stephan huller

I have been reading Dungan's Constantine's Bible (or via: amazon.co.uk) and was reminded of something that always puzzled me. How can people claim that Constantine established the fourfold gospel when Jacob of Nisibis attended Nicea (as well as a great number of other Eastern bishops) and he and all the communities of the East continued to use their Diatessaronic gospels (perhaps called 'the Gospel of Concord' from our earliest manuscripts of Ephrem's Commentaries)?

I don't say this as a way of continuing to flog the idiotic theories of some at this forum. I am very interested in finding out how those Eastern bishops at Nicea viewed our fourfold gospel. Are there any references from Ephrem or Aphrahat making reference to the gospel of those within the Roman Empire? Do they ever witness Matthew, Mark, Luke or John? I haven't been able to find anything. I know that our gospels were called 'of the separated' by the Syrian church. But beyond this I see no reference to how Eastern traditions viewed us.

Toto

I thought Irenaeus was the source of the four fold gospel.

stephan huller

Yes but there is this notion that Constantine mandated the fourfold gospel everywhere in order for churches to be accepted at Nicea. That's plainly not the case. Now it could be argued that Constantine recognized that he had no authority in Osrhone and Persia. Maybe but Nicea didn't explicitly reference the issue of the canon. Here is Robert Price's review of Dungan's book to illustrate what I am talking about:

Dungan begins with the very helpful observation that “scripture” and “canon” do not mean the same thing; then he demonstrates how Eusebius’ famous classification of New Testament books was a discussion of scripture and not an attempt to define a canon of scripture, i.e., some official list of what is in and what is out. Dungan shows that Eusebius was merely doing what the legatees of all philosophical schools (or even librarians) did: organizing the writings ascribed to founders of the school, dividing them into authentic, debatable, and spurious, according to general opinion. There was no hint that some of the writings were evil or to be shunned, just zeal to safeguard the outlines of a particular tradition by distinguishing authentic texts from pseudepigrapha or misattribution, and by keeping accurate copies available. One also looked to heirs of the founders to try to maintain the original interpretation. It wasn’t that no one had freedom to reinterpret old traditions; one simply wanted to keep the historic originals extant and available.

All of which makes the continued use of the Diatessaron (or 'gospel of concord') in the East illustrative of how lame the authority of the Council really was. If Constantine was really bent on reshaping existing opinions, he would certainly not have allowed Jacob of Nisibis to be a signatory at Nicea.

Yet all of this brings up the question - to me at least - how were the Eastern bishops who used a Diatessaron viewed by their fourfold gospel using brethren within the Empire? And even more importantly - what did Jacob and his fellow 'gospel of concord' adherents think of those who used the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? I don't have an answer but I thought there might be one lurking in the writings of Ephrem or perhaps Aphrahat.

mountainman

Eusebius reaction to the "Acts of Pilate" does not appear to conform to Robert Price's statement that There was no hint that some of the writings were evil or to be shunned,.

Eusebius in VC describes the actions of soldiers searching and destroying "forbidden books". This is certainly not appear to be consistent with Robert Price's statement.

Joan of Bark

Since neither the original Nicene Creed nor the Apostles' Creed mentions scripture, is it possible everyone is exaggerating the importance of these books to fourth-century Christianity? Maybe no-one cared that much as to which books were being used?

avi

I can think of at least one Fourth Century player who cared about the canon--Athanasius.

avi

mountainman

Before Athanasius conducted his own official search and destroy missions amidst the later 4th century monasteries, and produced further bible codices for the Christian Emperor Constantius II, there was Constantine and Eusebius.


Constantine THUS cared very much which books were to be preserved and which books were to be SEARCHED OUT AND DESTROYED. He used the army for the search and destroy missions, and he obviously created a law so that his actions appear legitimate - but it might have been a martial law. But these were never legitimate actions, they were the actions of a book-burning despot. Readers should also take specific note that Eusebius fails to provide the NAMES of these "chief heretical authors".

Constantine on the other hand cant help himself but to target known NAMES as follows:


Question

What is to prevent us from the conjecture that these books that were being prohibited and destroyed included some of the "non canonical gospels"? And that Constantine wanted to enforce the legitimacy of the fixed tetrarchy of canonical gospels, by destroying all the heretical opposition authorship that he and Eusebius had not officially "ratified".