Questions About Nicea: An Invitation To Dialog

According to Orthodox Christians, the Church's infallibility resides not in any single person or group, but primarily in the great ecumenical councils (of which there were seven). These councils made final and infallible decisions regarding (what would come to be) the orthodox position on the doctrines of the Incarnation, Trinity, and others.

For the purposes of this post I will assume my own ignorance. I admit that I do not fully understand the Orthodox teaching on church infallibility, and so I invite my Orthodox brothers to help me by interacting with my musings and perhaps answering my questions.

I have three primary concerns I wish to address here. (1) The manner in which the first ecumenical council (Nicea) was called and conducted, (2) the duplicity of many of the leaders who attended, and (3) the fact that only a short time after the council made its decisions, the majority of the Christian world sided with Arius.

(1) The Council of Nicea was called by the Emperor; the secular power, not the church. This seems odd to me. In fact, it seems entirely likely that had not Constantine wished to keep his Empire whole and secure, we might have seen fracturing in the church not unlike modern Protestant denominationalism today. The bishops of Christendom were quite content to argue amongst themselves, and there doesn't seem any reason to think that such a council would ever have been called had Constantine not stepped in. Moreover, Constantine made it clear that the council's decisions would be enforced, again by secular power. This also seems odd. If there was a clear understanding of church infallibility from the days of the Apostles, and indeed if the bishops at Nicea were also well aware of it, would such enforcement be necessary? I suppose it could have been merely precautionary. In any event, the fact that the whole affair was conducted, from start to finish, in such a stately, secular manner, casts some doubt on what I take to be the Orthodox understanding of the nature of church infallibility.

(2) The wording of the Nicean Creed was such that many of the bishops (perhaps more than half) were able to sign it, while still remaining fully Arian in their thinking. They affirmed the words, but not their orthodox spirit. And in a short time they were again preaching their Arianism. This leads to another important question: if the majority of the bishops at the ecumenical council didn't even truly agree with what was (later to become) the orthodox position of the church (and supposedly the council), where is infallibility located? Again, I am mostly speaking from ignorance here and I'm open to correction, but my understanding of the Orthodox position is that infallibility resides in ecumenical consensus. And yet, it seems that the true consensus of Nicea, at least at the time, favored Arianism. And it seems very strange that many of the bishops present at an ecumenical council, and responsible for its decision, would be so blatantly (and sinfully?) duplicitous in their actions. God can use sinful men, to be sure, but when it comes to the infallible descisions of the church, I assume the presumption is that He is using holy men.

(3) Many times I have heard from an Orthodox brother that such-and-such was the "majority" position of the early church (this is often used as a defense against the Augustinian doctrine of predestination, for example). But just a short time after Nicea, and especially after the death of Constantine, the vast majority of Christendom became Arian. There were times when it seemed as though Athanasius alone was the voice of orthodoxy, which is where we get the phrase "Athanasius contra mundum." It won't do to argue that the church was simply falling away from orthodoxy, for "orthodoxy" was still being established. Nicea was the first council called to deal with questions regarding Christ's deity, and in a sense, Nicea lead to an Arian church. And when Athanasius so vigorously defended Christ's full deity, he did so primarily by making arguments from Scripture, not by arguing over the meaning of the words of the Nicean creed.

Obviously none of this constitutes any sort of proof or knock-down argument against the Orthodox understanding of church infallibility. My only wish here is to offer a few observations and questions, and any response is both welcome and appreciated.

If this is your first time visiting this blog, I also invite you to read the other posts here. Some of them are very good, and they address many issues, ranging from the inclusion of the apocryphal books in Scripture to the possibility of belief in the Word of God being properly basic. Please look around and leave comments!

By Whose Authority? (2)

Now that my view of infallible authority has been explained, there is still the matter of how God has preserved His truth throughout human history. I come to recognize this by the work of the Holy Spirit (Nate’s post on Ockham’s Razor is helpful) as well as by reason.

Written Ought to Inform Unwritten Tradition

I place infallible authority in the apostles since they were with Christ during His earthly ministry and or were specifically selected by Him after He rose from the grave (Paul). I also include into this category those who were closely connected to an apostle, most likely had apostolic approval and wrote with the intention of conveying what was necessary for faith and practice in part or in whole or bearing witness to the works of God. Some examples of such people are John Mark or Luke.

Both those of Eastern Orthodox and Protestant persuasion trace authority back to the apostles after Jesus Christ. I am committed to the idea that the closer one is to the source, the better. In the case of the writings of the apostles and ones closely connected to them, that is as close to the source as we can get. Since we no longer have the apostles here with us, it seems sensible to look towards their writings to know what God requires of us.

Written tradition leaves much less room for error than Unwritten tradition. In the very beginning, oral tradition was extremely beneficial and acceptable for an oral culture because 1) There was a smaller group and the information did not circulate to nearly as many churches as it did later. 2) The apostles were still alive to correct misconceptions- and they did. 3) The information was fairly fresh since it was closer to the event.

After some of the apostles died and information spread, it was necessary to write the accounts down and preserve key letters. Before, misconceptions and false messages could be corrected. Once the apostles were gone or spread more sparsely, this became more difficult. Misunderstandings and false beliefs are evident throughout the New testament (specifically Ephesians, 1 Corinthians and Romans) and can even be seen when the writings themselves are traced through the manuscript tradition. Although, the mistakes in the manuscript tradition are more minor in my opinion. Little mistakes can be seen down the line. These mistakes came about even in the possession of the church.

With writings however, we have the apostolic word itself preserved more or less as it was written and are able to look back down the line of manuscripts and isolate where the mistakes arose and make the necessary corrections. We have a document that is around 99% reliable. The same can not be said for the EO's use of oral tradition.

Still, pointing out that one system might better preserve God’s truth misses something. A reliable document does not and can not convey infallible authority. This is where active involvement of the Holy Spirit comes in. It is the Holy Spirit that gives authority to the words of the apostles. It is the Holy Spirit who tells us that what we are reading is God’s word, who fills us with Himself and conforms us to the image of God.

I hold the apostolic word to be authoritative. There is reason to think the apostolic word is authoritative because the Holy Spirit convicts me of such and without probable reason to doubt this is actually the case, I am justified in believing it. The writings of the apostles and those directly connected (even speaking on their behalf at times) are a given when it comes to authority. It is up to the Eastern Orthodox to make a case as to why the Church should also be seen in this light or why an infallible Church is needed to interpret infallible documents.

Clarification

The Eastern Orthodox church’s idea of Tradition consists of the Seven Councils, the Creed, the Liturgy, prayers, calendar, icons, and even the lives of the Saints. So, what do I mean by “oral or unwritten tradition”? I mean that element used in these forms of tradition that was passed down by means other than Scripture, but are supposed to be traced back to the apostles. This includes what was passed down later by word of mouth or gathered later (apart from the criteria already mentioned) by word of mouth and put into writing. I believe these parts of tradition to be authoritative as normative and binding only so far as they line up with what Scripture makes out to be normative and binding either explicitly or what can be gained through a set principle within.

Personally, I view some of the parts of tradition mentioned as highly valuable for faith and practice. I am however opposed to the idea that they are normative or binding in their use for all people at all times if they are not something that Scripture points as necessary. If however, the Eastern Orthodox Church can be shown to be infallible, then I will have to adjust my view of what God requires of His people.

By Whose Authority?

Some time ago, I was having a discussion with an Eastern Orthodox friend of mine concerning the canon. The discussion was enjoyable and hopefully beneficial for both of us. I benefited immensely by being pushed to question some of my basic beliefs about where I was drawing authority from. The following in particular caught my attention:

“Apostolic authority is a good criteria. I agree that its right, in fact its one of the influences that the church had upon its decision to recognize the canon. But first of all, why is it a correct criteria? Is this something you deduced solely by logical means, or is it something you take on authority? If so, whose authority?” [emphasis mine]

By Whose Authority?

These are some great questions. Is our faith a product of logical deduction or are we taking it on authority? If by authority, then by whose? While I hold that God has given us a sense of reason and wants us to use it, reason alone does not make something authoritative in an infallible sense. Infallible authority must come from a source beyond what seems reasonable to fallible human beings and beyond the change of time, customs and ideas.

It is the Holy Spirit who gives something authority. It is also the Holy Spirit who used the apostles (apostolicity) to bring about His message and continues to work in believers to attest to the truth of these writings. Without strong reason to doubt the work of the Holy Spirit, one is justified in believing that the words found in Scripture are from God. In other words, it is the Holy Spirit who makes something authoritative (infallibly), who used the apostles to convey the message of salvation (and/or process of being filled with the Spirit) and who continues to work in believers attesting to the truth of what He uniquely used the apostles to reveal.

Interpretation

True Christian teaching is un-revisable. By true Christian teaching I mean what is actually the case- what God has done in human history, what He has communicated and what He requires for faith and practice. While interpretations can be incorrect and in error, true Christian teaching is not. People make mistakes all the time whether in groups or individually (I may read the Scriptures and make a mistake in interpreting it just as one who is Eastern Orthodox can make a mistake as to the Church’s meaning or even whether he or she should even view the Church as infallible). The chance for error is present for both of our interpretations of what authority is or the authoritative interpretation itself.

Proper basicality, Sola Scriptura, and Ockham's Razor

When we read the Bible we have spontaneous belief formation that what we are reading is God's word. This is what Christian Philosopher Alvin Plantinga calls a "basic belief". Such beliefs have warrant if they produced by cognitive faculties functioning properly in a truth conducive environment with a design plan aimed at the production of true beliefs. Now this particular epistemological view point is externalistic and is pretty contentious view point since the majority of epistemologists are internalist. But despite that fact it seems to me to be the most reasonable alternative since internalistic epistemologists have failed to give sufficient internal grounds for such beliefs as the external world, our memory being reliable, and induction.

Since it seems reasonable to hold to externalistic proper functionalism then we can apply such notions to the reading of scripture. When we read the Bible we often have a belief form in us that makes us think that God is speaking to us in these documents and in the absence of a reason to doubt this we are warranted in thinking that the Old and New Testament is God's word.

Oddly enough Catholics and Eastern Orthodox think that it is a epistemic virtue in it's own right that we have warrant for the canon. This is when their canon argument comes into play. The East or the West will say "you can't justify the canon and this is a problem for your Protestant view point." But if we could be so sly as to turn the tables on them and ask "Why would we want to do such a thing as that?" If the Bible is not already properly basic and there is no reason for thinking it to be God's revelation then why do we need to justify it in the first place. This is because I think the East and the West are presupposing the Protestant view point because they themselves have such a belief formation through the cognitive faculty of the Holy Spirit when they read Holy Scripture. This is why they feel they ought to have an epistemological framework to justify scripture because it is an already had particular of knowledge.

Finally, if this is all true and it seems reasonable to think that it is, then why do we need an authoritative church speaking for God to justify canon? If it is already properly basic and we have good grounds for thinking it true then we don't need to appeal to a church at all. Why are we positing entities beyond necessity? This does seem to be a violation of a basic principle in metaphysics called "Ockham's Razor". This principle says that we shouldn't posit entities beyond necessity. But this is of course this is what the Roman and Eastern church does. So in light of these consideration's it seems that the Protestant position is once again the most reasonable.

NPT

The NT and Apocryphal Works

The NT and Apocryphal Works
Another argument put forward for the canonical status of the Apocryphal books is their citation by the New Testament writers. This, however, is not sufficient to establish the canonical status of these books. If this line of reasoning is followed by Eastern Orthodox apologists, they open themselves up to the same critique leveled against the Protestant of not having all the inspired books in their canon.

It may be true that many apocryphal works are cited, especially by Paul, but this says nothing about their inspirational status. Simply using or quoting from a source does not necessarily lead to inspiration. After all, even pagan sources are sometimes used in the New Testament. Clearly, these pagan sources are not to be viewed as canonical and neither should the Apocryphal writings on the grounds of being used or quoted from.

The non-canonical work that comes the closest to being cited as Scripture, and termed by scholar Dr. Lee McDonald as "a troubling exception", is the book of Enoch. In Jude 1:14-15, Enoch is named as one who “prophesied.” The problem this poses will have to be saved for another time, but for now, it is important to note that this “problem” belongs to both Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant Christians alike. If it is going to be argued that the Protestant is lacking in their canon because of the use of apocryphal texts, those arguing along these lines better be ready to explain why the best candidate for inspiration doesn’t show up in their own canon.


More Info:
1. One example of Paul’s use of hymns originally directed to Zeus can be found in Acts 17.
2. Enoch is present in the Ethiopian canon.
3. Interestingly, the place where Eastern Orthodoxy traditionally places it’s infallible authority (The Seven Ecumenical Councils) does not have a sufficient canon list. The closest is Athanasias’ list which is far from what is needed.

Sources:
1. Translated by Richard Laurence: "The Book of Enoch the Prophet"
2. "The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority" Lee Martin McDonald

Misuderstandings Surrounding Jamnia & the LXX

There are many in the Eastern Orthodox church who would have us believe that the Jews had a more diverse collection of canonical books as represented in the Septuagint before limiting their canon at the synod of Jamnia in response to the Christian threat. This new canon list was supposedly picked up later by Martian Luther and the question is posed at the Protestant: "Why are you only using the books in the Hebrew canon and not the Bible of the early Church?"

Briefly, there are several things wrong with this setup. First, to say that the LXX was the early Church's Bible oversteps for several reasons. We must keep in mind that the early Church did not have one "Bible" as we do today. That is, all of the writings were not kept neatly in one book. Rather, there were a collection of writings. Also, the presence of what we call Apocryphal books in the LXX is easily explained by the high value the Jews placed on these writings at the exclusion of inspiration. It would make sense for them to want these writings translated as well.

Second, calling the LXX the early Church‘s Bible oversimplifies the problem. What is now called the LXX was at first only the first five books of Moses (Pentateuch) which were translated into Greek under Ptolemy II Philadelphus (282-246) and at the latest, toward the end of the middle of the third century.

The name "LXX" was first applied by a Christian when he was referring to the 7(2) translators to indicate what was at first a Jewish collection of writings. The scope of the writings were not yet fully established. Later, the designation LXX was applied to the entire Greek Old Testament. The actual translation of the historical and prophetic books came about gradually over 300 years and into the end of the first century AD. Some of the writings are not even translations at all, but were written in Greek from the beginning.

So, the LXX was not the early Church's "Bible" as we might think of it today. The LXX was a collection of writings and not a representative of the Hebrew canon. At one point, only the five books of Moses were translated and only later were other books added, some of which the question of where the books were translated and by whom they were translated is unknown.

Lastly, the idea that the Jews limited their canon in response to the Christian movement lacks proof. Absolutely none of the Apocryphal books were discussed at Jamnia, probably because there was no conflict over inspiration, and any previous dispute one would expect to see over the attempted removal of inspired books is just not present. One only needs to look at the fuss made at Jamnia over the question of five canonical books to see how rabbinic tradition was not quick to forget or overlook such disputes.

Further, there is still the question of why other books were not thrown out as well. After all, if there is going to be a canon conspiracy against the Christian movement, why not take out the more significant books such as Isaiah or Jeremiah? And why exclude books or appendages that were not used widely by Christians? The most reasonable explanation in light of what was mentioned earlier, is that it was all a matter of date. The Apocryphal writings were written during the centuries of silence and therefore excluded.

Without Jamnia being all our Catholic and Orthodox brothers wish it were, we are left with a lack of evidence leading us to believe the Jews limited their canon in response to the Christian movement. Rather, we find that the canonicity of the Apocryphal books was never in question because they were never thought to be inspired by the majority of Jews.

If the evidence for Jamnia being the deciding point for the Hebrew canon and the clear existence of the Apocryphal books in the early Church's "Bible" is not existent, then why are so many Orthodox and Catholics speaking of these as fact? In his book Orthodox Christian Beliefs About the Bible, Stanley Samuel Harakas, the Archbishop of Iakovos and professor of Orthodox theology at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology says,

"These ten books are found together in the first translation ever made of the Hebrew Bible in the version known as the Septuagint Old Testament. It represents what Jews believed their Scriptures to be about a century before the time of Christ. It was not until after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, toward the end of the first Christian century, that these books were excluded by Jews because they were written in Greek" (46-7).

Here the Archbishop is defending the Apocryphal books of the Old Testament. Notice how he appeals to "the first translation." His statement is misleading to those who do not know of the differences in translation and content. “We possess maybe two, three, or more versions of several of the books that are starkly divergent”(Hengel). At that, there are significant problems with the translation. For instance, the Jeremiah text is drastically abbreviated to an eighth and Job by about twenty percent with an added appendix placing Job as the Edomite king Jobab. In other words, while it is true that the LXX can be referred to as the first "translation," this does little to tell us about which books the Jews thought were canonical and, as will be explained, whether the New Testament writers treated the Apocryphal works as inspired.

Random Personal Note:
I've tried very hard to find some good scholarly Eastern Orthodox sources that use this story. After asking an Eastern Orthodox professor (who simply gave me a handout repeating the story without backup), Orthodox friends of mine who are "into" this sort of thing, searching Link Plus, ATLA and EEBO databases, The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, St. Vladimir's Quarterly and exhausting my Westminster friend's library and databases, I have decided that maybe, just maybe there aren't any. I say "maybe" because I am still paranoid that I might find a source somewhere. However, although frustrated, I am not perfect and probably missed something... still, in all likelihood, I am not addressing a scholarly argument, merely a common story circulating around.

Sad Day. :(

Sources:
1. Martin Hengel "The Septuagint as Christian Scripture"
2. Roger Beckwith "The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church"
3. Stanley Samuel Harkas "Orthodox Christian Beliefs About the Bible"


More Info:
1. The collection of writings in the LXX are diverse and not all of the Apocryphal books are in some of the copies. See Karen H. Jobes and Moises Silvia’s "Invitation to the Septuagint" as well as Martin Hengel’s "The Septuagint As Christian Scripture".

Two Categories of Books

Beyond the positive evidence for the content of the current Hebrew and Protestant canon’s inspirational status, there is also indication that the Jews had two categories of books: those inspired and those merely considered historically valuable. While many of those in the Eastern Orthodox Church view these writings as Holy Scripture, the Jews didn’t and this is supported by other sources as well.

Representing popular Jewish understanding, Josephus explains to his uninformed Gentile readers, “It is true, our history has been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but has not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers…” These uninspired books stand quite apart from those books Josephus believes “to contain divine doctrines,” and believes the Jews should persist in, “and if occasion be, willing to die for...” Josephus is clear that there are books considered inspired and those that are just highly regarded, but not as Scripture. Since he has already given us a time frame for when God stopped speaking through the prophets, none of the Apocryphal books accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church fit into the inspired list.

More Info:
1. See 2Esdras 14:44-45 and Origen’s distinction after his list of canonical books previously mentioned.

Sources:
Josephus
2 Esdras
Origen