At the First Council of Nicea (CE 325), an orthodox conclave summoned by Roman emperor Constantine the Great, where Judeo-Christian congregations had no representation, the Byzantine bishops took a strong anti-Judaic position and separated orthodoxy from Judeo-Christianity. The Emperor expressed the political reality of the matter in his letter to the congregation at Alexandria wherein he stated: "What the 300 bishops have decided is nothing else than the decree of God, for the Holy Spirit, present in these men, made known the will of God" (Baus 1986:28; see Schaff and Wace 1986:438).

According to Bagatti:

...we can conclude that no Judaeo-Christian bishop participated in the Council. Either they were not invited or they declined to attend. And so the capitulars had a free hand to establish norms for certain practices without meeting opposition or hearing other view points. Once the road was open future Councils would continue on these lines, thus deepening the breach between the Christians of the two stocks. The point of view of Judaeo-Christians, devoid of Greek philosophical formation, was that of keeping steadfast to the Testimonia, and therefore not to admit any word foreign to the Bible, including Homoousion. The point of view of the capitular fathers, accustomed to reasoned deductions, was that the Holy Spirit had inspired this word, even though not biblical, as justly corresponding to the Christian truth of the nature of God, so that whoever did not accept it was a heretic. Perhaps with a little serene discussion a definite rupture could have been avoided, but the times were not ripe for that. (Bagatti 1971b:47-48.)

These Greco-Roman Christians, known as Byzantines, considered themselves orthodox and those who did not adhere to their peculiar belief system heterodox.^F1 Bart Ehrman, in his provocative The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, described the high level of intolerance found in their rhetoric.

The attacks leveled by the orthodox against opposing viewpoints became stereotyped fairly quickly: Heretics are nearly everywhere accused of being self-contradictory, patently absurd, and mutually divergent. In contrast, orthodox Christians are described as consistent, sensible, and unified. Heretics invent doctrines that evidence no clear connection to the apostolic tradition they claim to represent. The orthodox, on the other hand, faithfully transmit the teachings of Jesus and his apostles, as these have been known from the very beginning. Heretics disavow the clear teachings of Scripture, perverting scriptural doctrines with ideas drawn from Judaism or pagan philosophy. The orthodox preserve the teachings of Scripture unsullied, setting forth their original meaning apart from external influences. (Ehrman 1993:15-16.)

The orthodox held Judeo-Christianity and its teachings in contempt. For example, the ardent Nicene Eusebius expressed his abhorrence at the teachings of Papias, a Judeo-Christian writer from the second century quoted by him, and marveled that Papias could have held such foolish ideas. Eusebius wrote:

The same historian also gives other accounts, which he says he adds as received by him from unwritten tradition, likewise certain strange parables of our Lord, and of his doctrine and some other matters rather too fabulous. In these he says there would be a certain millennium after the resurrection, and that there would be a corporeal reign of Christ on this very earth; which things he appears to have imagined, as if they were authorized by the apostolic narrations, not understanding correctly those matters which they propounded mystically in their representations. For he was very limited in his comprehension, as is evident from his discourses; yet he was the cause why most of the ecclesiastical writers, urging the antiquity of humanity, were carried away by a similar opinion; as, for instance, Irenaus, or any other that adopted such sentiments. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39; Boyle 1955:126.)

Such rhetoric notwithstanding, it was the Nicene resolution of the Quartodeciman controversy and collateral issues, e.g., Sabbath observance, and the like, that severed the two communities. The Nicenes viewed Quartodecimans as heterodox, anathematized because they refused to adopt the Nicene decrees, and excluded from membership in the Great Catholic and Apostolic Church. Not all Quartodecimans, however, were Judeo-Christians. Perhaps most, orthodox in other matters of faith and praxis, were actually Greco-Roman Christians. For Epiphanius, who wrote "of Quartodecimans, who celebrate the Passover on one day of the year, whichever day was the fourteenth of the month�whether it is a Sabbath or a Lord�s Day�and both fast and hold a vigil on that day", all Quartodecimans were heretical (Epiphanius, Anacephalaeosis 4.50; Williams 1994:1).^F2

Greco-Roman bishops and their people soon realigned themselves with the Nicene decisions. Nevertheless, as late as 395 some of their number still deserted Easter ceremonies for the 14th of Nisan (Chrysostom, Sermones XII in Genesium; Migne, Patrologia Graeca 53.98; cf., Bagatti 1971a:92) and involved themselves with Sabbath keeping and annual Sabbath observance (Chrysostom, Ortiones VII Adversus Judaeos; Migne, Patrologia Graeca 48.843-944). Judeo-Christians, in spite of the polemics, resisted orthodox efforts to take over all Christianity. Nevertheless, orthodox demonization of Judo-Christians contributed to their isolation and furnished the justification needed for their ultimate elimination.

_____________

^F1The term Byzantine here is in the sense of its scholarly dating from CE 324 when Constantine I the Great founded Constantinople (see Kazhdan 1991:344-345).

^F2While attributed to Epiphanius he is certainly not the author of this work. However, the Anacephalaiosis dates from the same period as the Panarion and is a kind of summary of it (Pritz 1992:29).

Page last edited: 01/26/06 07:12 PM

Thank you for visiting BIBARCH�
Please Visit Our Site Often