One of the most enduring myths today about the Council of Nicaea is that the council members voted on which books to include in the Bible. This myth is sometimes expanded to include Emperor Constantine as some driving political force behind the formation of the canon. This, in actuality, is almost certainly a fable. Dive into the historical evidence to see why.
20 Canon Laws from Nicaea: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm
Theodoret Ecclesiastical History: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/27021.htm
Athanasius De Decretis: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2809.htm
Athanasius Festal Letter info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_letter
Voltaire Dictionnaire Philosophique Section 3: (see edition: Oeuvres Completes de Voltaire, 1874, p. 357).
Synodicon Vetus (out of print): http://www.doaks.org/resources/publications/books-in-print/the-synodicon-vetus
Thanks especially to our Patrons on Patreon!:
There is another suggestion that the Emperor Constantine had an indirect role in shaping the biblical canon that doesn't involve the Nicene Council. According to the _Life of Constantine_ by Eusebius of Caesarea, the Emperor ordered "fifty copies of the sacred Scripture...for the instruction of the Church." The order was immediately carried out as scribes copied out "magnificent and elaborately bound volumes of a threefold and fourfold form." It seems logical that these Bibles would have been distributed to the chief churches throughout his empire and therefore became a standard Bible to which scribes would have a natural tendency to conform their own copies. The production of any Bible under imperial decree would necessarily require decisions to be made about which books to include and which to exclude, which probably had some impact on the beliefs of the Christian bishops and their congregations about the boundaries of the biblical canon.
Other myths about the catholic church:
1) It believed the Earth was flat till Christopher Columbus proved it wrong.
2) It believed women do not have a soul and gathered at the third synod of Macon to descuss the issue.
3) It presided the institution which is the epitomy of evilness: the Spanish Inquisition.
4) The Catholic Church held Europe back for a thousand years sucking it into the Dark Ages.
No.There is no possibility that there was a discussion of the sacred books in the council of Nicea. If there was a secret discussion for that,then why would Jerome even write that in the introduction of the book of Judith.And if it wasn't secret at all , then why did Thedoeret,Gelasius,Rufinus, Athanasius and Eusebius not write about it?Paradox!
Thank you for this video! I was in a debate with someone about Jesus being the Son of God and they mentioned the council of Nicea. I had never heard of the council of Nicea before. This helps a lot. Imo anybody that buys into the Da Vinci Code info is misguided. Thete's more I want to but I'll keep this brief. I am subscribed for sure. I want to study up on similiar info to effectively debate my beliefs✌
: Nice video series, very informative. Like you, I really like and dislike Dan Brown, but he did bring the whole issue up in 2006 and made a lot of people wonder about the truth behind the Bible. Now to my point. I was thinking about you said about the remark Jerome had made about translating the "Book of Judith". This reminded me that according to Eusebius, Constantine had requested at the end of the Council of Nicaea 50 Bibles or canon created. Now granted we have no evidence to support Eusebius claim to who wrote or even what these Bibles (Books) contained, but it does give us "Food for thought". As you stated It wasn't until 367 c.e. that Bishop Athanasius gives us our list of what the canon (Bible) should contained, so gives me to believe that the canon was pretty much settled probably by the middle or late 3rd century. We just don't know the names until the middle of the 4th century, this is my opinion. Your thoughts and thank you in advance?
Constantine changed the sabbath to Sunday he killed an tortured thousands cause they didn't wanna follow the Sunday law. Catacombs under Rome that were the Christian's hid so where they wouldn't get killed
Constantine may have not of compiled the bible but 27 books were sanctioned at the coucil of Hippo and 4 years later 27 books were sanctioned in Carthage. Christians were also prohibited from reading the bible, so they would have had no way to interpret nor discover revisions. Tye entire situation is murky and had everything to do with consolidation. Nothing more.
The Councils of Toulouse and Tarragona were both regional councils that were dealing with the Albigensian heresy in southern France, they did not apply to the whole Church. And the reading of bible wasn't even the main problem(Innocent III the pope at the time even commended them for their desire to read scripture), it was the unauthorized translations.
And Tyndale was not the first to translate the bible into English, nor was simply translating that got him killed.
The Septuagint is the earliest extant Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures from the original Hebrew.
Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.): “We prohibit also that the laity (non-clergy) should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any
translation of these books
Ruling of the Council of Tarragona of 1234 C.E.: “No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the
local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so
that they may be burned...”
Proclamations at the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 C.E.:
Oxford professor, and theologian John Wycliffe, was the first (1380
C.E.) to translate the New Testament into English to “...helpeth
Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best
Christ’s sentence.” For this “heresy” Wycliffe was posthumously
condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury. By the Council’s
decree “Wycliffe’s bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes
were thrown into the Swift River.”
Fate of William Tyndale in 1536 C.E.: William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. According to Tyndale, the Church forbid owning or reading the bible to control and restrict the teachings and to enhance their own power and importance.
So we cant belive so called historical facts but what about youtube videos disproving those facts. How do we know this is now the truth. How do we know anything like this aprt from what we are told. Its not like we can look up the documents used as evidence.
It doesnt really matter when or where it happened. The 'SPIRIT' of the rumor still holds true, someone (or many) with their own interests to preserve, decided which books were to be included in the bible, and you can be sure that decision was subject to their biases at the time.
"Judith is a Jewish text of a Greek translation from the Hebrew bible."
First of all, what does that statement even mean? It is such a convoluted sentence that it has no meaning whatsoever. Judith is not in the Hebrew bible, which he should know is called the Torah, not "the Hebrew bible".
Second, no it's not. There is no Judith in the Torah. It was an early book, that wasn't holy and therefore was not canonized into what is called the "TaNaCh" (acronym for: Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim = Torah- 5 Books of Moses, Nevi'im - Prophets, Ketuvim- holy Writings).
He shouldn't have called the "Old Testament" accepted by Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians the "Hebrew Bible." This Old Testament includes the same books found in the Hebrew Bible, albeit in translated form and in some cases these translations are biased towards Christian theology (e.g. the use of "virgin" in Isaiah 7.14). It also includes some other books like Judith that were popular (albeit not canonical) among some Second Temple era Jews and later found favor within the early Christian community. Moroever some books found in this Old Testament like 1 & 2 Maccabees were originally written in Greek and never existed in the Hebrew language so it would be absurd to speak of them as being part of the "Hebrew Bible."
THE COUNCIL OF NICEA, (AN ILLEGAL COUNSEL)) DECIDED THAT GOD WAS SOMEHOW SCHIZOPHRENIC AND WAS 3 PERSONS, EVEN THOUGH THE GREATEST COMANDMENT STATES THAT, "THE LORD IS GOD"........ SO... WHO IS "THE LORD".?.......GO FIGGER!!
Regardless of what is chosen to believe, the fact that books in the bible were cherry picked is indisputable. The marriage between Christianity and Paganism changed the message and nature of Christianity. If you are curious how the message changed I urge people to read the gospel of Thomas. Christianity in it's original form was much more esoteric. The Roman Catholic church finished purging the Cathars in the 1200s in France. When Rome burnt the Great Library of Alexandria, the bulk of the Gnostic ancient knowledge was lost until the 1940's when the scriptures were found in Egypt. The closest and truest form of Christianity in my opinion is Orthodox Christianity, as they study and include the Dead Sea scrolls and gnostic texts ( book of Enoch, Thomas, Judas ect.)
We can say with some certainty that the first widespread edition of the Bible was assembled by St. Jerome around A.D. 400. but it was in 367 AD that the church father Athanasius first provided the complete listing, the 367 Athanasius’s Festal Letter lists complete New Testament canon (27 books) for the first time and the complete 66 books belonging to the canon.
He distinguished those from other books that were widely circulated and he noted that those 66 books were the ones, and the only ones, it was universally accepted that.the need to have a definite list of the "inspired" Scriptures became apparent. Heretical movements were rising, each one choosing its own selected Scriptures, including such documents as the Gospel of Thomas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Epistle of Barnabas
The bible was the product of centuries of reflection and decades of debate between the time of the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 and the First Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381.
I blame Dan Brown for perpetuating this myth. It's incredible how a single succesful novel writer can distort the truth for millions of people for Decades. It's probably gonna take another couple of Decades to dispel this popular myth about the council of Nicea and Emperor Constantin's role in spreading Christianity.
" dispel this popular myth about the council of Nicea and Emperor Constantin's role in spreading Christianity." ....sorry but that Constantine bit is not a myth... "He soon used his power to address the status of Christians, issuing the Edict of Milan in 313. This proclamation legalized Christianity and allowed for freedom of worship throughout the empire". Constantine was also the first emperor to adhere to Christianity. He issued an edict that protected Christians in the empire and converted to Christianity on his deathbed in 337.
If I was a powerful king and had a private meeting to change or form what will unite people's beliefs under my rule could I not declare it be unwritten or not spoken of with such a event that would impact many? Isn't the theory of the bible being compiled by a group of people selecting stories the reason why it's a topic of debate in the first place? Obviously it is hence why it would of been important to not document such an event. Just because something was not documented does not mean it didn't happen-----> ( common sense )
I am not debating the authenticity of anything. Im simply saying Powerful men in history can rewrite events only to be found thousands of years later and be used as truth and why, because who can debate the only material to go off of. Just because there is only one record of something doesnt make it true, even a lie can be true if there is no truth to challenge it. Again--- ( common sense )
You’re right. But we have a vast swathe of pre-constantine scriptures and fragments from before the council and they present no differences from those after the council, Kings can change a lot, but they can’t go back in time.
Additionally we have numerous writers that attest to the same canon more than 100 years before Nicea, so it’s obvious the canon was already well established before Constantine was even a Christian.
*Additionally* Constantine was actually a friend of Arius and supported his beliefs, so if Constantine didn’t get the council to rule in favor of Arius, and rather allowed him to be deposed, and anathematized (only to later attempt to convince bishops to return him to power after the council) then it’s obvious he was not dictating the policy of the council. His side of the argument lost.
+Saint Dragon Out of curiosity, what inspired you to be Saint Dragon?
BTW, you might enjoy The Dragon and the George. It's funny, it's fantasy, and it has dragons and knights in it. What's not to like about that, hey? Oh, the author was (he's dead) Gordon R. Dickson.
+Saint Dragon and the George. Excellent story...which, expanded, became The Dragon and the George. Presumably, you've read it....or have you?
“Sorry, not my day for dragons!” he snapped. “Come back next Tuesday.”
+Saint Dragon Have you actually followed the (for want of a better word) "logic" behind the claim? It is, at best, spurious.
BTW As an atheist, I don't have a dog in this fight. I just call it as I see it.
In this meeting they decided that the father son and holy spirit were one. But that is were the debate started because before then it was only taught that the father sent the son and the holy spirit is God's active force. But because of the new church inviting all the pegans in and the many celebrations to their gods that came in 3's like the way it was started in Babylon, this way would pretty much just shut every one up. Not realizing now that a new question came about, if Jesus is God is Mary the mother of God? Confusion starts.
I read everything. As Jesus said, seek first the kingdom.... and as he also stated, go and preach the good news of the kingdom to all the nations ...." this systen is quickly coming to it's end. But as a true Christian I will not tell you what to do or say because of the free speech Jehovah gave us. I should of not even commented or even watched this video. So you commenting on my comment was my fault. Be at peace .
If you’re going to completely ignore my statements and just throw out a bunch of historically unverified claims that have nothing to do with what I said then have fun, but if you _actually_ want to learn what the Apostolic church believed, read some writings from the first and second century and decide for yourself, don’t just google it once and assume your search is over.
The celebration of the birthday came from Babylon. Do you know that the celebration of ones birth is the holiest day in the Satanic bible?? Just about The whole world celebrates it and even many different " Christians" celebrate. In the Corinthians is states what does light and dark have to do with each other, and to stop touching the unclean thing. Satan has confused the minds of all men. Even the sun worshipers , which is known as the Pegan religion celebrates on Dec 25th. The have their festival in the desert near Las Vegas.so Babylon the great that is mentioned in Revelation is all false religion. One world religion is happening now if it is false it is part of Babylon the great. Jesus said " you are either with me or against me"
Those ideas were invented in Babylon where they worshiped gods in 3's as did the Egyptions and so forth. It is all false religion. As worshipping engraven images or idols. People of the churches worship or put trust in thing they can see and even symbolizing their place of worship. No different than the Isrealites worshiping the sacrite poles that Hezekiah cut down. .... I bet we can go on and on. Lol... take care
Also Jehovah gave Jesus all authority in heaven and on earth. The holy spirit is God's active force. He can give it to anyone. And Jesus has it as he shared it with the apostles and as the apostles shared it with others by healing them and even raising the dead. But that does not make them God.
Solid question! But the debate wasn’t about wether Jesus was God or Man, the debate was about wether Jesus was co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, or if he was a lesser deity created in the distant past, through which God created the heavens and the earth. So.. god or *God* basically.
We also have contemporary writings from the time where people are debating against the Arians, and it’s stated that the Arians used the same exact canon of scripture that the “Trinitarians” used, so there wouldn’t need to be anything removed. Both groups were using the same canon already.
This guy forgot one thing. No one would admit to anything that would shed light on their shenanigans for fear of them looking bad and also, things are called secret for a reason.
I guess because Dan Brown wrote it that makes it false. This has been proven several times in several different documentaries and documents. Dan Brown was just a person trying to make a quick buck manipulating certain facts to tell a good story.
Well even if Jerome was right and they did talk about which books should be in the Bible, they decided Judith should be there and very few actually followed through because it's rarely considered canon so it sounds like it wouldn't have had any impact on it.
Sounds like there is evidence that the selection of books happened at this time but perhaps not all during a single counsel. Sounds natural to me. I would not dig my heels in to say that no books were codified into cannon at the counsel, and the selection of text does have bearing on the divinity of Christ.
Indirectly, the Council of Nicaea did endorse the four canonical gospels because the Nicene Creed asserts that Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate, which places the Crucifixion in the first century AD in Judea, which agrees with the gospel accounts. In contrast, Paul's letters do not specify where and when the Crucifixion took place.
Come one, it might not have happened at Nicaea. But the notion that the many dozens of evangalian books could be reduced to just 7 that spread across a pan-continental empire wihout an authoritive council or figure deciding which books should be included and which not is just absurd. Sure the process could have happened semi organically. Some of those books would lose popularity and eventually fade into obscurity. But the testimony of Jerome is enough that someone somewhere at sometime dictated what books should and should not be included into the new testament.
Worth noting that the church had a defined and somewhat centralized authority structure from the first century with appointed leadership to which many of the epistles were written. This is attested by the epistles themselves and confirmed by the Roman bishop Clement in 96, and the Bishop Ignatius in 108.
With central bishops in each city that were communicating with each other from the time of the authorship of the New Testament literature, the earliest of whom much of the New Testament literature was written *to* in the first place, it would be very easy for a canon to be defined organically just by whatever books they considered more valuable being the most read and copied, and indeed this is what we see happen with the canonical lists of different parts of the world only being different by a few books here and there. These canons eventually converged over time until a consensus was reached.
It is pretty obvious that when you are dealing with a religion that was made up over time you will have to try to codify it at some time. It sort worked but not really which is why we now have myriad of different forms of Christianity including many which are obviously stand alone cults.
Why blame Dan Brown? All he did was reboot the 1980's book "Holy Blood Holy Grail". He didn't include anything original. Just as E.L. James published a retards version of the "Story of O" with "Fifty Shades of Grey". All Dan Brown and James did was prove how little modern society reads and how little they actually know. Guess maybe that's why give so much authority to a lab coat. Even if it's worn by a butcher.
Wait, we also have the letters between the then pope and Constantine. We have Constantine's orders and his direction to the council and why he moved the council to Nicea so the pope couldn't attend. The Pope was unwell and didn't agree with Constantines "directing". So Constantine moved the location of the council and the Pope was out. Notice, the popes signature isn't on the council attendance. Constantine ordered that Jesus must be given divinity.
+Melvin Carter I never said the pope wasn't sick. I simply said he didn't attend and I also know there was... stop trying to change the topic of the discourse. You said the letter or letters were fake. I asked you to prove it. You don't even have to prove it. Just tell me which letter. Then we'll address the illness of the pope. Which of course there would have been no reason to change the location of the council of the pope had only been sick. Also you shouldn't assume I'm a Catholic. It's wrong of you to assume anything without some evidence.
+Fire Smollett and I told you since you are a scholar in the field you would have know which one I was referring too. You say you are a scholar funny thing is I wonder why you did not know that the Pope was sick at the time of the Council that's why he did not attend, the Pope also sent two priest to represent him. I notice you didn't say that.
+Melvin Carter I'm assuming you are thinking of the donation of Constantine. Which isn't their personal correspondences. If I'm assuming wrongly, then I'm still correct. If I'm assuming correctly, again, I'm still correct. If you affect referring to that then please tell me then which letters.
I worry about the future. As time goes on history gets more and more blurry and more and more lies are passed off as facts. I have faith in God, but man is sure doing a good job at muddying the water for other people.
There could be a plethora or reasons for why people might believe that the council was about the bible, and many varying degrees of conviction on the matter.
Sometimes people have a hard time letting go of a preconception.
I often find that it becomes easier if you replace it with something else.
In this case, the “something else” could be some precise dates, places, and names involved in the forming of the bible. Then, people will have a substitute quip to use. Many people are uneasy with having “no answer” on a given topic, so as long as we can provide them with something tangible, they will have something and will be at ease.
I can't speak for Orthodox Churches who have varying canons or Protestant Churches, but as far as the Catholic Church is concerned: the definitive decree of which books are in the Bible was made at the Council of Trent 1543-63 in response to Protestantism (https://goo.gl/U3Ucne). So in the case of Catholics, the canon list began organically and was then declared officially at that Council.
I'm not going to watch this video, even though I'm a subscriber. I just clicked to ask this question: Are there really people that are so ignorant as to believe he did?
And if there are? Find a local Orthodox Christian church and sit through their introductory classes.
I have to say that it is interesting that nobody you consider to be evidence that the Council didn't decide on validity of texts is based on people NOT saying things. Maybe I fuzzed out for a bit, but I don't think you quoted a single person as saying that it DIDN'T occur, only that you would personally have expected them to have commented if it did.
It seems to me, in the course of a serious discussion about...for lack of a better word, catechism, the people making the determination would use the texts to derive the 'truth'. Is there any evidence that what was considered to be valid gospel was already agreed upon by the various parties at the time? If not, would that obviously necessitate discussions about which texts were to be considered?
I've just watched several of your videos and I found this one to be the least convincing. You seem to have cited absence of evidence versus ACTUAL evidence in the form of Jerome's writing. Additionally, my suspicion is that bickering over which texts were sources of divine knowledge was so commonplace and constant that it didn't bear noting as it was inherently intertwined with the underlying actions of the Council itself.
Anyway, great videos.
The question isn’t was the canon discussed, it’s was the canon _established,_ and all the evidence we have points to no.
Later regional councils like Laodicia and Carthage, and even the mentioned festal letter of Athanasius wouldn’t have needed to exist if a canon was already defined.
Also, all the records that we have of the canon from before the Council of Nicea are the same as those after, so there was no apparent change.
I’m sure MANY things were discussed at the council, but nothing on the canon was decided or enacted, and we can see that because all the declarations of the council have been passed down to us intact today.
One thing we surely can say about the creation of The Bible under Constantine is that Constantine would have had a big say in what went into the book! To think otherwise is pure fantasy! Constantine held all the cards! Who was going to oppose him! If the Christian bishops disagreed with any of his demands, he could simply kick them out and choose another religion to be the "official" religion of the Roman Empire.
So much stuff would have been inserted into the finished "official" version of the Bible to strengthen the Roman position.
Just let's pick up on one point.
When when choosing Christianity, The Romans had a big problem...didn't they kill Jesus?
Oh dear, now that is a big problem. The Roman Empire is about to endorse a sacred book that has The Romans as the baddies!
What's to be done? And, this is where the Pontius Pilate hand washing episode was undoubtedly inserted to put all the blame on the Jews. ( by the way, it is now considered antisemitic to blame the Jews - as a people - for the death of Jesus) However, according to The Bible not one Jew protested against the crucifixion of Jesus. Now this seems strange as we know Jesus had a huge following. Remember the story of the feeding of the 5000? And, we also know that various Hebrew groups, around that time, did indeed take up arms against the Romans. With that in mind, surely, the arrest and killing of their Messiah would have been the ultimate reason to take up arms. It all comes across as very fishy, indeed.
It doesn't matter if it was Constantine or a subsequent Emperor, the point is the Romans would not have approved any official Christian document without having their people run over it to make sure it met with Roman approval. Again, to think otherwise would be crazy.
"The Council of Laodicea was held in AD 364 and is considered a minor convention in historical Christianity. The meeting featured only about thirty members, all from the local Middle Eastern churches." according to GotQuestions.org. They continued; "The 59th ruling of the Council of Laodicea declared that only canonical books should be read in church. The 60th ruling specified this canon as the traditional 27 books of the New Testament, minus Revelation; and the 39 books of the Old Testament, plus the book of Baruch and its extended ending, the Epistle of Jeremiah."
So...it would appear that *_the Council of Nicaea has been erroneously accredited_* with the New Testament canon and we should be instead be citing the Council of Laodicea...and the Council of Trent of 1546. For adopting the agreed-upon list of twenty-seven books that includes the Canonical Gospels, Acts, letters of the Apostles, and Revelation.
In conclusion, we can state with certainty that the books in the New Testament are *_an agreed-upon list of 27 books_* where religious leaders met in Council and voted on what to leave out and what to include. Thanks for clearing up the myth of Nicaea’s canon creation.
My goodness, this video was the greatest thing that happened to me all of this Summer, except for my visit to the holy site of the Bektashi Order on the Albanien mountain of Krujë. See what I did there... ;) Great work! Thank you very much.
This rumor pops up ALL the time on social media like Quora and Facebook. People are convinced that Constantine not only picked the New Testament books, he edited them, and then made Christianity the official religion of the Empire; No, no and no.
Why was this information not known? Because these were not the original people that walked with Christ. Their spirits couldn't bear witness. These people stole and found the books and various writings of the Israelites and tried to figure them out. Didn't work never will. Good video very surprised of this Station.
Special Alert: Now Available In Your Area!
Hi, my name is Ross Williams . Let me share a personal story with you. Back in 2007, I held an excellent position at a large IT company with a nice monthly salary. By 2008, the great recession hit. The company ran into financial problems and was forced to lay off over 50% of its staff. Unfortunately for me, I was included.
So there I was stranded, unemployed, with all the bills to pay and a family to support. Where I lived, such jobs werent easy to come by. So I decided to do a little research. I spent many sleepless nights on the web just searching for something to do, anything that could help support me and my family. I just wanted a way to make money, and not lose it, as I soon found to be the case with numerous internet scams.
Just like you, I often stumbled upon all types of web sites offering me some money matrix scheme, promising me all the money in the world. Yeah, right! From stuffing envelopes, Multi Level Marketing, High Yield Investment Programs, to selling all types of useless products. You name it, Ive been there, done that.
Finally, I came across something that worked.
Online advertising has skyrocketed over the past few years. In 2015, companies spent close to $50 billion advertising online. That figure is expected to increase substantially in 2016. What does this mean for you? A lot more money could be going into your bank account this year. Thats IF you take advantage of this secret system.
Companies worldwide are desperately searching for people just like you to type up their ads and post them online, and theyll pay you nicely in return. Its a win-win situation. They get more customers, you get paid. Its as simple as that. These companies have cash, LOTS of it and theyre eager to share it with you. All types of individuals around the world are using this system to make more money than they ever could working in a boring, dead-end job. You can work part-time or full-time, its all up to you.