The Canon

[Charles Wilson]

Didache, Ignatius, Polycarp, Shepherd of Hermas, gThomas...Are you supposing that there might not have been any Christian texts published, bought, and sold in the 2nd century?
***
I'm not sure what you're suggesting and/or asking. Could you put it more directly?

Of course.

I do not doubt that there were Christian Texts bought and sold in the 2nd century.
It is the "Published" part that doesn't make sense.

"How does a Story that became a written story of a Jewish wanderer who spoke Hebrew/Aramaic get translated to Greek and PUBLISHED under Roman Sponsorship?"

The Canon explodes on the scene. The Heretics appear to have already been dealt with. Valentinianism is a past-tense Heresy. So are the others. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit replaces the Baptism of John before many people had even heard of the Baptism of John.

The act of publishing a book - to say nothing of a book with 27 chapters - is more than a major undertaking. If we are invited to think of this as an accretion of Oral Tradition, we stand on the same Epistemological Position to assume that the publication of such a collection came about under an order from someone who could assemble Scribes with a command to produce more perfect copies, copies of material that had been produced decades earlier.

Scribal Guilds were important thousands of years before the Julio-Claudians or the Flavians. The Scribes of Mari were exchanged with the Scribes of Ebla and these two City-States were at war with each other in ancient Sumer.

The appearance of a Canon therefore begs a question: "How?" The physical necessities of "Publishing" in a labor-intensive environment of Scribes is not a trivial request for information as to what a Scribe should do. Take out paper and pencil and YOU start to copy the NT. How long would it take? After you've finished, you now have ***One*** copy. Was it True to the Original? Can you now make a second copy? The Canon appeared and was created. The frozen order of the Gospels IS interesting precisely because it was ordered always in that manner. The changing order of the Letters is also interesting as is the importance of their changing order.

The question of the Canon is a great question. There is a very important part of this entire process, however. Someone has decided on the Order. Now, who gets to copy this and who gets what is copied? This problem is not so easy to solve, considering the Rise of Christianity in a few short years.

CW

[Ben C. Smith]

If Constantine had endorsed and established a materially different NT (e.g., one that excluded the six texts Eusebius considers "disputed" in the Ecclesiastical History: Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation), I don't see how that could fail to provoke a controversy, one that would have to be resolved in an ecumenical council. Since there doesn't seem to be anyone after Eusebius who questions or specifically affirms the canonicity of those 7 texts, I don't see any reason not to assume that Constantine's was the 27-text NT.

The Cheltanham canon rejects Hebrews, James, and Jude, and may treat 2 & 3 John and 2 Peter with suspicion. The Apostolic Constitutions canon rejects the Apocalypse of John (but accepts 1 & 2 Clement and also counts itself as canonical!). Cyril's canon rejects the Apocalypse of John. The Laodicean synod canon rejects the Apocalypse of John. The Nicephorus canon disputes the Apocalypse of John (placing the Apocalypse of Peter, the epistle of Barnabas, and the gospel according to the Hebrews in the same category).

The Apocalypse of John was never truly secure until sometime long after Constantine.

[Charles Wilson]

Don't forget The Church of the East...

[Stuart]

I question 2nd century bundling of the gospels especially. Mostly because we all too easily accept the Patristic writings as being 2nd century, even though many elements of the fathers we place in the 2nd century appear to address issues of the 3rd and 4th centuries, and those of the 4th appear to have a lot of material in them addressing issues of 5th to 7th centuries. To me their composition looks very much like the writings of the new testament, passages from various authors collected together and then for authority placed under the name of a famous elder or bishop, around whom legend had grown (Eusubius is a repository of many of the legends, although they are also scattered in other patristic works). The only reason we do not hold this view as mainstream, like we do with the Pualine and catholic epistles is simply that almost no research or form criticism has been applied to those works, or even when it has it's not been an onslaught of critics pouring over them.

So the timeline is much less certain. But in general Trobisch's challenge to the model (again laying aside the specific centuries) does have some merit. And if nothing else it's worth some thought. The Pauline collection seems to only have been circulated as a collection and never as individual letters. Or perhaps I should say collections, as we know of a Marcionite form, which probably a misnomer, as this simply represents an earlier stage in both redaction of content and order. I suggest the Marcionite form froze at ten and shorter versions because the group broke from the main church, and so fell out of the process of additions to both text and books for the collection (I conclude that based on the diversity of the theology within the attested Marcionite collection, which seems only to be missing the last couple of layers often ascribed to the Lukan editor or "Luke"). There is a sliver of evidence that Tatian also separated -probably an overstatement (mor elikely- and the his collection of Paul had the 11th letter, Titus (generally thought by critics to have been the first of the three pastorals, with 2 Timothy the 2nd and 1 Timothy conflating the other two). This does suggest that the process of adding Pauline letters was to the collection and not circulating in individual form.

If Trobisch is correct, and for Paul it seems plausible, there still would need to be an engine for the formation of the letters from their composite passages drawn from wherever. This does in some ways fit with the formula openings and closings. His model would thus make the letters always a compendium. And in Paul I think this is correct. But I would modify his model here to say the collection was always in progress. There is clear evidence in the Latin prologues and the Marcionite order, that at least two revisions of the order existed. And many critics have observed that 1 Corinthians appears to have led the collection at some point, likely before the Marcionite order. And there is strong evidence in the formula variances that the collection of ten letters came together from an earlier collection of seven, or that the collection was in fact a couple of collections, with the "Asiatic" letters comprising their own collection. Also Galatians appears to have been added late. In short although there is no good evidence for the letters to have circulated individually, which Trobisch correctly recognizes, there is strong evidence the collection of letters was quite fluid for both content and order for a significant stretch of time, likely several generations.

Trobisch's argument however completely breaks down when looking at the Catholic letters and the Gospels. 3 John is a basically a refutation of 2 John, which indicates 2 John and 3 John circulated separately, and 2 John contains pastiches to the fourth gospel and 1 John, indicating those three letter circulated separately.

Trobisch is flat wrong about the gospels always having one order. There were at least two orders, and it appears the earliest order, not the one which stuck, was based off the legends, placing Matthew and John as apostles first, with Luke and Mark as disciples of Apostles (alternately from the seventy) after those. Acts is not always attached to the Gospels in many of the early collections: E it circulated alone; F, G, H 614 it circulated and headed the Pauline letters; 049 056 629 630 88 104 209 323 326 424 460 618 910 1245 1270 1611 1734 1735 1738 1739 (enough, many more) it headed the Catholic letters; 1506 the Gospels are followed by the Catholic letters not Acts, ℵ 69 2492 2495 the Gospels are followed by the Pauline letters not Acts. Acts even more than Hebrews seems to have been bundled variously. Early tradition places it all over the map, not at all consistently with the Gospels.

I think his reading of κατὰ is incorrect as well. Yes this came about from bundling, but as with the Pauline πρὸς these κατὰ are found in the margins before or after the book, and in the earliest manuscripts in a second hand (writing styles sometimes very different). This indicates they came about secondarily, and after the initial binding. There is evidence of earlier titles IMO in Mark 1:1 which appears to be a versification of the title by simply prefixing ἀρχή to "The Gospel of Jesus Christ." This suggests a time when at least one Gospel circulated stand alone. The Marcionite tradition held one Gospel alone. And as with 3 John answering 2 John, much of the four Gospels appear to be correctives of their rival Gospels. Their binding together is more likely associated with the Catholicizing process of the church than with an initial circulating collection form.

The canonical lists, which seem to be the basis of the final orders of the collections we have, if the dating of the Muratorian Canon is actually as early as the 2nd half of the 3rd century (I have some doubts as with all dating of Patristic material, it could be 4th century), then it seems Canonical lists started to become an important thing after the Decian persecution. And to me this makes sense. This would have signaled the start of sanctioned persecutions, and with it the actual confiscation of church properties, although we actually have no evidence of this happening before the Diocletian era persecutions at the beginning of the 4th century. The logic behind a Canon list would be the replacement of lost books from churches whose property was seized, and which books precious money and human resources would be spent replacing them with. By necessity the essentials, the agreed to list by those giving the money and resources. This is when order for bundling would have come to the fore for the non-Pauline books. This may also have signaled a halt to mass revisions of the material, as a set list was being adhered to.One wonders if part of the Donatists resistance was not just the bishops who handed over the books for destruction, but a distrust of the books replacing them, as having content differences they thought were dubious (not suggesting a different theology here, just they remembered certain content differently which was present in their North African text and the "new" text of the replacements the bishops they distrusted used).

I am left to wonder if Trobisch is conflating the 4th century consolidation into bundles with the earlier church. But conceptually I think he is onto something at least with the Pauline collection (I actually have a similar view). But too much evidence of a different path with the Catholic letters, Acts, and the Gospels. Beyond the scope of his observations (which should not be judged by this - not many theories have credible explanations) an explanation is needed to the composition process prior to bundling.

Just a few things I thought of reading the OP.

[klewis]

Didache, Ignatius, Polycarp, Shepherd of Hermas, gThomas...Are you supposing that there might not have been any Christian texts published, bought, and sold in the 2nd century?
***
I'm not sure what you're suggesting and/or asking. Could you put it more directly?

Of course.

I do not doubt that there were Christian Texts bought and sold in the 2nd century.
It is the "Published" part that doesn't make sense.

"How does a Story that became a written story of a Jewish wanderer who spoke Hebrew/Aramaic get translated to Greek and PUBLISHED under Roman Sponsorship?"

The Canon explodes on the scene. The Heretics appear to have already been dealt with. Valentinianism is a past-tense Heresy. So are the others. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit replaces the Baptism of John before many people had even heard of the Baptism of John.

The act of publishing a book - to say nothing of a book with 27 chapters - is more than a major undertaking. If we are invited to think of this as an accretion of Oral Tradition, we stand on the same Epistemological Position to assume that the publication of such a collection came about under an order from someone who could assemble Scribes with a command to produce more perfect copies, copies of material that had been produced decades earlier.

CW

The question that needs to be answered is, "how much of Jesus' life depicted in the Gospels rooted in a historical life?" It is easier to see that the birth narrative in Matthew reflects the birth of Moses more than the birth of a Jew in Palestine in Jesus' time. So much of Jesus' life is rooted in the Hebrew Scripture narratives, but just tweaked. For example, Jesus birth narrative is very similar to Josephus' story of Moses' birth.

Matt:2:1 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, 2:2 saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.” 2:3 When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 2:4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. 2:5 So they said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet: 2:6 ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, Are not the least among the rulers of Judah; For out of you shall come a Ruler Who will shepherd My people Israel.’ ” 2:7 Then Herod, when he had secretly called the wise men, determined from them what time the star appeared. 2:8 And he sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the young Child, and when you have found Him, bring back word to me, that I may come and worship Him also.”

Antiquities of the Jews: II chapter 9:2 While the affairs of the Hebrews were in this condition, there was this occasion offered itself to the Egyptians, which made them more solicitous for the extinction of our nation. One of those sacred scribes, (18) who are very sagacious in foretelling future events truly, told the king, that about this time there would a child be born to the Israelites, who, if he were reared, would bring the Egyptian dominion low, and would raise the Israelites; that he would excel all men in virtue, and obtain a glory that would be remembered through all ages. Which thing was so feared by the king, that, according to this man's opinion, he commanded that they should cast every male child, which was born to the Israelites, into the river, and destroy it; that besides this, the Egyptian midwives (19) should watch the labors of the Hebrew women, and observe what is born, for those were the women who were enjoined to do the office of midwives to them; and by reason of their relation to the king, would not transgress his commands. He enjoined also, that if any parents should disobey him, and venture to save their male children alive, (20) they and their families should be destroyed. This was a severe affliction indeed to those that suffered it, not only as they were deprived of their sons, and while they were the parents themselves, they were obliged to be subservient to the destruction of their own children, but as it was to be supposed to tend to the extirpation of their nation, while upon the destruction of their children, and their own gradual dissolution, the calamity would become very hard and inconsolable to them. And this was the ill state they were in. But no one can be too hard for the purpose of God, though he contrive ten thousand subtle devices for that end; for this child, whom the sacred scribe foretold, was brought up and concealed from the observers appointed by the king; and he that foretold him did not mistake in the consequences of his preservation, which were brought to pass after the manner following: -

The act of publishing then is different than today. For example there were no copyrights, so if a person "published" First Peter, he could just make ten copies and give them or sell them to others. The people, who received First Peter, could then take it to a scribal shop and pay for ten more copies, the process can grow from there. Also, when you think about a person traveling from Rome to Ephesus, the traveler may purchase a book in Rome, then take it to Ephesus and make 50 copies to sell.

There are lots of manuscripts that we have, that were made by untrained scribes, we see this in how the sizing of the text shrinks as the copyist runs out of papyrus and how the lines are wavy. There is nothing stopping someone from taking a self made copy to a scribal shop to make a few copies.

The act of producing the texts in question may not be as difficult as it seems. Luke-Acts for example, the author took Mark, and Q, and used them to create a set of wax tablets complete with his own additions, to create the Gospel of Luke. To create Acts, all he has to do is lay out the Luke texts in a column, gather material about Paul and lay them out in a separate column which we call Acts. To grow the content on the acts side, the author just have to do parallel formation from the Luke text. This is why you can follow the story of Luke and the story of Acts and much of the content is similar. The two texts form a simple parallel.

The process that created Luke-Acts is no different than the process that created Genesis-Exodus. Parallel formation is the act of taking one story and with little effort create one or more stories. Hebrew Poetry is all about Parallel Formation.

[Ben C. Smith]

The Pauline collection seems to only have been circulated as a collection and never as individual letters. Or perhaps I should say collections, as we know of a Marcionite form, which probably a misnomer, as this simply represents an earlier stage in both redaction of content and order. I suggest the Marcionite form froze at ten and shorter versions because the group broke from the main church, and so fell out of the process of additions to both text and books for the collection (I conclude that based on the diversity of the theology within the attested Marcionite collection, which seems only to be missing the last couple of layers often ascribed to the Lukan editor or "Luke"). There is a sliver of evidence that Tatian also separated -probably an overstatement (mor elikely- and the his collection of Paul had the 11th letter, Titus (generally thought by critics to have been the first of the three pastorals, with 2 Timothy the 2nd and 1 Timothy conflating the other two). This does suggest that the process of adding Pauline letters was to the collection and not circulating in individual form.

If Trobisch is correct, and for Paul it seems plausible, there still would need to be an engine for the formation of the letters from their composite passages drawn from wherever. This does in some ways fit with the formula openings and closings. His model would thus make the letters always a compendium. And in Paul I think this is correct.

It can be important in these conversations to keep our terms straight so that there is no misunderstanding. To that end, we ought probably to make clear that Trobisch does not argue that the Pauline epistles never had any existence outside of the collection(s) in which we now find them; to the contrary, Trobisch thinks that there were genuinely private letters sent by Paul to various churches and persons, letters which were then collected (first by Paul himself, and then later by other editors) and published in editions of more than one epistle. As soon as a private letter is copied for some other person besides the author or the original recipient, according to Trobisch, it is no longer a private letter; now it is a literary letter.

Trobisch seems intent to deny, not that the letters ever existed on their own (at least in the hands of the original author and/or recipients), but rather that the letters which we possess derive from anything other than the editions which were eventually published.

Trobisch is flat wrong about the gospels always having one order.

You make it sound as if Trobisch claims that the gospels are always found in one single order in the manuscripts; to be clear again, he makes no such claim. Rather, his aim is to demonstrate how exceptional those manuscripts are which do not evince the majority order (and which he names and discusses, each in turn).

[Charles Wilson]

klewis --

If I dive too deep into this, I will hijack the Thread and I have no desire to do this. It's a good topic. So, a few words and I'm outa' here. If you want to continue, start another Thread.

The question that needs to be answered is, "how much of Jesus' life depicted in the Gospels rooted in a historical life?"

Existence is not a Predicate. I believe that "Jesus" is a created character. There MAY have been a character who was a Mishmarot Priest, of the Service Group Immer, whose Story served as a Template for "Jesus". There is quite a bit of Mishmarot material in the NT. No "Jesus", however.

It is easier to see that the birth narrative in Matthew reflects the birth of Moses more than the birth of a Jew in Palestine in Jesus' time.

Matthew 1: 11 - 12 (RSV):

[11] and Josi'ah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.
[12] And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoni'ah was the father of She-al'ti-el, and She-al'ti-el the father of Zerub'babel...

I don't deny the Moses Parallels at all. I believe, however, that the Intention of the Genealogy is for a different end:

Josephus, Antiquities..., 14, 1, 3:

"It is true that Nicolatls (sic) of Damascus says, that Antipater was of the stock of the principal Jews who came out of Babylon into Judea; but that assertion of his was to gratify Herod, who was his son, and who, by certain revolutions of fortune, came afterward to be king of the Jews..."

If you are as far down the Roman Thesis Road as I am, it's easier to see that the Matthean Genealogy is more probably a Cut and Paste job from Nicholas of Damascus than a composition concerning Parallels for "Jesus" and Moses.

Now...Back to the Thread. Thnx.

CW

[Irish1975]

If Constantine had endorsed and established a materially different NT (e.g., one that excluded the six texts Eusebius considers "disputed" in the Ecclesiastical History: Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation), I don't see how that could fail to provoke a controversy, one that would have to be resolved in an ecumenical council. Since there doesn't seem to be anyone after Eusebius who questions or specifically affirms the canonicity of those 7 texts, I don't see any reason not to assume that Constantine's was the 27-text NT.

The Cheltanham canon rejects Hebrews, James, and Jude, and may treat 2 & 3 John and 2 Peter with suspicion. The Apostolic Constitutions canon rejects the Apocalypse of John (but accepts 1 & 2 Clement and also counts itself as canonical!). Cyril's canon rejects the Apocalypse of John. The Laodicean synod canon rejects the Apocalypse of John. The Nicephorus canon disputes the Apocalypse of John (placing the Apocalypse of Peter, the epistle of Barnabas, and the gospel according to the Hebrews in the same category).

Uncle. You got me. I confess I have not consulted the studies of the canon by Metzger and others. So please enlighten me.

Do these lists amount to a debate about universal canonicity? Were Christians of the 4th and 5th century aiming at agreeing upon a universal canon? If so, why did the subject not arise at the ecumenical councils (Ephesus, Chalcedon)?

The Apocalypse of John was never truly secure until sometime long after Constantine.

When and how did this happen? I assume that getting Revelation into the Canon was the hardest part. In today's world it is obviously a giant sore thumb, given our ecological crisis.

[Ben C. Smith]

If Constantine had endorsed and established a materially different NT (e.g., one that excluded the six texts Eusebius considers "disputed" in the Ecclesiastical History: Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation), I don't see how that could fail to provoke a controversy, one that would have to be resolved in an ecumenical council. Since there doesn't seem to be anyone after Eusebius who questions or specifically affirms the canonicity of those 7 texts, I don't see any reason not to assume that Constantine's was the 27-text NT.

The Cheltanham canon rejects Hebrews, James, and Jude, and may treat 2 & 3 John and 2 Peter with suspicion. The Apostolic Constitutions canon rejects the Apocalypse of John (but accepts 1 & 2 Clement and also counts itself as canonical!). Cyril's canon rejects the Apocalypse of John. The Laodicean synod canon rejects the Apocalypse of John. The Nicephorus canon disputes the Apocalypse of John (placing the Apocalypse of Peter, the epistle of Barnabas, and the gospel according to the Hebrews in the same category).

Uncle. You got me. I confess I have not consulted the studies of the canon by Metzger and others. So please enlighten me.

Do these lists amount to a debate about universal canonicity? Were Christians of the 4th and 5th century aiming at agreeing upon a universal canon? If so, why did the subject not arise at the ecumenical councils (Ephesus, Chalcedon)?

I am more comfortable with the "what" than with the "why" here, since our sources definitely give us the "what" (authoritative lists of the books deemed canonical) without always telling us the "why" ⁠— or, if they do give us the "why," it is often sublimely predictable, like insisting that scripture be safeguarded against heretical books such as the gospels of Thomas or Peter or anything written by and/or for those awful Marcionites or Manichaeans. Often the list will be accompanied by the distinction that other books may be profitable for private reading, but only the canonical books may be read in the public meetings under the rubric of holy scripture.

By the fourth century, the debate was over a scant handful of books: a few catholic epistles and Revelation, mainly, and occasionally some eccentric churchman would count some extra text as scripture (like Barnabas or 1 Clement).

Athanasius, some 30 years after Constantine's death, is the first to name all twenty-seven of our currently accepted 27 books, including Revelation, but even after him there was disagreement. Gregory of Nazianzus omitted Revelation from his canon. Amphilocius appears to reject 2 Peter, Jude, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation. Didymus the Blind never quotes from 2 & 3 John, and he refers to 1 John as the epistle of John; there is also a commentary on the catholic epistles which is commonly ascribed (probably incorrectly, I should imagine) to Didymus, in which the author states that 2 Peter has been "forged/falsified" (falsatam) and is "therefore not in the canon" (non tamen in canone).

The subject did arise at some of the councils. I mentioned the Laodicean synod of 360, for example, although in that case the list itself seems to have been added later to the published proceedings of the synod, in response to the synod ruling that "no psalms composed by private individuals nor any noncanonical books may be read in the church, but only the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments," but even this later addition implies that somebody after that synod had to ask the question, "Which books are those, then, just to be sure?" Also giving us a list of canonical books is the Carthaginian synod of 397; I did not mention it because its list is the same as the Athanasian (= the same as our modern 27 books), with the single glitch that the epistles of Paul are described in a suspicious way (epistulae Pauli apostoli tredecim, eiusdem ad Hebraeos una, "thirteen epistles of Paul the apostle, and one of his to the Hebrews").

There is also the very weird catalogue in codex Claromontanus (century VI), which appears to treat the epistles of Peter as epistles written to Peter (ad Petrum) instead of by Peter; includes the epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypses both of John and of Peter, and the Acts of Paul; and omits, not only Hebrews, but also 1 & 2 Thessalonians and Philippians! Scribal error is probably to blame for at least some of those omissions, since skipping Philippians and 1 & 2 Thessalonians is unprecedented.

Westcott names four slightly different NT canonical lists (six different ones if you include the OT) current in the East as late as century X: https://archive.org/details/bibleinchur ... /page/n254. But, again, the only real variables are the Apocalypse, 1 & 2 Clement, and four of the catholic epistles.

The Apocalypse of John was never truly secure until sometime long after Constantine.

When and how did this happen?

There is no single date to point to. The canonical lists just gradually become more similar, on average, over time, with the Apocalypse being the most frequent holdout. It probably had at least something to do with the intense ecclesiastical struggles between chiliasm and other kinds of eschatology. You mentioned that Eusebius ranked Revelation among the "disputed" books, like James and 2 Peter (his category 2), but that is not precisely true; what he did is to list it twice: once as canonical (his category 1), and then again as illegitimate (his category 3); this is the only text he treats in this schizophrenic manner.

[MrMacSon]

Regarding, -

But [the key Christian texts] did not become The Canon in the sense of (2) until the 4th century, and there is no great mystery why. Because the 4th [century] emperors imposed Christianity as the state religion of the whole Mediterranean, both with respect to the orthodoxy of doctrine, and with respect to the scriptures approved to be read in the imperially sanctioned churches.

- it was not until the late 4th century that an emperor made Christianity the state religion,

Yes, Theodosius outlaws every form of religion besides Nicene Christianity and Judaism in the 380s, and in the 390s begins the destruction of the pagan temples. But doesn't the imperial establishment of Christianity commence under Constantine? In particular, with the establishment of Constantinople as the new seat of empire, the endowment of its many Christian basilicas, etc.

Imperial support for Christianity supposedly commenced under Constantine but to what extent is hard to know and may have been overstated (and continues to be).

And when has probably been overstated.

Whether he had the vision he is said to have had on the eve of the Battle of/for the Milvian Bridge is hard to know, as is whether it was of or about a crucifix or interpreted as such (or as a crucifix-like symbol, the staurogram - ⳨ - as stated by Lactantius in On the Deaths of the Persecutors 44).

Eusebius first account in his Ecclesiastical History promotes the belief that the Christian God helped Constantine, but does not mention any vision, but, in his later Life of Constantine, Eusebius gives a detailed account of a vision and stresses that he had heard the story from the Emperor himself. According to this version, Constantine with his army was marching in an unspecified location when he looked up to the sun and saw a cross of light above it, and with it the Greek words "Εν Τούτῳ Νίκα", En toutō níka, usually translated into Latin as "in hoc signo vinces". The literal meaning of the phrase in Greek is "in this (sign), conquer" while in Latin it's "in this sign, you shall conquer"; a more free translation would be "Through this sign [you shall] conquer". At first he was unsure of the meaning of the apparition, but in the following night he had a dream in which Christ explained to him that he should use the sign against his enemies. Eusebius then continues to describe the labarum, the military standard used by Constantine in his later wars against Licinius, showing the Chi-Rho sign.

It's like later events have been inserted into the earlier 'accounts'.

Apparently the Roman empire was virtually monotheist worshipping the sun God Sol Invitus from the time of Aurelian, being the god favored by emperors after Aurelian and appearing on coins until the last third-part of the reign of Constantine I.

Constantine's father Constantius Chlorus was said to have been a votary for the cult of Sol Invictus, so Constantine would have been brought up worshipping it.

The last inscription referring to Sol Invictus dates to AD 387, yet there were enough devotees in the fifth century that the Christian theologian Augustine found it necessary to preach against them.

and whether it applied to the whole Mediterranean is debatable b/c, by that stage, the Roman empire was only the eastern Roman empire aka the early Byzantine empire. The west was a mess.

Well, Ambrose of Milan is a big player in the West in the later 4th century, gathering consensus around Nicene orthodoxy.

Sure, individuals could have played a part, but we have little if any archaeological evidence of a large church community in Rome (+/- elsewhere) until much later.

If Constantine had endorsed and established a materially different NT (e.g., one that excluded the six texts Eusebius considers "disputed" in the Ecclesiastical History: Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation), I don't see how that could fail to provoke a controversy, one that would have to be resolved in an ecumenical council. Since there doesn't seem to be anyone after Eusebius who questions or specifically affirms the canonicity of those 7 texts, I don't see any reason not to assume that Constantine's was the 27-text NT.

Fair enough.