The modern myth and caricature that surround the First Council of Nicaea never cease to amaze me.
We don’t usually do this, but sometimes something so shocking and so specific is said that the person who said it needs to stop what they’re doing and back it up. As a friend noted recently, when something said is huge but isn’t common knowledge a person has a duty to readers (for the sake of edifying, constructive conversation) to make a substantive, supporting citation. Particularly with specific historical claims.
On September 8th Blake Ostler wrote:
“What I don’t accept about the Nicene creed is the right to kill approximately 100,000 Arians within a few days because they disagreed. It was really a political document between rival political factions with the Emperor Constantine taking advantage of the conflict to kill his rivals.” (>>)
An obvious problem with this is that the Nicene Creed doesn’t in its text give anyone the right to kill anyone for rejecting the full deity of Christ. But we won’t deal with that issue here. Bewildered especially with the claim that “approximately 100,000 Arians [were killed] within a few days”, I forwarded Blake’s comments to a more knowledgeable acquaintance in Utah. He responded:
“A few people of Arian sympathies, I think three, got exiled in the aftermath of the Nicene Council, one of them was Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was reinstated shortly after and became a close adviser to Constantine. It was he, in fact, that baptized the dying emperor in 337. Blake’s statement about the Emperor Constantine using the document as an excuse to kill Arians is completely false. In fact Constantine waffled between Arianism and Nicene Orthodoxy for the remainder of his life, ultimately, as we said, being baptized on his deathbed by an Bishop with Arian sympathies and leaving the eastern part of the Empire to his Arian son. The web source Blake references would not be considered reputable or scholarly.”
Blake, for the benefit of us all, would you support the specific claim of yours that 100,000 Arians were killed within a few days of the Nicene Creed?
Sincerely,
Aaron
PS: Any comments off-topic will be deleted.
Addendum 1: Blake responded with:
“The Nicene creed was adopted in the midst of a civil war and the creed was used as justification for continuing the war. That is what I was referring to. It is not secret. Check it out yourself… [T]he Arians… were immediately excommunicated and many of those who refused to accept the Nicene creed were murdered. Arius himself was murdered. The creed was adopted in the midst of a civil war and was used to justify war. That is abominable in my book.”
So far Blake doesn’t want to substantiate his specific claims, particularly about Constantine using the creed to kill “approximately 100,000 Arians” within a few days. As a side note, I believe it is historically unclear whether Arius was murdered. But don’t let that distract anyone from the bigger issues here. Blake, I don’t care where you write out your response. Just make it public and accessible. We’re still waiting.
Addendum 2: Blake responded with:
Let’s say you’re right and I simply withdraw the “few days.” Does it make a difference how many days it took? Does it make it less abominable? I can’t see how. Are you going to suggest that excommunicating those who disagreed and murdering many of them was somehow justified. Come on.
Blake, no one ever argued here that murdering Arians was right, and no one even argued that the historic creeds themselves granted such.
So far it just sounds like you’re saying, “Well, even if I’m wrong then my other point still stands.” You’re not actually indicating whether you were right or wrong. Until you do, I’m still going to ask you to substantiate your seemingly irresponsible claims. And withdrawing the “few days” qualifier isn’t sufficient, because you also need to substantiate (or withdraw) the claim that Constantine used the creed as an excuse to kill approximately 100,000 Arians between 325 and 337.
Still waiting,
Aaron
Addendum 3: Seth, a Mormon, said,
“it seems to me that whatever [Blake] was doing in the original passage, it wasn’t ‘hyperbole.’ The statement seemed to be meant to be taken seriously. And I did take it seriously and literally when I first read it. I read it just like I think he intended it to be read.”
No one apparently besides Blake took what he wrote as hyperbole. Even Geoff, also a Mormon, wrote:
“I thought he meant in a battle that lasted ‘a few days’.”
Blake backtracks and tries to explain himself:
I should not have said “within a few weeks [probably an unintended typo; he actually originally said ‘days’].” It was meant as hyperbole but it was obviously misleading without further info. However, what I have in mind is: (1) Constantine’s efforts to consolidate his power thru the use of Christianity and the creeds; (2) Constantine’s war against Licinius in 323-24 primarily based on Licinius’ refusal to align with the Christian trinitarians and the following battles which led to the alliances with the pro-Trinitarian factions, (3) the Catholic legacy of genocide against the Cathars and Valdesians based primarily upon their refusal to accept creeds, among them the Nicene and Chalcedon creeds, and (4) the murder of Arius and several of his followers.
There are not only remaining problems but new ones. Let the reader be reminded that Blake originally attributed the murder of approximately 100,000 Arians to Constantine’s exploitation of the Nicene Creed (written and adopted in 325 A.D.). He wrote:
What I don’t accept about the Nicene creed is the right to kill approximately 100,000 Arians within a few days because they disagreed. It was really a political document between rival political factions with the Emperor Constantine taking advantage of the conflict to kill his rivals.
The only clear part of the original statement that Blake has forthrightly retracted is the “within a few days” qualifier. Unfortunately, this leaves the statement still categorically false. Blake still needs to retract the other historical specificity he used.
In any case, with his modified, expanded purview Blake goes on to make it clear that, “I didn’t overstate the numbers put to death because they were deemed Arians.” This still leaves a mess of unsupportable claims to clean up. Geoff, one of Blake’s Mormon friends, writes, “I don’t see anything that supports the specific idea that Constantine himself ordered the killing off vast numbers of Arians.” Blake even goes on to state that “Constantine… had Licinius and his followers in Milan killed and massacred because they would not support the Trinitarians” and that those who adopted the Nicene Creed “immediately” murdered Arius.
Dialog presupposes the open and honest use of historical sources. Is Blake willing to do that or not? I would be glad to talk about the nature, function, and substance of creeds (indeed, I have elsewhere), but I’m not going to let someone like Blake get by without substantiating (with credible citation) his outlandish historical claims. It’s not easy or often desirable to engage with a fast and loose dialog partner. In closing, I’d like to include some remarks from Ron Huggins of Salt Lake Theological Seminary:
On the issues your friend raised.
No, Arius was NOT murdered, or at least not so far as is known. He died suddenly in 336 in Constantinople while relieving himself in a public toilet. So far as I am aware no credible scholar has ever/would ever suggest that Constantine had a hand in his death. The suddenness and timing of Arius’s death caused the Trinitarians to really believe that it was God’s judgment and at least some of his followers to suspect foul play. But to assert definitively that Arius was murdered goes right beyond the evidence. Even if Arius was murdered, it wouldn’t have been at Constantine’s instigation, but rather at the hand of some orthodox poisoner who wanted to evade the consequences of Constantine’s order to permit Arius back into the fellowship of the Church.” (See, e.g., Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition [rev. ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich: Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2001] 80-81, 303-304; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, 2:29-30).
No, Constantine did NOT use the Nicene Creed as an excuse for murdering 100,000 Arians, neither “within a few days” or “weeks,” nor in fact within his entire lifetime. I wonder whether your friend is really familiar enough with the material to provide a single clear instance of an Arian being murdered because of his Arian convictions at the direct instigation of Constantine, or by way of any sort of official application of his policies. In any case the 100,000 number is not merely an exaggeration, it is a complete fabrication. This simply wasn’t Constantine’s policy. (The sources for this question are going to be Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History and Life of Constantine, and the histories of Socrates and Sozomen. Any missing details you should be able to picked up in Michael Grant’s biography of Constantine).
No, the war between Constantine and Licinius was NOT about the Arian/Trinitarian divide. Licinius was a persecutor of Christians. I doubt very much whether he cared, nor inquired very closely, into the question whether the Christians he was persecuting were friendly toward Arius or not. (See e.g., Eusebius, Life of Constantine 2:1-2; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 1.7).
No, Licinius was NOT killed because he “would not support the Trinitarians,” the usual excuse given was treachery, after having been defeated and spared by Constantine. Anyway, Licinius was dead before the council in 325. Licinius was not killed in Milan, if that is being suggested, but in Thessalonica (See, e.g., Michael Grant, The Roman Emperors: A Biographical Guide to the Rulers of Imperial Rome 31 B.C. – A.D. 476 [New York: Barnes & Noble, 1997 (Orig. 1985)] 237; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 1.7)
He additionally wrote:
You sent this quote from your friend:
“I didn’t overstate the numbers put to death because they were deemed Arians. But what is important that I wanted to point is that those who adopted the creed felt like they had the right to kill those who disagreed. They did it not only immediately in murdering Arius and a number of his close followers, but also over years.”
As I said the war between Constantine and Licinius had nothing to do with Arianism. I also noted that if Arius was murdered it was not done with the approval or participation of Constantine. As to the statement about the supposed timing of Arius’s murder, which seems to imply that it took place right after either the war with Licinius or the Nicene Council–the word “immediately” was used, Licinius was executed in 324, and the council was in 325. Arius died in 336.
For what it’s worth, I didn’t see any talk of killings in the Wikipedia entry on “Arianism.” I think it was perhaps a couple more than three bishops, but not much more.
The first reference to large-scale killings in connection with heresy that I came across was the Spanish Inquisition, and possibly one of the crusades.
The website Blake referenced seemed a bit sketchy to me too.
Aaron:specific claim of yours that 100,000 Arians were killed within a few days of the Nicene Creed?
I think you are putting words in Blake’s mouth Aaron. He said “kill approximately 100,000 Arians within a few days”, the “within a few days of the Nicene Creed” is your addition.
Geoff, I’ve reread Blake’s comment but I don’t see an alternative meaning. The context is clearly Blake’s claim that the creed was merely a political document between “rival political factions” and that “Emperor Constantine” used the conflict “to kill his rivals.”
When Blake said, “within a few days”, what event was he speaking of? Within a few days of what?
Would you like to clarify his comment and substantiate his claim for us, Geoff?
I thought he meant in a battle that lasted “a few days”. I did not take that to mean the politically motivated killings happened within a few days of the council at all.
(I’ll do some research on the subject and report anything I find)
After sending the entirety of Blake’s comments to some others, they assumed from the text as well that he was trying to speak of the event of the formation of the creed. If there is another event Blake is referring to, he should specify it and make a substantive citation. It’s quite a sloppy and outrageous comment to make without providing more details.
Remember, Blake attributed the killing to Emperor Constantine, and his comments imply it is the same Constantine involved in formation of the “political document between rival political factions”. So we at least need a credible passage showing the mass killing of Arians happened within a few days between 325 and 337.
I see your point. After doing a little research I think a solid case could be made that hundreds of thousands of Arians and others were killed in the name of Christian orthodoxy during those tumultuous times in general but I don’t see anything that supports the specific idea that Constantine himself ordered the killing off vast numbers of Arians. I’ll let Blake clarify what he meant specifically.
Looks like Blake responded to you over at New Cool Thang.
See here: http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2007/09/why-are-creeds-an-abomination/437/#comment-104219
We all know full well Blake cannot support that claim because it never happened. I looked around on the website he gave as support for his assertion, and while 100,000 is used 4 times on the site it is not used for the slaughter of Arians. So even Blake’s own sketchy reference does not go as far as Blake does.
Blake responded with:
Blake, it wouldn’t take you an 80-page dissertation to support your historical claim, specifically regarding Constantine using the creed to kill approximately 100,000 Arians “within a few days.” Are simply you conceding that you cannot support your specific claim? If it isn’t a secret, you shouldn’t have any trouble finding a credible citation. Others certainly have tried and have failed to find it.
Geoff, this is unacceptably vague. What time period and events are you referring to? Are you remaining between 325 and 337? Are you endorsing the 100,000 number? This whole blog post is about backing up historical claims.
Aaron, by “tumultuous times” I was simply referring to the end of 4th-6th centuries in general when the Catholics and their creeds won the political battles over the nature of God. As I said, I’ll let Blake speak for himself on the details of his post.
If the point is missed, so far it is because Blake certainly has a hard time substantiating the basics. Blake seems to be operating by the assumption that he can make grandiose historical claims without backing them up. We’re still waiting on him.
Actually, the Catholics were persecuted by the Arians during this time. Namely, the Arian Visigoths, but other Arians as well.
I just need to clarify a few things. First what point did I supposedly miss? If its the one about 100,000 Arians being slaughtered, I didn’t miss it; I know it did not happen. If the point is that the historic creeds do not give people the right to murder, I would ask that Geoff or Blake show me where the creeds say to go out and kill unbelievers. Blake seems to imply that they do and Aaron was being way soft on Blake for not going after that. If Blake is just saying that being creedal is inherently unloving then I do get it but I would still say he is wrong. Whatever the case he still needs to back-up that ridiculous number or retract it.
David: If the point is that the historic creeds do not give people the right to murder
That is the point. What you are missing is that the creeds do not have to explicitly say to go out and kill unbelievers in order to be used for that very purpose. The creeds are essentially lines drawn in the sand. They were created for the political purpose of saying “it’s us against them, if they don’t accept this document then they are the enemy”. But there was no divine revelation involved in the creation of the creeds at all. The Arian vs. Catholic civil wars raged on for centuries and in the end the Catholic side of that political conflict eventually won out.
Protestants are the inheritors of the doctrines originally codified in those politically motivated documents. That is why the creeds are and remain abominable — because they are entirely man-made and their original intent was politically motivated. They do not represent God’s revealed will in any way and yet they have been used for many centuries by Christians as excuses to be mean, spiteful, cruel, and at times even murderous to those who reject them (even if those “others” do accept Jesus as Lord). That means they have been used almost entirely as an excuse to be unchristian in practice.
Geoff, something that inherently allows for killing Arians and the inappropriate use of something as an excuse to murder Arians… are worlds apart. No evangelical Christian I know would ever think about using the creeds to murder detractors. It’s a red herring, a straw man, and a huge distraction from the real, more substantive issues.
When Blake said, “What I don’t accept about the Nicene creed is the right to kill approximately 100,000 Arians within a few days because they disagreed”, he implied that the “right to kill approximately 100,000 Arians” was embedded in “the Nicene creed”. And he had the audacity to imply that Constantine actually used the Nicene Creed to kill 100,000 Arians “within a few days”. This is not only untenable, it is irresponsible and isn’t the kind the thing that makes for constructive, honest dialog.
I’d love to talk about the nature of the creeds themselves more later, but for right now this post is focused on Blake Ostler owning up to his specific, outrageous historical claim.
I would be one to admit that Constantine’s calling of the council was politically motivated, but this can be misleading to those who haven’t read into the events. Constantine thought the theological battle was a silly squabble over words, whereas the bishops/delegates by and large took the issue very seriously and nearly all were passionate to affirm the fully deity of Christ. While Constantine (who ended up being baptized by an Arian on his deathbed) was conciliatory in temper and probably would have settled for theological compromise for the sake of political peace (I don’t Blake’s out-of-the-blue notion that he used the creed as an excuse to kill off Arians), the majority of the bishops would have nothing of the sort if that meant not unequivocally affirming the full deity of Christ. The real issue came down to language, finding a mode of expression to which Arians couldn’t say, “We believe that too!” It seemed that Arius would take any language the Trinitarians used to express their position and manipulate it. Heck, in the end, Arius even came back and said he had found a way to affirm the Nicene Creed (even while fully denying the full deity of Christ), so in that respect the creed didn’t fully work.
In any case, it’s misleading to say that the Nicene Creed is itself simply the result of warring political factions. As far as I can tell, the bishops were seasoned Christians and lovers of truth. They hated Arianism and characteristically weren’t about to use this issue as a means to a petty political end.
Mike,
I have taken a look at the newcoolthang. It seems some of what I have written here has been addressed but not all. If Blake is saying that he used that 100,000 number as hyperbole, I might say fine but that seems like a gross use of hyperbole (and I am sill not sure he said he used it that way). I think the overall view that he paints of that time is inaccurate, hence why I keep challenging the notion. I think his use of hyperbole on this matter (if that is what he used) belies a false view. I think the other creedal Christians have done a good job of showing that to have creeds does not mean one is necessarily unloving. Some Mormons have also pointed out that the LDS church is creedal as well. I might respond at newcoolthang but as you can see I am quite busy (and tired) here 🙂
Just a warning: When I wrote:
… I meant it 🙂 I’m glad you all have had other meaningful discussion here, but for the sake of preserving this thread and saving readers from the hassle of having to sift through the discussion, I’m going to (when this thread is closed) delete all comments not directly pertaining to the original subject matter. So feel free to save the whole discussion to your desktop with file->save at some point.
Update: I did it. Comments have been deleted and some just trimmed.