taken in a half dozen different senses. Two of the most popular are, that the pages had 'three or four columns of script', or that as the copies were completed, they were sent off for the emperor's inspection 'three or four at a time'. The astonishing thing is that Eusebius, who took care to tell us at some length about the fluctuations of opinion in regard to certain books, has not one word to say regarding the choice he made on this important occasion. Of course, 50 magnificent copies, all uniform, could not but exercise a great influence on great influence on future copies, at least within the bounds of the patriarchate of Constantinople, and would help forward the process of arriving at a commonly accepted New Testament in the East. Some have suggested that the codex Sinaiticus is one of the 50 bibles commissioned by Constantine, but its Alexandrian type of text makes this unlikely. "Constantine’s Bibles" We only known about this from Eusebius’ Life of Constantine. AD 331 – Emperor requested 50 new ‘Bibles’ (Books of Scriptures) from Eusebius for churches in Constantinople Eusebius had the copies made at his home church of Caesarea There was no decision by Constantine as to which books they should contain. Both he and Eusebius understood and assumed which texts were part of Scripture.

dd