Seraphim
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2011
- Messages
- 2,610
- Reaction score
- 0
There is a lot of Internet garbage going around about the first Nicean synod, which I assume is the one Sameer refers to. The first synod was ordered by Constantine so as to compose an agreed upon creed regarding churches' beliefs, due to deviations in canon being distributed by Arianus and his followers. The synod did not rewrite any scripture, it did not vote on or decide Jesus' divinity, or any of the other misrepresentations which started circulating on the ill informed blogs of the net.
Some chronicled information on that synod from a credible source:
Theodoret, Historia Ecclesia, Book I, ch.6-13. This mentions that the definitions of Nicaea were drawn up with reference to Scripture; and the argument about whether phrase x or y was or was not in scripture formed the basis of much of the argument.
Socrates, Historia Ecclesia, Book I, ch.8. This mentions that Constantine exiled Arius and some of his supporters for refusing to submit to the decisions of the council. It also quotes an letter by Constantine ordering the destruction of all works composed by Arius on pain of death to any found holding them, and referring to a similar past order regarding the works of Porphyry.
Sozomen, Historia Ecclesia, Book 1, ch.21. This describes the results of the council. (Chapter 17 onwards describes the council). Constantine writes to all the cities ordering the destruction of the works of Arius and his followers, and the penalty of death for any who refused to destroy them. The letter is not quoted. There is also an anecdote where a Novatianist bishop is interviewed by the emperor. The bishop agrees to sign the creed but not to resume communion with the Catholics. Constantine tells him to get a ladder and ascend into heaven alone, then; but there is no mention of action against the Novatianists.
Eusebius, Vita Constantini, Book III, ch.6ff. This describes the council without mentioning Arius and concentrates on the harmonisation of the date of Easter. Later it gives the text of an edict by Constantine against heretics and schismatics, 'Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulians, you who are called Cataphrygians', banning their meetings and confiscating their buildings. Eusebius goes on to say without quoting that a search was also decreed for their books in order to identify the heretics (although no details are given of what happened to the books).
Eusebius, On the Feast of Easter/De solemnitate paschalis/Peri\ th~j tou~ pa&sxa e(orth~j, 8 (PG. 24.701) Checked. According to Quasten 3 p.339 the work is not extant but a substantial fragment exists in the Catena on Luke by Nicetas of Heraclea. The text of this appears in Migne, 24, cols. 693-706, and so, in Latin translation, which I have. It does not seem to exist in English, but a kind gentleman has made us a translation from the Greek, which is now online. As can be seen, chapter 8 does mention the decision of the synod about Easter, but says nothing of interest to us. The text contains no other references.
Athanasius, De decretis synodis, A general discussion of some of the issues, rather than the acts of the council, and the arguments about whether the council exceeded what scripture says.
Athanasius, Ep. ad episcopos Africae, 5.ff. More about Arius at Nicaea and against the Council of Sirmium.
Epiphanius, Haereses or Panarion, 69, on Arius. Nothing more than we have from other sources. Since this text has only just been translated into English, it isn't in the online collection of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, so I've placed all the material online myself.
Philostorgius, HE I.7, 7a. Checked. This writer is only extant in fragments in Photius and the Suida. Apparently he was an Arian, born in 368. There is an English version; E. Walford, The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen ... also the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius as epitomized by Photius,[ONLINE] London (1855). However it contains nothing new about the council. I have a copy of this and hope to place it online sometime. It would seem to derive from a single MS. The Nicaea portions are now online.
Rufinus, Historia Ecclesiastica 10,1-6 Checked. Only recently put into English: The Church History of Rufinus of Aquileia by Rufinus, Philip R., S.J. Amidon (Translator), September 1997, Oxford Univ Press; ISBN: 0195110315. Reviewed in Journal of Early Christian Studies 7.1 (1999) by C.H.Gowans. I have now seen this, and this also has no discussion of the canon of scripture. (It does contain the fascinating description of the destruction of the Temple of Serapis at Alexandria). I just wish the volume was cheaper. There is a useful bibliography. The Nicaea portion is now online.
Gelasius of Cyzicus, Historia Concilii Nicaeni. This does not seem to exist in English, but is in J.P.Migne, Patrologia Graeco-Latina, vol. 85, cols. 1185-1360, in Greek and Latin. There are three books; book I deals with the historical events leading to the accession of Constantine, book II with the council and its canons, and book III with letters issued by Constantine to various persons. The work seems to date from about 480-500, so is rather late, and some of it appears to be fictionalised. The debates are given verbatim, and, as the introduction notes, issues that contemporary writers explicitly deny are an issue (e.g. the Holy Spirit, as seen by the pneumatomachoi in the 5th century) are given as part of the heresies of the Arians. However it still makes no reference to decisions about books of the bible. The work is said to use the now lost text of Gelasius of Caesaria, which continued the HE of Eusbius.
NEW: Jerome, Biblical Preface to Judith. No English translation of this has been published, but it reads as follows:
"Among the Jews, the book of Judith is counted/considered [legitur] among the apocrypha; the basis for affirming those [apocryphal texts] which have come into dispute is deemed less than sufficient. Moreover, since it was written in the Chaldean [he means Old Aramaic] language, it is counted among the historical books. But the Nicene Council is considered to have counted this book among the number of sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your [pl.] request (or should I say demand!): and, my other work set aside, from which I was vehemently restrained, I have given a single night's work (lucubratiuncula), translating according to sense rather than verbatim. I have cut back the most error-ridden of many codices: I was able to discover only one with coherent expression in Chaldean words, to be expressed in Latin. ..."
However, this only indicates that people at the Council had an idea that books might be considered scripture, or not. This is not different from the use of works in the fathers, discussing individual works rather than canon as a whole. It does not state that lists were drawn up, or necessarily that any debate on canon went on. But it does suggest some action by the council in discussing whether the Old Testament apocrypha were canonical. Or is Jerome merely confused here with the Council of Laodicea? If the Council did discuss books in general, why do none of the councils like Laodicea which include canon lists mention it?
Some chronicled information on that synod from a credible source:
Theodoret, Historia Ecclesia, Book I, ch.6-13. This mentions that the definitions of Nicaea were drawn up with reference to Scripture; and the argument about whether phrase x or y was or was not in scripture formed the basis of much of the argument.
Socrates, Historia Ecclesia, Book I, ch.8. This mentions that Constantine exiled Arius and some of his supporters for refusing to submit to the decisions of the council. It also quotes an letter by Constantine ordering the destruction of all works composed by Arius on pain of death to any found holding them, and referring to a similar past order regarding the works of Porphyry.
Sozomen, Historia Ecclesia, Book 1, ch.21. This describes the results of the council. (Chapter 17 onwards describes the council). Constantine writes to all the cities ordering the destruction of the works of Arius and his followers, and the penalty of death for any who refused to destroy them. The letter is not quoted. There is also an anecdote where a Novatianist bishop is interviewed by the emperor. The bishop agrees to sign the creed but not to resume communion with the Catholics. Constantine tells him to get a ladder and ascend into heaven alone, then; but there is no mention of action against the Novatianists.
Eusebius, Vita Constantini, Book III, ch.6ff. This describes the council without mentioning Arius and concentrates on the harmonisation of the date of Easter. Later it gives the text of an edict by Constantine against heretics and schismatics, 'Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulians, you who are called Cataphrygians', banning their meetings and confiscating their buildings. Eusebius goes on to say without quoting that a search was also decreed for their books in order to identify the heretics (although no details are given of what happened to the books).
Eusebius, On the Feast of Easter/De solemnitate paschalis/Peri\ th~j tou~ pa&sxa e(orth~j, 8 (PG. 24.701) Checked. According to Quasten 3 p.339 the work is not extant but a substantial fragment exists in the Catena on Luke by Nicetas of Heraclea. The text of this appears in Migne, 24, cols. 693-706, and so, in Latin translation, which I have. It does not seem to exist in English, but a kind gentleman has made us a translation from the Greek, which is now online. As can be seen, chapter 8 does mention the decision of the synod about Easter, but says nothing of interest to us. The text contains no other references.
Athanasius, De decretis synodis, A general discussion of some of the issues, rather than the acts of the council, and the arguments about whether the council exceeded what scripture says.
Athanasius, Ep. ad episcopos Africae, 5.ff. More about Arius at Nicaea and against the Council of Sirmium.
Epiphanius, Haereses or Panarion, 69, on Arius. Nothing more than we have from other sources. Since this text has only just been translated into English, it isn't in the online collection of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, so I've placed all the material online myself.
Philostorgius, HE I.7, 7a. Checked. This writer is only extant in fragments in Photius and the Suida. Apparently he was an Arian, born in 368. There is an English version; E. Walford, The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen ... also the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius as epitomized by Photius,[ONLINE] London (1855). However it contains nothing new about the council. I have a copy of this and hope to place it online sometime. It would seem to derive from a single MS. The Nicaea portions are now online.
Rufinus, Historia Ecclesiastica 10,1-6 Checked. Only recently put into English: The Church History of Rufinus of Aquileia by Rufinus, Philip R., S.J. Amidon (Translator), September 1997, Oxford Univ Press; ISBN: 0195110315. Reviewed in Journal of Early Christian Studies 7.1 (1999) by C.H.Gowans. I have now seen this, and this also has no discussion of the canon of scripture. (It does contain the fascinating description of the destruction of the Temple of Serapis at Alexandria). I just wish the volume was cheaper. There is a useful bibliography. The Nicaea portion is now online.
Gelasius of Cyzicus, Historia Concilii Nicaeni. This does not seem to exist in English, but is in J.P.Migne, Patrologia Graeco-Latina, vol. 85, cols. 1185-1360, in Greek and Latin. There are three books; book I deals with the historical events leading to the accession of Constantine, book II with the council and its canons, and book III with letters issued by Constantine to various persons. The work seems to date from about 480-500, so is rather late, and some of it appears to be fictionalised. The debates are given verbatim, and, as the introduction notes, issues that contemporary writers explicitly deny are an issue (e.g. the Holy Spirit, as seen by the pneumatomachoi in the 5th century) are given as part of the heresies of the Arians. However it still makes no reference to decisions about books of the bible. The work is said to use the now lost text of Gelasius of Caesaria, which continued the HE of Eusbius.
NEW: Jerome, Biblical Preface to Judith. No English translation of this has been published, but it reads as follows:
"Among the Jews, the book of Judith is counted/considered [legitur] among the apocrypha; the basis for affirming those [apocryphal texts] which have come into dispute is deemed less than sufficient. Moreover, since it was written in the Chaldean [he means Old Aramaic] language, it is counted among the historical books. But the Nicene Council is considered to have counted this book among the number of sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your [pl.] request (or should I say demand!): and, my other work set aside, from which I was vehemently restrained, I have given a single night's work (lucubratiuncula), translating according to sense rather than verbatim. I have cut back the most error-ridden of many codices: I was able to discover only one with coherent expression in Chaldean words, to be expressed in Latin. ..."
However, this only indicates that people at the Council had an idea that books might be considered scripture, or not. This is not different from the use of works in the fathers, discussing individual works rather than canon as a whole. It does not state that lists were drawn up, or necessarily that any debate on canon went on. But it does suggest some action by the council in discussing whether the Old Testament apocrypha were canonical. Or is Jerome merely confused here with the Council of Laodicea? If the Council did discuss books in general, why do none of the councils like Laodicea which include canon lists mention it?
