stephan huller

The usual way of looking at the symbolon (from the Greek 'coming together') is that Athanasius and company developed a trap to expose Arian beliefs. The idea is that this 'creed' was developed only with respect to things that the Arians and the Orthodox disagreed about. This may well be true in some sense, but it is still interesting to see how little emphasis is given to the actual ministry of Jesus. The only historical references to the gospel pertain to a pre-existent Jesus flying down from heaven and dying on the cross:

There is no mention of any demand to accept the historicity of the acts of Jesus outside of his crucifixion and resurrection.

For those that argue that there was no dispute with respect to the historical nature of gospel narrative, I am not so sure. Clement and especially Origen are quite willing to allegorize the details of any narrative. Origenism was alive and well at the time of Nicaea. While it is certainly true that Origenism was not the focus of here, if we go back in time there is a consistent lack of demand to accept the historical reality of the gospel narrative. This when many 'heresies' were raging who questioned everything.

So the Apostle's Creed of Hippolytus avoids demanding belief that any of the miracles were real:

So too a complete lack of mention in Irenaeus a generation earlier:

I am not arguing of course that Athanasius or his contemporaries doubted the historical nature of gospel narratives. What I am saying is that the basic form of the creed was established in an age where such literal belief in the miracles of Jesus would have been impossible to maintain - so many Christians did not believe in the reality of the narrative. I think Hippolytus and Irenaeus stuck to the barest bone interpretation of what had to be agreed by all. They were effectively tolerating those who questioned the historical nature of the gospel narratives outside of the crucifixion and resurrection.

sotto voce

They were sponsored not by Greece, but by Rome, therefore not over-bright; but they were not that unsophisticated.

Little emphasis is given to the actual ministry of Jesus because it had ceased to be an issue; had it ever been one. Greeks, Romans, Jews and no doubt others, despite the considerable resources at their disposal, both legitimate and non-legitimate, had failed to dislodge belief in the contents of the already de facto canonical gospels. The damned Galilaean had conquered, and damage limitation was literally the order of the day. The time had come for dissimulation, for an imperial church to be set up, with impressively staged and well-publicised effects to impress the citizens of the empire, now led by a virtuous emperor. So the emperor's men divided into two, one to be the favoured 'orthodox', the other to be the 'nasty' heretics who would make the eventual winners look like brave heroes.

The glaring omission of the creeds of the empire is not parable, not the miraculous, though surely resurrection is miracle enough; that omission is justification by faith, and personal commitment; there is no mention of atonement for sins, only of baptism for atonement, a cunning ambiguity that was of course exploited to the full.

aeebee50

I do not know about all of the christians, but Constantine was trying to maintain peace. Bishop Donatus was trying to figure out what Emperor Constantine had to do with the church while a lot of Christians agreed the emperor had a lot to do with the church. Constantine called for the famous meeting at Nicea in 325 AD, to bring the Bishops together. Arius, presbyter to Bishop Alexander, was present and Athanasius, deacon to Bishop Alexander. It seems to be all political. Athanasius versus Arius. It all depended on who the emperor was and what group the emperor was with. My two cents, I believe they are still fighting.

Duvduv

The original Creed that is said to have been developed in 325 does not contain the teachings of "Christianity" that are said to have existed since the second century and found in the writings of the so-called second century heresiologists. It's not difficult to conceive of the possibility that in 325 the new religion was actually in the process of development (if that early) and those so-called 2nd century writers (about several of whom virtually nothing is known) were backdated to enhance the antiquity of the religion prior to the Constantinian period.

The original creed of 325 makes no mention of virgin birth, Mary, Pilate, crucifixion or the messiah status of Jesus. These were all updated gradually later in assorted other creeds until the second Nicaean Creed of 381 or so. Even in that case Jesus is still not presented as a messiah.

andrewcriddle

The creeds emphasise things like the birth death and resurrection partly because docetists and others denied or were believed to deny them.

I'm not sure that anyone was saying that they believed in Jesus' death and resurrection but denied that he healed the blind.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

That's not true. Take a look at what Tertullian says about the Marcionite approach to blind Timaeus. He says that at first the blind guy says 'son of David' but when his eyes are healed he says 'Lord' demonstrating that he now not only has sight but understanding. It is hard to argue that this text is being taken literally. The narrative is an artificial disguise for a theological point. It resembles Alexandrian allegory taken to a whole new level. Someone with this interpretation could not hold that this is a literal account of an actual event when the language is so obvious artificial and only serves to drive a (hidden) theological point.

stephan huller

I also acknowledge that Nicaea is traditional seen as focused on marginalizing the Arians. Why then does the pattern extend to Irenaeus in an age when the Arians didn't even exist? The creed may well have been established as the focus of what has to be believed about the gospel narrative - a reaction against an earlier allegorical interpretation which like Strawberry Fields saw that nothing was real.

andrewcriddle

Hi Stephan

Could you give me your reference for this please ?
I can't find this in Against Marcion

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

Luke: 35 As Jesus approached Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging. 36 When he heard the crowd going by, he asked what was happening. 37 They told him, “Jesus of Nazareth is passing by.”

38 He called out, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”

39 Those who led the way rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!”

40 Jesus stopped and ordered the man to be brought to him. When he came near, Jesus asked him, 41 “What do you want me to do for you?”

“Lord, I want to see,” he replied.

42 Jesus said to him, “Receive your sight; your faith has healed you.” 43 Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus, praising God. When all the people saw it, they also praised God.

Tertullian:

The Jewish race was from the beginning so clearly distinguished into tribes and communes and families and households, that no man could easily be of unknown descent, at least from the recent census of Augustus, of which perhaps the records were still on display. But Marcion's Jesus—yet there could be no doubt that one had been born, who was seen to be a man—he indeed, not having been born, could have had in the public records no note of his descent, but would have had to be reckoned as one from among those persons who in some way or other were classed as unknown. When then that blind man had been told that he was passing by, why did he cry out, Jesus thou son of David, have mercy on me, except that he was with good reason regarded as the son of David, which means, of the family of David, in consideration of his mother and his brethren, who had in fact on one occasion because of people's knowledge of them, been reported to him as being present? But they that went before rebuked the blind man, that he should hold his peace. Quite properly: because he was making a noise, not because he was wrong about the son of David. Or else you must prove that those who rebuked were convinced that Jesus was not the son of David, if you wish me to believe that that was their reason for putting the blind man to silence. Yet even if you did prove this, the man would more readily assume that those people were in ignorance, than that the Lord could have allowed to pass a false description of himself. But the Lord is patient. He is not however one who stands surety for error—but rather a revealer of the Creator—so that he would not have failed first to take away the cloud of this aspect of that man's blindness, and so prevent him from thinking any longer that Jesus was the son of David. Far from it: to preclude you from speaking ill of his patience, or from attaching to him any charge of keeping back the truth, or from saying he is not the son of David, he expressed the clearest possible approval of the blind man's commendation, rewarding it with the gift of healing, and with witness to his faith. Thy faith, he says, hath made thee whole. What do you say was the substance of that blind man's faith? That Jesus had come down from that god of yours with intent to overthrow the Creator and destroy the law and the prophets? that he was not the one foreordained to come forth from the root of Jesse and from the fruit of David's loins, a giver of gifts also to the blind? No, there did not yet exist, I think, people of Marcion's sort of blindness, that such should have been the content of that blind man's faith which he expressed in the cry, Jesus, thou son of David. Jesus knew that this was what he is, and wished it to be known of all men, so that although the man's faith was based on better eyesight, although it was possessed of the true light, he gave it the further gift of external vision, so that we too might be taught what is the rule, and also the reward, of faith. He who wishes to see Jesus, must believe him the son of David by descent from the virgin: he who does not so believe will never be told by him, Thy faith hath saved thee, and consequently will remain blind, falling into the ditch of an antithesis, which itself falls into a ditch. For this is what happens when the blind leads the blind. For if, <as you suggest>, blind men once came into conflict with David at his recapture of Sion,e fighting back to prevent his admission though these are a figure of that nation equally blind, which was some time to deny admission to Christ the son of David— and therefore Christ came to the blind man's help by way of opposition so that by this he might show himself not the son of David, being of opposite mind, and kind to blind men, such as David had ordered to be slain: <if this is so> why did he say he had granted this to the man's faith, and false faith at that? But in fact by this expression son of David I can, on its own terms, blunt the point of the antithesis. Those who came into conflict with David were blind: but here a man of the same infirmity had presented himself as suppliant to the son of David. Consequently, when he gave this satisfaction, the son of David was in some sort appeased and restored his sight, adding also a testimony to the faith by which he had believed this very fact, that he must address his prayer to the son of David. For all that, David I think will have been offended by the insolence of those Jebusites, not by the state of their health.

stephan huller

An interesting parallel I am sure you will also appreciate: