Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Heidi Guedel · 09-12-2006, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

Greetings Heidi,

Sorry.
The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with compiling the bible.

It's a very common urban legend.

Iasion

There appears to be disagreement about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Quote:

The First Council of Nicaea, convoked by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in 325, was the first ecumenical[1] conference of bishops of the Christian Church.

The purpose of the council (also called a synod) was to resolve disagreements in the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was of the same or of similar substance as God the Father. St. Alexander of Alexandria took the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arian controversy comes, took the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250-318 attendees, all but 2 voted against Arius). Another result of the council was an agreement on the date of the Christian Passover, now called Easter, the most important feast of the Church's life. The council decided in favour of celebrating Passover on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox, independently of the Bible's Hebrew Calendar (see also Quartodecimanism), and authorized the Bishop of Alexandria (presumably using the Alexandrian calendar) to announce annually the exact date to his fellow bishops.

The Council of Nicaea was historically significant because it was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.[2] "It was the first occasion for the development of technical Christology."[2] Further, "Constantine in convoking and presiding over the council signaled a measure of imperial control over the church."[2] With the creation of the Nicene Creed, a precedent was established for subsequent general councils to create a statement of belief and canons which were intended to become guidelines for doctrinal orthodoxy and a source of unity for the whole of Christendom — a momentous event in the history of the Church and subsequent history of Europe.

Contents [hide]
1 Character and purpose
2 Attendees
3 Agenda and procedure
4 Arian controversy
5 The Nicene Creed
6 Separation of Easter from the Jewish Passover
7 Meletian Schism
8 Other problems
9 Effect of the council
10 References in popular culture
11 Notes
12 Bibliography
12.1 Primary sources
12.2 Secondary sources
13 External links

The first Council of Nicaea was convened by Constantine I upon the recommendations of a synod led by Hosius of Cordoba in the Eastertide of 325. This synod had been charged with investigation of the trouble brought about by the Arian controversy in the Greek-speaking east.[3] To many bishops, the teachings of Arius were heretical and a danger to the salvation of souls; to Constantine, any division in the Church was a threat to the unity of the Roman Empire. In the summer of 325, the bishops of all provinces were summoned to Nicaea in Bithynia (now known as İznik, in modern-day Turkey), a place easily accessible to the majority of them, particularly those of Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Greece, and Thrace.

Approximately three hundred bishops attended, from every region of the Empire except Britain. This was the first general council in the history of the Church since the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, which had established the conditions upon which Gentiles could join the Church.[4] In the Council of Nicaea, “the Church had taken her first great step to define doctrine more precisely in response to a challenge from a heretical theology.”[5] The resolutions in the council, being ecumenical, were intended for the whole Church.

[edit]
Attendees
Constantine had invited all 1800 bishops of the Christian church (about 1000 in the east and 800 in the west). However, only 250 to 320 bishops were able to participate. Eusebius of Caesarea counted 250,[6] Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318,[7] and Eustathius of Antioch counted 270[8] (all three were present at the council). Later, Socrates Scholasticus recorded more than 300,[9] and Evagrius,[10] Hilarius,[11] Jerome[12] and Rufinus recorded 318.

The participating bishops were given free travel to and from their episcopal sees to the council, as well as lodging. These bishops did not travel alone; each one had permission to bring with him two presbyters and three deacons; so the total number of attendees would have been above 1500. Eusebius speaks of an almost innumerable host of accompanying priests, deacons and acolytes.

A special prominence was also attached to this council because the persecution of Christians had just ended with the February 313 Edict of Milan by Emperors Constantine and Licinius.

The Eastern bishops formed the great majority. Of these, the first rank was held by the three archbishops: Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, and Macarius of Jerusalem. Many of the assembled fathers -— for instance, Paphnutius of Thebes, Potamon of Heraclea and Paul of Neocaesarea -— had stood forth as witnesses of the faith and came to the council with the marks of persecution on their faces. Other remarkable attendees were Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius of Caesarea, Nicholas of Myra, Aristakes of Armenia, Jacob of Nisibis, a former hermit and Spyridion of Trimythous, who even while a bishop made his living as a shepherd. From foreign places there came a Persian bishop John, a Gothic bishop Theophilus and Stratophilus, bishop of Pitiunt in Egrisi (located at the border of modern-day Russia and Abkhazia outside of the Roman Empire).

The Latin-speaking provinces sent at least five representatives: Marcus of Calabria from Italia, Cecilian of Carthage from Africa, Hosius of Córdoba from Hispania, Nicasius of Dijon from Gaul, and Domnus of Stridon from the province of the Danube. Pope Silvester I declined to attend, pleading infirmity, but he was represented by two priests.

Athanasius of Alexandria, a young deacon and companion of Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, was among these assistants. Athanasius eventually spent most of his life battling against Arianism. Alexander of Constantinople, then a presbyter, was also present as representative of his aged bishop.

"Resplendent in purple and gold, Constantine made a ceremonial entrance at the opening of the council, probably in early June, but respectfully seated the bishops ahead of himself."[4] He was present as an observer, but he did not vote. Constantine organized the Council along the lines of the Roman Senate. "Ossius [Hosius] presided over its deliberations; he probably, and the two priests of Rome certainly, came as representatives of the Pope."[4] “Eusebius of Nicomedia probably gave the welcoming address."[4]

.... and so on....

I also found a reference which addresses various beliefs about the Council of Nicea, and its purpose. The author claims to have researched ancient historical texts, and summarizes them:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html

Quote:

...But how do we find out if they (the "legends") are true? The answer must be to assemble all the primary data; any documents issued by the council, and any ancient accounts of its proceedings.

Documents Issued by the Council

The 318 bishops issued a creed (Symbolum), 20 canons, and a letter to the church of Alexandria. An English translation of these is available from http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm

Ancient Accounts of the Council

I admit that I was a little stumped as to what these might be. However I searched the internet. I also went through Quasten's Patrology looking for any references, and drew up a table of references from that.

From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm :

The adhesion [to the creed] was general and enthusiastic. All the bishops save five declared themselves ready to subscribe to this formula, convinced that it contained the ancient faith of the Apostolic Church. The opponents were soon reduced to two, Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais, who were exiled and anathematized. Arius and his writings were also branded with anathema, his books were cast into the fire, and he was exiled to Illyria.

But the accounts of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Rufinus may be considered as very important sources of historical information, as well as some data preserved by St. Athanasius, and a history of the Council of Nicaea written in Greek in the fifth century by Gelasius of Cyzicus.

(Leclerq, H)

Other information about the council is available from the church historians, which also detail action taken by the Emperor Constantine to enforce uniformity after the council. (The works of many of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers are available online at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2) I have these references for accounts of the council, all of which I have read (see Note C):

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? It is possible that the wide circulation of this preface is responsible for the idea, though.

[The following authors do not mention the council at all, although I checked them in case they might: Zosimus, The New History(Byzantina Australensia 2, tr. Ronald T. Ridley, 1982); Aurelius Victor, De Caesaribus (ed. H.W.Bird, 1994, Liverpool University Press); Eutropius, Breviarum (ed. H.W.Bird, 1993, Liverpool University Press)]

From all of which we learn that the council made a ruling on the date of Easter and condemned the views of Arius. After the council, Constantine ordered the burning of the works of Arius and his sympathisers, and the exile of himself and his supporters, and followed this later in his reign by action against Christian schismatics and gnostic heretics.

From these there appears almost no evidence that the council of Nicaea made any pronouncements on which books go in the Bible, with the ambivalent exception of Jerome, or about the destruction of heretical writings, or reincarnation. However it did condemn Arius and his teachings, and the Emperor Constantine did take the usual Late Roman steps to ensure conformity afterwards. However these were not put into effect; and Arianism made an almost immediate comeback. Even Arius was recalled by Constantine.

Apparently there is much disagreement and uncertainty about whether or not the Council of Nicea actually arrived at a final version of the first Bible... and that was over 300 years after the crucifixion. I have (so far!) located no authoritative source firmly identifying the actual year and source of the accepted first compilation of the Judeo-Christian Bible, OT/NT. There is also a never-ending disagreement about the accuracy of various translations of the NT scriptures which are included in the various translations of The Bible. The oldest Gospel - the Gospel of Mark has been dated between 50 and 80 years after the crucifixion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

Quote:

The Gospel of Mark is traditionally the second New Testament Gospel, ascribed to Mark the Evangelist. It narrates the life of Jesus from his baptism by John the Baptist to his resurrection, but it concentrates particularly on the last week of his life. Usually dated between 60 and 80, it is regarded by most modern scholars as the earliest of the canonical gospels, contrary to the traditional view of the Augustinian hypothesis.

If the first Bible was not really compiled at the Council of Nicea, when WAS it first compiled, then, and by whom, and under what authority?

What really stands out in my mind is the history of dissention and often violent disagreement among followers of Christianity.

This collection of ancient writings... with no clear record of the process by which final compilation was made ...is supposed to be the infallible "word of 'God'"???

Steven Avery · 09-12-2006, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

Not a fiat claim, but merely a simple observation -
I read many modern NT scholars (Brown, Jerome commentary, Metzger, Ehrman, Aland et al).
I see that the general consensus is:
* Paul never met any Jesus (obvious)
* the epistles are pseudo-graphs
* the Gospels are pseudo-graphs ...
If YOU think there is a book which the consensus of modern NT scholars agree is by a witness to Jesus - then tell us which book, and which scholars.

Hi Folks,

Iasion, let us remember first the question at hand.
Is this the basis for your John 1 claim of an addition ?

And of course if you could choose other scholars, from Lawrence Hurtado to Richard Bauckham to NT Wright to Ben Witherington to Thomas Holland to Maurice Robinson and others, and come up with very different views. Your blithe assertions are simply based on choosing the scholars who have more of a skeptical and unbelieving perspective ( including Metzger and Brown). You may choose to extract from their various views but when you declare particular speculations as fact you are simply not in the ballpark of real discussion.

However if you can't deal straight with a simple question about your assertion on John 1 I really think the underlying problem is clear and the discussion can be closed.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery · 09-12-2006, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

According to modern NT scholars, 1 John 5:7 is an interpolation.

Iasion, I did not ask you for an appeal to authority.
My question to you was very specific, simple, clear and straightforward.

If you claim the Johannine Comma was added to the Bible way after 400 AD, then how do you explain the wealth of references from 200 AD to 550 AD ?

If you do not know, if you are simply vaguely parroting something you read, you should acknowledge same. And your whole argument is then a general appeal to your selected authorities with no understanding of the issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

It is true that I am not arguing from personally evaluating the MSS. I am simply going by what the experts say.

Not "the experts". Short summaries from the folks, 'experts' that you read. I gather you have not even studied the issue, and often the folks most "expert" on the Johannine Comma evidences are those who support it as scripture.

And there is no need to"personally evaluate the MSS" to answer my question. It is a logical and simple and rather obvious question that your assertion must attmpt to handle, or be discarded.

The only reason it is not asked more frequently is a very deceptive parsing of the evidences by Ehrman and Metzger and others (we had a thread on that very point, where a poster heard an Ehrman discussion and apparently, based on what he heard, thought the Comma was created or added very late, around 1500). Most folks simply do not know of the early church writer evidences (and often not the Latin line evidences) and the reason is a deception in the standard presentations by the scholars you embrace.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

How do you respond to the consensus of NT scholars arguing it is a later interpolation?

One way is by pointing out the wealth of early citations, exactly as I have done here, in more depth when necessary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

Your case has gone no further than preaching how reliable this passage is (without dealing with the actual MSS evidence), and citing some apologists.

You are not paying attention. I mentioned the references from Cyprian, Priscillian, Eugenias at the Council of Carthage and the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles of the Vulgate. None of that is preaching and all of that is early evidences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

But you fail to address the specific facts that have been cited here - e.g. that ALL the Greek MSS are MISSING this passage (until 16th C.)

Even that one factoid is in dispute. Also your original statement was way off, since we are only talking about the extant Greek manuscripts and there are reports of non-extant Greek manuscripts with the Comma. However for the point of argument I am willing to defend the Comma as scripture even if it fully dropped out of the Greek line in the early centuries and does not exist in our extant 1 John in Greek before the Textus Receptus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

Mark 16:9-20
Most Bibles these days bracket this passage with a comment such as :
"The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20"
How do you explain that most Bibles disagree with you?

The copyright modern editions of the Version-of-the-Month club put out by the Bible Version Industrial Complex uses at base the mistaken modern textcrit ideas promulgated by Westcott-Hort. Using false paradigms of textual criticism that force errors into their versions and could never be applicable to the inspired word of God.

From that perspective they have come up with the ending of Mark confusion despite the abundance of early church writer citations and the huge preponderance of manuscript evidence in Greek, Latin and Aramaic. And the obvious strangeness of contending that the book ended with the fear verse 8 rather than the victory of the risen Jesus Christ. (This of course does fit well with skeptic and unbelieving motifs). Notice above how JW, following their lead and then being even more selective, tried to ignore about a dozen salient ECW references.

And I have explained (at least partly) about the false paradigms on other threads here. I could link to some of the discussions if you are really attempting to understand the issues involved.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery · 09-12-2006, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heidi Guedel

This collection of ancient writings... with no clear record of the process by which final compilation was made ...is supposed to be the infallible "word of 'God'"???

Hi Heidi,

If that clear record existed, you would likely attack the promulgators and folks involved as you attempted to do above with the Council of Nicea, when you didn't realize that the Bible canon was not on their agenda.

The will get you coming, and get you going.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Amaleq13 · 09-12-2006, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

And of course if you could choose other scholars, from Lawrence Hurtado to Richard Bauckham to NT Wright to Ben Witherington to Thomas Holland to Maurice Robinson and others, and come up with very different views. Your blithe assertions are simply based on choosing the scholars who have more of a skeptical and unbelieving perspective ( including Metzger and Brown).[/COLOR]

So, for this particular passage, it is the scholars' faith that determines their conclusion?

Steven Avery · 09-12-2006, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq

So, for this particular passage, it is the scholars' faith that determines their conclusion?

Hi Amaleq,

I would contend that is the case with the skeptics, yes.

They have a vested interest in coming to conclusions that denigrate the scripture text (with principle focus on the NT) and their paradigms and historical concepts and evaluations are skewered to that interest.

Good point.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin · 09-12-2006, 11:16 PM

Here's a statement made early in this thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzim77

The Matthew and Luke accounts have the [post death] appearnces. If Matthew was an eyewitness, and Luke got material from Peter, how would this degrade the reliability?

One of the reasons that the Matthew being an eye-witness theory doesn't hold water is that the text used to represent this Matthew borrows wholesale on the gospel of Mark, improving on that source's poorer Greek, omitting obscure references, and generally cleaning up Mark's account adding some interesting literary variations such as putting Jesus on two animals during the entry into Jerusalem. An eye witness would not have needed to follow slavishly another literary source.

The reason why people keep regurgitating this Matthew eye witness stuff is because Eusebius tells us that's what Papias said. The best conclusion we can have is that what Papias apud Eusebius was talking about doesn't reflect the Matthew we have, so the notion is irrelevant. (There are of course some who wish to imply that the writer of Mark was so unable to appreciate Greek that he bastardized Matthew's better Greek, quite an untenable position, as we can usually recognize better work and copy it, though there is no sign of such in Mark's gospel.)

Along with eye witness Matthew goes notions such as Luke got material from Peter (though this is not an idea from Papias, who says Mark got his material from Peter). Although this goes along with the drive for apostolic authority in later literature, the gospel of Luke is also dependent on Mark for its principal content. Besides Mark, Luke uses a source which could be Matt or a source available to Matt, showing that Luke is a literary construction, based mainly, if not all, on written sources.

Any arguments using Papias apud Eusebius's claims need first to deal with the literary evidence regarding the relationship between the synoptic gospels, evidence which doesn't support such claims.

spin

spin · 09-12-2006, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Quote:

So, for this particular passage, it is the scholars' faith that determines their conclusion?

I would contend that is the case with the skeptics, yes.

They have a vested interest in coming to conclusions that denigrate the scripture text (with principle focus on the NT) and their paradigms and historical concepts and evaluations are skewered to that interest.

I find praxeus's statement regarding skeptics here both insulting, reducing skepticism to some form of denigration, and apparently simply polemical as to his use of the term "skeptic", which to most skeptics involves not being committed to any particular position before dealing with a question. This notion of skepticism is similar to that necessary for any scientific analysis. It is the commitment to some predisposed view which tends to skew any analysis toward that prior commitment.

But the statement is rather typical of the writer who tends to shoot the messenger through inability to shoot the message.

spin

Steven Avery · 09-12-2006, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I find praxeus's statement regarding skeptics here both insulting, reducing skepticism to some form of denigration, and apparently simply polemical as to his use of the term "skeptic"

Hi spin,

You were unable to pick up the slightly sardonic 'goose and gander' nature of my response ?

Now the idea that skepticism or infidelism exists in a spiritual vacuum, as some bellmark of enlightened examination, as is your apparent presumption, is one where we disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It is the commitment to some predisposed view which tends to skew any analysis toward that prior commitment.

Actually as I have pointed out, this concept of 'predisposition' is a common skeptic red herring.''

As a simple example, I came to my ideas about the purity and accuracy of the Received Texts by studying the manuscript and historical evidence, rather then the reverse.

And I might make the same claim on a larger philosophical and spiritual level, that I have no "predisposition" to believe the Bible as the word of God. At least no more than the skeptic has a "predisposition" to believe there is no God and everything arose from a primordial soup which arose from an expolosion.

However we would be going far afield.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

09-13-2006, 12:09 AM

Greetings,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heidi Guedel

There appears to be disagreement about that.

Where?
You posted almost the entire Wiki article on the council and highlighted sections about doctrinal decisions. But NOWHERE does that article mention anything about choosing the books of the bible. Didn't you notice that?

Yes,
the council DID decide important doctrine.

No,
the council did not decide the books of the Bible.

Here are the canons of the council (the decisions taken, or the "minutes of the meeting"), and the letter and the original Nicene creed:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm

This is the official record of the meeting - notice something?
NOT ONE mention of the canon of the NT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heidi Guedel

I also found a reference which addresses various beliefs about the Council of Nicea, and its purpose. The author claims to have researched ancient historical texts, and summarizes them:
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html

Yes, it's a very useful page. I often cite it when this legend comes up.

But NONE of the writers cited (some who were actually AT the council) mentioned the council choosing the books of the Bible - didn't you notice that?

And somehow you failed to notice the conclusion that Roger reached:

From these there appears almost no evidence that the council of Nicaea made any pronouncements on which books go in the Bible, with the ambivalent exception of Jerome, or about the destruction of heretical writings, or reincarnation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heidi Guedel

Apparently there is much disagreement and uncertainty about whether or not the Council of Nicea actually arrived at a final version of the first Bible.

Where?
You have shown no disagreement. You have not shown ANY evidence that the council chose the NT canon - just much evidence they made decisions on other issues of church doctrine.

If they HAD decided on the NT canon, it would have been recorded and promulgated - there would be an official "Nicene Council Approved List" of NT books. We would see this letter published and spread throught the Christian world, and we would see it influencing all later decisions regarding the canon.

That is not what we see at all.

Rather - other councils (Hippo, Rome, Carthage IIRC) and persons (Athanasius) DID make NT canons without any mention of Nicea.

Furthermore, consider the famous Constantine Bibles (these bibles date from a decade or after the council) - they are NOT like our modern NT, they include Hermas e.g.

This shows the canon had not quite formed even a decade or so AFTER the Council.

All this makes it certain that the Council made no pronouncements on the canon of the NT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heidi Guedel

I have (so far!) located no authoritative source firmly identifying the actual year and source of the accepted first compilation of the Judeo-Christian Bible, OT/NT.

Really?
It is widely accepted that the first NT canon to match ours is from the Festal epistle of Athanasius in 367CE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heidi Guedel

If the first Bible was not really compiled at the Council of Nicea, when WAS it first compiled, then, and by whom, and under what authority?

You can read a good article on the formation of the NT canon by historian Richard Carrier here,
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/NTcanon.html

And here is a handy page which goes into more detail:
http://ntcanon.org/

(I wonder whether you have confused the "canon" of the NT with the "canons" of the Council? You realise they are not the same thing?)

Iasion

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.