Posted by PS on December 15, 2004 at 19:33:27:
In Reply to: Re: an interesting blog post posted by jonvon on December 15, 2004 at 13:52:13:
: : just happened to see a link to this from a friend's site. i'm curious steve, do your studies confirm / support / deny this at all?
: my buddy josh (who is a christian) turned this link up
: anyway...
This is better info. I do question to what degree the first "attempt to establish conformity" (the scripture-burning persecution) was a main cause of the closing of canon on a universal church-wide level. The persecution and burning of scriptures certainly caused the INDIVIDUAL churches to decide what they valued most, as the author points out. There was no need to have a universal consensus here. The author seems to mean that this got the individual churches thinking about the issue more, so that they were more primed to consider the issue on a universal level a few decades later. OK, we'll grant that.
The issue of confessors and traitors is complex, and this is more the main issue I think the churches were struggling with both during and after this persecution. Some leaders thought that dying for a text was inappropriate and was not the will of God, and actually proscribed "seeking martyrdom." On the other hand, the record of the enduring pride and indignance of some who confessed (and survived) toward those who didn't might argue against the true godliness of the former--at least if one thinks humility, forgiveness, and the desire for peaceful unity is godly.
In short, this webpage ignores the diverse reactions to this persecution and certainly over-simplifies the causes of the Donatist schism, but this must be expected in a quick summary like this. Not a bad page.
A few comments here regarding the second "compelling" cause:
"Second, and just as compelling, was Constantine's push for religious unity and conformity within the Christian communities, threatening banishment for those who did not conform. This call to unity is the context in which discussions of biblical canons begin to appear."
1. This wording might create the false impression that Constantine demanded unity when others were happy enough to have various viewpoints. This is not the case. Constantine responded to the growing divisions and polemical discourses already occurring in his now Christian empire, and called the council of Nicea as a corrective measure, to arrive at a credal statement all could endorse. It didn't work out as well as he had hoped, of course, because the solution was almost purely a semantic one. (The Greeks and Romans had a history of misinterpreting how the other side saw the distinctions between the words homousia and homoiousia, regarding Christ's nature/essence/substance/form.)
2. Banishment was certainly a punitive measure, but noting thusly that Constantine introduced it might obscure the fact that the bishops were already inclined to break fellowship with those who did not agree with them on key issues and even consider them apostate. Unity was being forced because of the great diversity that already existed.
3. I agree that the need for unity was certainly the "context" in which canonical decisions began to be considered, and leadership surely recognized this need more than the laity, having responsibility to maintain order and unity. However, the quote might make it seem like Constantine's "call to unity" had more to do with canonical issues than it did. In truth, the Council of Nicea had nothing to do with closing the canon. The major issue of controversy was Christ's preexistence and his like substance/essence with the Father, which was not based on canon, per se. The apostolic scriptures that spoke of the Trinity could be interpreted in various ways and obviously were. The writings if any that were being judged here were the ones that went beyond apostolic scripture to define Christ's essential relationship to the Father and his status as created or eternal. The polar opposites of this debate were Sabellianism/Patripassionism (Jesus=the Father) and Arianism (Jesus was created by the Father at some point), and Origen fell in the middle, in many ways at odds with both. To further confuse the issue, the relationship of the man Jesus and the eternal Logos that dwelled in him (or became him) complicated the issue even more. (Who was preexistent--the man Jesus or the Logos?) The development of the Nicean conflict and the Trinitarian controversy in general is quite complex. I am writing a paper on the subject now. I'll post it in a few weeks. :-)