E'jaazi
Elite Member
- Messages
- 308
- Reaction score
- 28
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Here is part 1 of what I am looking for. This factually refutes claims that the Bible that exist today was divinely inspired.
The Council of Nicaea and the Bible
There seem to be a number of legends about the First Council of Nicaea (325AD) in circulation on the internet, presented as fact. Some people seem to think that the council, which was the first council of all the Bishops of the Christian Church, either invented the New Testament, or edited it to remove references to reincarnation (or whatever) or burned large numbers of heretical works, or whatever.
Here's my first example, from usenet:
> In tracing the origin of the Bible, one is led to AD 325, when
> Constantine the Great called the First Council of Nicaea, composed of
> 300 religious leaders. Three centuries after Jesus lived, this council
> was given the task of separating divinely inspired writings from those
> of questionable origin.
> The actual compilation of the Bible was an incredibly complicated
> project that involved churchmen of many varying beliefs, in an
> atmosphere of dissension, jealousy, intolerance, persecution and
> bigotry.
> At this time, the question of the divinity of Jesus had split the
> church into two factions. Constantine offered to make the little-known
> Christian sect the official state religion if the Christians would
> settle their differences. Apparently, he didn't particularly care what
> they believed in as long as they agreed upon a belief. By compiling a
> book of sacred writings, Constantine thought that the book would give
> authority to the new church. Here's a second version of the same idea:
> The references in the Christian religion of reincarnation, I am told,
> were removed by the Council of Nicea. (See Note A)
Here's a third version of this idea:
> Also, we do know that there were many books of supposed prophets
> floating around up until 312 CE when the Council of Nicea decided
> which books were scripture and which ones were burned. Thanks to
> the notorious habit of early Christian leaders of destroying
> books/scrolls, we may never know what doctrine existed before the
> Council of Nicea.
And another even more extreme example:
Author: Laulak Siddique <[email protected]>
Date: 2000/12/06
Forum: alt.religion.islam
In article <[email protected]>,
"Laulak Siddique" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Christianity consisted of many sects. By converting Constantine
> (The Great) the Paul heresy triumphed as the concept of trinity and the ending of the
> Mosaic law (which made swine flesh permissible) brought this version of
> Christianity very close to the Hellenic paganism that was practiced in Rome
> and Greece. At Nicea Constantine had 300 versions of the Bible burnt, thus
> legitimising and patronizing only the Paulic heresy.And another (I'm not making any of these up):
Subject: Re: Snipper continues trying to shift the burden of proof to the atheists
From: "St. Clarence" <[email protected]>
Date: 2001/01/07
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.agnosticism,alt.christnet.atheism,alt.christnet.calvinist ...
>Actually, legend has it that at the Council of Nicea, Constantine was
>unsure of what else to include as a holy scripture (which later the batch
>became the Bible). He threw the batch that he was to choose from onto a
>table. Those that remained on the table were in, those that fell off were
>out.
(See Note B)
A new version of the story (June 2001), which also includes a very confused version of the 'Secret Mark' theory of Morton Smith (not 480, obviously):
Dave Crisp <...> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> There are one or two places where there is evidence of which is 'right',
> the most famous example perhaps being the account of the raising of Lazarus
> which was removed from Mark on the instructions of the Council of Nicea as
> it hat overtones of a 'mystery cult'.
[source queried - answer:]
> If you could give me a couple of days, I could probably dig out the entire
> text, which was contained in a letter sent in 480 by the Bishop of
> Alexandria to one of his underlings; who was involved it trying to stamp
> out a group of 'Heretics' who were still using the original version.
And another:
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish, (etc)
Date: 1996/05/08
> The Roman Catholic Church created the canon of Christian
> scripture at the Council of Nicea, at the same time that they determined
> the doctrine of Trinity (through the assasination of a few of the voting
> bishops, by one vote). (See Note D)
These all sound individually quite confident and authoritative. But how do we find out if they 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, convince 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 Council of Nicaea and the Bible
There seem to be a number of legends about the First Council of Nicaea (325AD) in circulation on the internet, presented as fact. Some people seem to think that the council, which was the first council of all the Bishops of the Christian Church, either invented the New Testament, or edited it to remove references to reincarnation (or whatever) or burned large numbers of heretical works, or whatever.
Here's my first example, from usenet:
> In tracing the origin of the Bible, one is led to AD 325, when
> Constantine the Great called the First Council of Nicaea, composed of
> 300 religious leaders. Three centuries after Jesus lived, this council
> was given the task of separating divinely inspired writings from those
> of questionable origin.
> The actual compilation of the Bible was an incredibly complicated
> project that involved churchmen of many varying beliefs, in an
> atmosphere of dissension, jealousy, intolerance, persecution and
> bigotry.
> At this time, the question of the divinity of Jesus had split the
> church into two factions. Constantine offered to make the little-known
> Christian sect the official state religion if the Christians would
> settle their differences. Apparently, he didn't particularly care what
> they believed in as long as they agreed upon a belief. By compiling a
> book of sacred writings, Constantine thought that the book would give
> authority to the new church. Here's a second version of the same idea:
> The references in the Christian religion of reincarnation, I am told,
> were removed by the Council of Nicea. (See Note A)
Here's a third version of this idea:
> Also, we do know that there were many books of supposed prophets
> floating around up until 312 CE when the Council of Nicea decided
> which books were scripture and which ones were burned. Thanks to
> the notorious habit of early Christian leaders of destroying
> books/scrolls, we may never know what doctrine existed before the
> Council of Nicea.
And another even more extreme example:
Author: Laulak Siddique <[email protected]>
Date: 2000/12/06
Forum: alt.religion.islam
In article <[email protected]>,
"Laulak Siddique" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Christianity consisted of many sects. By converting Constantine
> (The Great) the Paul heresy triumphed as the concept of trinity and the ending of the
> Mosaic law (which made swine flesh permissible) brought this version of
> Christianity very close to the Hellenic paganism that was practiced in Rome
> and Greece. At Nicea Constantine had 300 versions of the Bible burnt, thus
> legitimising and patronizing only the Paulic heresy.And another (I'm not making any of these up):
Subject: Re: Snipper continues trying to shift the burden of proof to the atheists
From: "St. Clarence" <[email protected]>
Date: 2001/01/07
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.agnosticism,alt.christnet.atheism,alt.christnet.calvinist ...
>Actually, legend has it that at the Council of Nicea, Constantine was
>unsure of what else to include as a holy scripture (which later the batch
>became the Bible). He threw the batch that he was to choose from onto a
>table. Those that remained on the table were in, those that fell off were
>out.
(See Note B)
A new version of the story (June 2001), which also includes a very confused version of the 'Secret Mark' theory of Morton Smith (not 480, obviously):
Dave Crisp <...> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> There are one or two places where there is evidence of which is 'right',
> the most famous example perhaps being the account of the raising of Lazarus
> which was removed from Mark on the instructions of the Council of Nicea as
> it hat overtones of a 'mystery cult'.
[source queried - answer:]
> If you could give me a couple of days, I could probably dig out the entire
> text, which was contained in a letter sent in 480 by the Bishop of
> Alexandria to one of his underlings; who was involved it trying to stamp
> out a group of 'Heretics' who were still using the original version.
And another:
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish, (etc)
Date: 1996/05/08
> The Roman Catholic Church created the canon of Christian
> scripture at the Council of Nicea, at the same time that they determined
> the doctrine of Trinity (through the assasination of a few of the voting
> bishops, by one vote). (See Note D)
These all sound individually quite confident and authoritative. But how do we find out if they 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, convince 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.
ffended: :hiding: 
