Pope John VIII’s correspondence has allegedly been interpolated and forged by Saint Photius and his chancery during the Council of Constantinople IV. This assertion is an interpretation of John VIII’s words in his letter accepting the eighth council: “it is a wonder to us why so many things that we had decided [in reference to his letters to the council] should have been obviously altered, transformed and, we do not know through whose mistake or design, distorted.”
Instead of making a prolonged case against this thesis, I will publish the “Epistolary Version” (EV) versus the “Eighth Council” (8C) version of these letters and point out the differences. When one actually examines the differences between these letters, the most compelling conclusion is that the letters were indeed edited by the eighth council (Constantinople 879-880)–but with the obvious input of the papal legates. In other words, these letters were not forged, but consciously edited in a diplomatic fashion with the apparent consent of the legates. This is why John VIII states that “we do not know through whose mistake or design” the letters were altered–he was aware that this was a mutual process and one of his own letters even appears to permit it. Dvornik infers that Photius even drew attention to Pope John VIII to the edits themselves simply saying the parts that identified wrongdoing were removed. (“The Photian Schism”, p 206-7) Further, this is not unknown in history, as previous Papal correspondence (such as that of Hormisdas) explicitly granted permission to conduct such edits.
Too much is made of Photius allegedly manipulating the legates into conducting forgeries, as the duplicity was clearly on the Roman side. The first time this allegation was made was in 862. The legates were accused of introducing forgeries and breaking with papal instructions of the 861 council that occurred the year before, despite even a cursory reading of these minutes indicating that these legates were faithful to Rome. Mere months after the excommunication of these legates (in 863) for their allegedly dastardly betrayal of the Pope, they were conducting papal business and literally writing papal letters. In other words, their excommunications were fake and political–meant to convey the party line that the diplomatic edits of these legates at that time were not in fact mutually agreed upon, but Photian forgeries. It is an old, unjustifiable accusation. Putting the letters from the eighth council side by side, it is fairly obvious what the nature of the edits of these letters was.
Lastly, a modern audience may notice the edits serve no purpose that weighs in on the filioque or papacy debates. The motive for the changes had nothing to do with this. Additionally, the edits neither serve as a cover up. No major point of John VIII’s, other than perhaps the mention of Saint Ignatius of Constantinople’s name, is left out of the public reading of the letters during the eighth council. John VIII’s demands were aired to the whole world, not concealed. For this reason, some readers may be disappointed to find the edits were strictly political and intended to save the faces of Photius, Basil, Nicholas, and Adrian II. If one reads the texts with this in mind, the differences between the two make sense.
The Letters:
John VIII’s Letter to the Emperors
Orthodox Christian Theology 
Craig, your work is, as usually, awesome. Politics are always the devil’s sticky, serpentine tail, insinuating itself into all human affairs and targeting the ecclesiastical world as its prime target. So it comes as no surprise what transpired on the part of Rome at that moment, including the transfer of blame on St. Photius, when the Pope was the real culprit. Typical for Papacy.
In this case, I personally feel that Photius and the legates’ edits were too extensive. It is almost as Photius walked into a polemical trap which John VIII anticipated (Letters 296 and 297) where before even receiving the minutes (supposedly) said he won’t affirm *or* deny “if perhaps our ambassadors in the same synod acted contrary to the apostolic precept, we neither accept nor judge the existence of any firmness.” In other words, he knew his legates would make changes and legit it open, at his random discretion according to political need, what he would own or disown.
The resulting historical confusion and slander against Photius, is in my view, the result of Photius allowing himself to be walked into a trap by the legates. The changes should have been very minor, similar to those in St Tarasius’ time.
To be fair to Photius, he probably felt that the accusations about Tarasius were already so wild during the 860s, why bother soft pedaling it if the legates went along with it? Hindsight indeed is 20/20.
See pages 333-334 of Dvornik’s The Photian Schism. “Of these Collections, the most important from our point of view is the one called Caesaraugustana, [7] originating, as the name implies, from Saragossa. Two recensions of it are known: the first dates from 1110-20, whereas the second must be anterior to 1143. In both versions of this Collection [1] it is surprising to find the extract from Ivo, condemning the Eighth Council [869, the robber synod]. [2] Further on, we also find a canon of the Photian Council [the true 8th council], which is even designated here as ‘quinta synodus Constantinopolitana ccclxxxiii patrum sub Johanne papa: “Apocrisiarii papae dixerunt. . .”.’ [3] The author of the Caesaraugustana has also borrowed from the Acts of the Eighth Council, quoting three canons of it, [4] where the Chartres canonist quotes only one.” See also page 340: “Faithful to his principle of ‘reconciling the discordant canons’, Gratian calmly suppressed Ivo’s text, according to which the Eighth Council should have been considered annulled by the same Pope. From his point of view this was simply a piece of elementary logic. Consequently, Gratian extracted as much as he could from the texts of the Eighth Council, [1] which he knew only at second hand from quotations. And yet, he does not for all that esteem the Photian Council any the less, for he copies in his Decretum the canon of this synod (the one utilized by Ivo) on the bishops’ return to monastic life. [2] In quoting this canon, he also calls the Photian Council ‘the Council of Constantinople of the 383 Fathers’, and elsewhere ‘nona synodus’. ” — In other words, it seems like the canonists thought the canons of 869 belonged to 879, as the Caesaraugustana and Ivo of Chartes rejected Constantinople 869 explicitly,—this means, I conjecture though I think justifiably considering the above, that the only reason Constantinople 869’s canons even gained western acceptance was initially because (I speculate) they thought they belonged to Constantinople 879–something only possible if 879 was considered ratified. Hence, John VIII’s letter in conjunction with its canons dispersing into western canon law shows more than Photius’ acceptance was inferred. It waited until Gratian to at least implicitly acknowledge acceptance of both councils. In short, Constantinople 879 was “on the books,” even until Gratian’s day–whose canon law was used until the 20th century (1917!!!) by the RCC. However, the esteem for Constantinople 879 dissipated after Gratian failed to disclose that John VIII nullified the 869 council, and with that when Gratian’s canon law was finally dumped, with it went any official acceptance of Constantinople 879-880.
Thank you very much.
These last words distinctly imply that the Pope agreed to everything done at the Council of Constantinople for Photius’ rehabilitation. Now, what did the Council actually do in the matter? The Patriarch was reinstated without begging the Fathers for mercy; those who refused to acknowledge him were excommunicated and all the synods held against Photius were annulled. This was done 4 pro causa Photii restitu-tionis synodali decreto Constantinopoli’, and all this was put down in the synodal decrees: therefore, all this was agreed to by John V III. No other conclusion is logically tenable. (Dvornik, The Photian Schism, 207)
A careful analysis of the Pope’s letter to Basil drives us to the same conclusion: the Pope cancels the conditions he had laid down for Photius’ rehabilitation; he agrees to the annulment of all the anti-Photian decrees issued by his predecessors and by the synod of 869-70, and he sanctions the Acts of the Photian Council brought to him by the legates in the version as we know it to-day. (Ibid., p. 210)