Loading...I am getting far along now in my discussion of how the Trinity developed. A major development occurred in the fourth century that, remarkably, that many people still have heard about, seventeen hundred years later. Unfortunately *what* they typically hear about it is completely wrong.
This is the “Arian controversy,” which was the dispute that let to the calling of the Council of Nicea in 325 CE by the Emperor Constantine, the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity. (After his conversion *every* Roman emperor was Christian except his nephew Julian, who ruled briefly – from 361-63 – before being killed in battle; his death was not mourned by the Christians. He had tried to stamp out Christianity and reinstate paganism as the state-approved religion. Who knows what would have happened if he had ruled for 33 years instead of 3….)
Many people think that the Arian controversy was over the issue of whether Jesus was God or not. According to that inestimable authority of all things ancient, Dan Brown, in The Da Vinci Code, the council was called to determine if Jesus was the “Son” of God (not God!). Yikes. Brown says before that everyone believed that Jesus was just a human. He also says that it was put to a vote and it was a close outcome.
Yeah, none of that is true. Also, it is NOT true that the Council of Nicea decided which books would be in the Bible, that this is when the New Testament was formed. (One of Dan Brown’s many other fine points.) They didn’t talk about the canon at the Council, so far as we know. And we have records.
In any event, the Arian controversy. Here I’ll explain what it actually was about. It’s true it was about the identity of Christ in relationship to God. But it was NOT about whether he was God himself. Everyone at the council *agreed* he was God. The issue was “in what *sense* is he God. The issues may seem a bit picayune to modern observers, but they were enormously significant at the time.
The issue that erupted is one of the most significant in Christian history. But very few people know what it was actually about. Want to be one of the chosen few with insider knowledge? Join the Blog! Click here for membership options
This is pretty much the view of the Jehova’s Witnesses. I think Newton was a closet Arian as well.
No closet – he simply was one!
https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Newton_Arian/
I think he kept it a secret because it was illegal to doubt the Trinity in England at the time, but I’ve been wrong before.
I know he was open about it with some of his close correspondents. But heresy being a potentially capital felony at the time, Newton definitely was “in the closet” on this, at least out in polite society.
So were the Goths who invaded the empire and sacked Rome.
Hi AstaKask, a small clarification, if I may 😀 As an ex JW myself, I can tell you that Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t agree with Arianism. To quote their own article WT 1984 9/1 p.25:
“Because they do not believe in the Trinity dogma, it has been said of Jehovah’s Witnesses that they practice “a form of Arianism.” But the fact that they are not Trinitarians does not make them Arians. In one of the few writings of Arius that has survived, he claims that God is beyond comprehension, even for the Son. In line with this, historian H. M. Gwatkin states in his book The Arian Controversy: “The God of Arius is an unknown God, whose being is hidden in eternal mystery. No creature can reveal him, and he cannot reveal himself.” Jehovah’s Witnesses worship neither the “incomprehensible” God of the Trinitarians nor the “unknown God” of Arius. They say, with the apostle Paul: “There is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are.”—1 Corinthians 8:6.”
I’ve heard it said that Mormon Christology is close to Arianism too.
It’s amazing how reasonable these “heresies” sound, the views of Origen and Arius (of course they aren’t compatible with each other, but considered individually…), in comparison to what became orthodox. Almost every early understanding of who Jesus was makes more sense than the trinity. The doctrine of the trinity really seems to be a bridge too far.
Given we now have “The Valediction of Moses” document, that shows even Judaism altered their “Scripture”, we need to just admit we have all inherited faked Scripture, but the truth and value remains with careful study for consistency to the words of God therein., as well as what did Jesus (Joshua) really teach.
In the Hebrew Gospel from Shem Tob, a Jewish Rabbi of the 1200’s, Jesus never claimed divinity.
The more I study the Hebrew Matthew, the more I’m convinced it will likely address or expose the answers to most issues that divide us. onediscipletoanother.org
Thanks, Dr Ehrman. I was reading a (British) Catholic newspaper some years ago, which had a column where a priest answered questions sent in by readers, usually of a theological nature. One week, the subject of Arius came up and the priest said Arius believed Jesus was a mere human, or words to that effect. Luckily I had read your book (How Jesus became God) by then and was able to write in to the paper and correct the priest’s misapprehension 🙂.
Ugh.
In 2 Enoch, Enoch is raised from the Son of Man to an angel who was given the sum of judgment over all souls.
With the gospels, Daniel’s one like a son of man (one like a human) became Son of Man (And the angel came to me [Enoch] … and said unto me ‘This is the Son of Man…’ – 1 Enoch 71: 14).
Jesus of the Gospels (a man some say existed late 20s/early 30s C.E., but, for me, is only a character of historical fiction composed by gospel writers) identifies himself with Enoch of The Book of Parables (chapter 71 of 1 Enoch).
Jesus did not imply the Kingdom of God would be led by one like a son of man, he used the later rendering where son and man became Son and Man or “Son of Man”. The Son of Man was not God and, as is mentioned in the above post, the Son of God was not God.
I vaguely remember saying with Jesus, God became human: it was not an angel who became human or a human Enoch who became an angel who then became a human again.
Is it reasonable to have a favourite heresy? Arius’ may be mine. I have always thought Arius’ interpretation is consistent with the Gospel narratives.
Dr. Ehrman,
Can Arius’ Christology be said to have been «lower» than Paul’s?
( I know we only have his opponents description of Arius’ views so it’s hard to be certain) but from the information we have of Arius’ views it looks like he had a somewhat subordinationist christology-
and thought Jesus and God the Father had different «essences».
It seems to me that Arius is close to Paul’s view regarding the pre-existence of Jesus, but different when it comes to the resurrection and the implication of it. Paul seems to have thought that Jesus was exalted by God and given equal power/authority with him because of his resurrection Philippians 2:9-11, but it doesn’t look like Arius thought that Jesus ever really became equal in power/authority with God (the Father), is that correct?
I think it’s apples and oranges. They are on completely different playing fields. To mix a metaphor.
BBC Radio 4’s weekly “In Our Time” program had an episode on this topic just two weeks ago https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000v2w7
Thanks so much for posting this fizikci! It is interesting how the theologies float around and win or didn’t win at the different councils.. and that there were Catholic and Arian churches; and that Arius had a bunch of women followers. Fascinating. Thanks again!
Prof Ehrman,
In the recent lecture on Orthodoxy and Heresy, you outlined three ways/ channels/ modes to Orthodoxy: Clergy, Canon and Creed (I call it the 3Cs). You also hinted two creeds (Nicene Creed & Apostle Creed) but only read through the Nicene Creed. It probably appears that the Nicene Creed is a confessionary statement to reflect the view that won at the Nicene Council regards to the Arian Controversy.
Q1. What is the Apostle Creed?
Q2. What occasioned it’s emergence?
Thank you.
It’s a creed that claimed to embody the views of the Apostles themselves; the form we know it in today came from teh 8th century but it’s based on statements of belief that can be traced back to the second. It was an attempt by leaaders to bring conformity of belief on major points to their communities; some of its statements may have been meant to ward off heretical views such as those found among the followrs of Marcion and some Gnostic groups.
Prof Ehrman,
I did a quick search of Creeds and noticed there probably hasn’t been any post explicity devoted to the subject of ‘Creeds in Early Christian Periods’.
Please, can you kindly consider devoting a post to the subject as it will be interesting to know how to string the various creeds (how they evolved and changed) and also what informed their evolution?
Yes, that would be good. Unfortunately, it’s not something I’m an expert in, since most of the important developments are into the fourth century and later. But I’ll think about it.
Why does the Parable of the Dishonest Steward record the steward asking the debtors to write numbers? Wasn’t literacy super rare in Roman Judea. This has been puzzling me for a while.
He could read numbers. There was a lot of writing in the ancient world. You just didn’t need 99% of the population able to read it. Even 5-10% would be effective. Those who could read read to those who couldn’t, so everyone could get it.
Sorry, I don’t quite understand this answer. So most people in the ancient world could read (and perhaps write) some basic numbers? Is that what you’re saying?
No, I’m saying that people could recognize three denarii as three denarii (pieces of money). And people did not need to read to understand what was written, as long as someone else could read it to them.
Hi Ehrman forum,
Potamius of Lisbon, in the mid-4th century, was involved in the Arian controversies.
Portamius repeatedly referenced the heavenly witnesses verse, writing of “the three are one”, from the writings of John, in the direct context of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (recently discovered for our analysis, although first published in 1908.)
1 John 5:7 (AV)
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.
We have four extant uses from Potamius:
Epistula ad Athanasium 1x
Epistula de substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti 3x
And there was correspondence with ** Athanasius ** and Potamius, in both directions.
These four references from Potamius should help eliminate any idea that the heavenly witnesses verse was not circulating in Bibles during the Arian controversies of the 4th century.
The four quotes and the Potamius background, is at:
Pure Bible Forum
Potamius of Lisbon
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/potamius-of-lisbon.1115/#post-7287
This can also help explain why the verse was dodgy for various doctrinal viewpoints, including the Orthodox as well as Arians. And the church writers might prefer to use the manuscripts with only the earthly witnesses. As written in the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles by Jerome.
Thanks!
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY, USA
Thanks for this. I haven’t looked at this at any length, but isn’t Potamius quoting 1 John 5:7 WITHOUT the Johannine comma? As you know, without the comma, the text says, “There three that bear witness, the spirit, the water, and the blood. And these three are one.” In his quotations, he doesn’t quote the comma, does he? He only quotes the statement “these three are one”? That would suggest that he is *interpreting* 1 John 5:7 (without the comma) to apply to the Trinity; but it wouldn’t suggest that he found the comma itself (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one”) in the text of his Bible. I believe the first indication that the comma is actually part of the *text* of 1 John conesat the end of the fourth century in the writings of Priscillian, also based on an interpretation of the original text of the passage.
Hi Prof Ehrman
Thanks for responding. Good job!
Here is the problem with your interpretation. 🙂 First, we know from Priscillian that the heavenly witnesses was in the Latin Bible of the day, even the locale is the Iberian Peninsula for both men. Both Potamius and Priscillian say specifically that they are quoting John, as do many references in De Trinitate, thought by some to be around the same time, pointing to Eusebius of Vercelli.
There are numerous other confirmations of the Latin lines having the verse from early days, such as Cyprian, and the Vulgate Prologue of Jerome and the hundreds of orthodox at the Council of Carthage.
So why do we start theorizing the very difficult idea of invisible allegorizing? In such an allegorizing, the reader really has no idea how somebody went from point A to point Z. Allegorizing is generally done with the allegory spelled out … “water means the Father, spirit means the Word/Son, blood means the Holy Spirit”. Explanatory allegorizing.
And I believe the theory of invisible allegorizing was invented to hand-wave the evidences that point to heavenly witnesses authenticity.
Your thoughts welcome, iron sharpeneth!
Steven Avery
Dutchess Couny, NY
No, Cyprian does not indicate that the verse was in his Bible Priscillian is living decades after Potamius and so cannot be used for what the text said in the earlier period. The Vulgate is also later as is the Council of Carthage. I don’t recall that the Council said anything about the Comma. And so we’re back where we were. Priscillian is our earliest witness. You can see full discussions in, e.g., Raymond Brown’s majesterial commentary on the Johnannine epistles, or in more compact from in Metzger’s Textual Commentary on the Greek NT.
Hi Ehrman blog,
Raymond Brown – Epistles of John, Anchor Bible, 1982
“….Priscillian, who is the first clear witness to the Comma.”
Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman (Text of the NT – 4th ed, 2005, p. 147=148)
The oldest known citation of the Comma is in a fourth-century Latin treatise entitled Liber apologeticus (Chapter 4), attributed either to Priscillian or to his follower, Bishop Instantius of Spain.
Ian Howard Marshall, Epistles of John, 1978
“.. attested by a number of Latin writers, the earliest certain reference being in the Liber Apologeticus of the Spanish writer Priscillian (ob. c. 385) or his follower Instantius.”
Grantley Robert McDonald – Raising the Ghost of Arius
“… profession of faith—the Liber apologeticus (c. 380) of Priscillian, a Spanish bishop executed in 385 on charges of sorcery and heresy—that we first find the comma cited unambiguously.”
Three of these four do not mention Potamius, Grantley only en passant.
So there is no reason that Priscillian becomes the terminus post quem for the heavenly witnesses being in the Latin Bibles! Scholarship often needs updating.
The six references in De Trinitate also come into play, five often theorized around the time of Potamius. Also the Expositio Fidei Chatolice.
Thanks!
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY, USA
That’s because Potamius does not indicate he found the verse in manuscripts of his Bible, as I pointed out.. These authors are interested in seeing when it first appears.
Potamius says that he was reading from John, which would be his Bible,e g.:
Letter on the Substance of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
3. With good reason John asserts: ‘and the three of them are one’
‘Substance’ is the expression of a single entity.
The context is clear, and remember, Prof Ehrman, you showed a lot of skepticism about invisible allegorizing theories.
========
Bart Ehrman
https://ehrmanblog.org/how-the-trinity-got-into-the-new-testament/
If you think spirit water and blood do not mean spirit water and blood, but Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then I suppose you could see a trinity there. The water and blood show up elsewhere in 1 John (and John’s Gospel) and do not mean Father, Son, or Spirit, but … water and blood.
… I don’t know of any place where “water’” is a symbol for God. In the OT, for example, water is often the entity *opposed* to God, that God has to overcome for the salvation of his people. (Genesis 1 — he overcomes water by putting in the firmament; 6-9 water threatens the human race; exodus, the sea must be conquered for salvation , etc.)
========
Maybe we are in agreement that Potamius should receive the simple, clear reading.
Yes, he is reading from 1 John. That’s what I”ve been saying. But he’s not quoting the Johannine comma. He’s quoting the passage that talks about the Spirit, the water, and the blood. “These three are one.” I feel a bit like we’re going around in circles here!