The Council of Nicaea

Did the council invent Jesus' divinity?

The most repeated Nicaea myth, made famous by Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code (2003): the divinity of Jesus was 'officially proposed and voted on' at Nicaea — invented there by the church under the Emperor Constantine.

Even skeptics reject this. The agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman, no friend of orthodoxy, says the council did not meet to decide whether Jesus was divine — 'everyone at the Council … already agreed that Jesus was divine, the Son of God.' What Nicaea actually debated was not whether the Son is God but how: eternal and of one being with the Father, or a creature? The disciples had already confessed it — Thomas, to the risen Christ: 'My Lord and my God!' Nicaea confessed what the church had held from the start; it invented nothing.

Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code (Doubleday, 2003), ch. 55, p. 233 — the character Teabing“Jesus' establishment as 'the Son of God' was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea.”

Hostile witness · Bart Ehrman, Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code (Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 14“…this was not a council that met to decide whether or not Jesus was divine… everyone at the Council — and in fact, just about every Christian everywhere — already agreed that Jesus was divine, the Son of God.”

Hostile witness · Bart Ehrman, 'Widespread Misconceptions about the Council of Nicea,' The Bart Ehrman Blog (9 October 2013)“…we are told that Constantine called the Council in order to 'decide' on whether Jesus was divine or not, and that they took a vote on whether he was human or 'the Son of God.' … That is so wrong.”

Was his divinity decided by a close vote?

The Da Vinci Code calls it 'a relatively close vote' — as though the church barely carried the motion that Jesus is God.

The record is not close. Around three hundred bishops gathered — the eyewitness Eusebius says 'the number of bishops exceeded two hundred and fifty'; later tradition says 318. Socrates Scholasticus records that only five objected to the word homoousios, and Theodoret that all but two of the dissenters 'stood up and took the lead in publicly renouncing Arius.' Just two, Secundus of Ptolemais and Theonas of Marmarica, held out, and the council's own letter says 'they have suffered the same condemnation as himself' — as Arius. Roughly three hundred to two is not a close vote; it is a landslide.

Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code (Doubleday, 2003), ch. 55, p. 233 — Teabing“'You're saying Jesus' divinity was the result of a vote?' 'A relatively close vote at that,' Teabing added.”

Primary — eyewitness · Eusebius, Life of Constantine III.8 (trans. E. C. Richardson, NPNF² 1)“…the number of bishops exceeded two hundred and fifty…”

Primary — church historian · Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History I.8 (trans. A. C. Zenos, NPNF² 2)“This creed was recognized and acquiesced in by three hundred and eighteen [bishops]… Five only would not receive it, objecting to the term homoousios… these were Eusebius bishop of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nice, Maris of Chalcedon, Theonas of Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemaïs.”

Primary — church historian · Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History I.6 (trans. Blomfield Jackson, NPNF² 3)“…they all, with the exception of Secundus and Theonas, stood up and took the lead in publicly renouncing Arius.”

Primary — the council's own letter · The Synodal Letter of Nicaea, in Socrates, Ecclesiastical History I.9 (trans. A. C. Zenos, NPNF² 2)“Yet so contagious has his pestilential error proved, as to drag into perdition Theonas, bishop of Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemaïs; for they have suffered the same condemnation as himself.”

Did Nicaea decide which books are in the Bible?

A widespread belief — again amplified by The Da Vinci Code — is that the New Testament canon was chosen at Nicaea: the bishops voted the right books in and the rival gospels out. A medieval legend even has the apocryphal books miraculously falling off the altar.

Nicaea never discussed the canon. Not one of its twenty canons mentions which books are Scripture. The skeptic Bart Ehrman is blunt: the idea 'that it was at the Council of Nicea that the canon of the New Testament was decided … That too is wrong.' The four Gospels were already fixed in Irenaeus' day (c. AD 180), a century and a half earlier. The altar-miracle tale traces to the ninth-century Synodicon Vetus, popularized by Voltaire — not to any act of the council. The church recognized the books it already received; it did not invent a list at Nicaea.

The canon-by-miracle legend — Synodicon Vetus (9th c.), in English as quoted by Wesley Huff ('What Happened at the Council of Nicaea', 2020); popularized by Voltaire, Dictionnaire philosophique, 'Conciles'“The council made manifest the canonical and apocryphal books in the following manner: placing them by the side of the divine table in the house of God, they prayed, entreating the Lord that the divinely inspired books might be found upon the table, and the spurious ones underneath; and it so happened.”

Hostile witness · Bart Ehrman, 'Widespread Misconceptions about the Council of Nicea,' The Bart Ehrman Blog (9 October 2013)“There are also a lot of people who think … that it was at the Council of Nicea that the canon of the New Testament was decided … That too is wrong.”

Primary · Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.11.8 (c. AD 180; trans. Roberts & Rambaut, ANF 1)“It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are.”

Did Constantine commission a new Bible that cut the human-Jesus gospels?

The Da Vinci Code claims Constantine 'commissioned and financed a new Bible' that omitted the gospels stressing Christ's human traits and kept only the ones that made him godlike.

Constantine did order Bibles — but the record says the opposite of the myth. Eusebius preserves the actual letter: fifty copies 'of the sacred Scriptures' for the new churches of Constantinople, to be made by trained scribes. They were copies of the Scriptures the church already used, written years after Nicaea — not an edited canon, and nothing was 'cut.' And the canonical Gospels are the very ones that insist on Jesus' humanity: 'the Word became flesh.' The myth has the evidence backwards.

Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code (Doubleday, 2003), ch. 55, p. 234 — Teabing“Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ's human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike.”

Primary — Constantine's own letter · Eusebius, Life of Constantine IV.36 (trans. E. C. Richardson, NPNF² 1)“I have thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence to order fifty copies of the sacred Scriptures… to be written on prepared parchment… by professional transcribers thoroughly practiced in their art.”

Were the 'lost gospels' banned at Nicaea?

It is often said that the Gnostic 'lost gospels' — Thomas, Judas, Mary — were suppressed or outlawed at Nicaea to hide a more human Jesus.

Nicaea never took up the subject. These texts were written after the apostles' generation — most scholars date them to the 2nd century or later — and were never widely received; the fourfold Gospel was already settled by c. AD 180, when Irenaeus could write that the Gospels cannot be 'either more or fewer in number than they are.' They were not 'lost' at Nicaea — they were never in. (For the full canon question, see the 'Who Chose the Books?' examination.)

The popular 'suppressed gospels' claim — Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code (Doubleday, 2003), ch. 55, p. 234 — Teabing“The earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up, and burned.”

Primary · Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.11.8 (c. AD 180; trans. Roberts & Rambaut, ANF 1)“It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are.”

Did St. Nicholas punch Arius at the council?

A favorite internet story — beloved even by some Christians — has Bishop Nicholas of Myra (the original 'Santa Claus') so enraged by Arius that he slapped or punched him on the council floor.

We hold our own side to the same standard: this one is legend. The slapping story developed centuries after Nicaea; no account by anyone who attended the council records it, and none of them so much as mentions Nicholas. It is a fun tale, not history — and an examination that corrects others' myths must correct its own.

The 'Santa punched a heretic' legend, as Wesley Huff summarizes it“There is even a story that developed later that St. Nicholas (yes, good St. Nick himself), struck Arius in the face during Nicaea after Arius stood up and uttered his famous statement that, 'there was a time when the Son was not.'”

Note on the legend's late origin · Wesley Huff, 'What Happened at the Council of Nicaea' (wesleyhuff.com, 13 October 2020)“While the visual of Santa punching heretics in the face makes for a good laugh and a fun story, the narrative developed later and cannot legitimately be tied to anything that actually happened historically at the council.”

So what did Nicaea actually decide?

If Nicaea did not invent Jesus' divinity or pick the Bible's books, the fair question is: what did it do?

Four things, all on the record. (1) It answered the Arian controversy, confessing the Son as 'of one substance with the Father' — homoousios. (2) It issued the Nicene Creed, with an anathema against anyone who says 'there was a time when the Son of God was not.' (3) It set a common rule for dating Easter. (4) It passed twenty canons — rules of church order, about clergy and the restoration of the lapsed — none of which concern which books are Scripture. A creed, a date, and church order: that is Nicaea.

The Nicene Creed (AD 325), trans. Henry Percival (NPNF² 14)“…being of one substance (ὁμοούσιον [homoousion], consubstantialem) with the Father… And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not… the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.”

Primary · The Synodal Letter of the Council of Nicaea (AD 325), trans. Henry Percival (NPNF² 14)“We further proclaim to you the good news of the agreement concerning the holy Easter, that this particular also has through your prayers been rightly settled…”

Primary — church historian · Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History I.7 (trans. Blomfield Jackson, NPNF² 3)“The bishops then returned to the council, and drew up twenty laws to regulate the discipline of the Church.”

Is 'homoousios' just an unbiblical, man-made word?

A fair objection: the council's key term, homoousios — 'of one substance' — is not in the Bible. So is the doctrine a 4th-century invention forced onto the church?

The word is not in Scripture; the teaching is — and we should say both plainly. 'Of one substance' is a fence around what the apostles already wrote: 'the Word was God'; 'I and the Father are one'; 'in him all the fullness of the Deity dwells bodily'; the Son is 'the very image of his substance.' The church needed one word to rule out Arius's created Son without denying the one God of Israel. Naming a truth precisely is not the same as inventing it.

The objection in its own words — the 'Dated Creed' of Sirmium (AD 359), quoted by Athanasius, De Synodis 8 (trans. Newman & Robertson, NPNF² 4)“…whereas the term 'essence,' has been adopted by the Fathers in simplicity, and gives offense as being misconceived by the people, and is not contained in the Scriptures, it has seemed good to remove it, that it be never in any case used of God again, because the divine Scriptures nowhere use it of Father and Son.”

Primary · The Nicene Creed (AD 325), trans. Henry Percival (NPNF² 14)“…being of one substance (ὁμοούσιον [homoousion], consubstantialem) with the Father…”

Was it just imperial politics — did Constantine dictate the outcome?

The cynical version: Nicaea was theater. Constantine wanted a unified empire, so he convened the council and the bishops rubber-stamped whatever the emperor wanted.

Constantine did convene and fund the council and pressed for unity — but he did not author its theology, and the aftermath proves it. Within a few years he recalled the exiled Arius, and by AD 335 he banished Athanasius, Nicaea's great defender. If the emperor controlled the doctrine, the Nicene party would not have spent much of the next half-century out of favor at court. The creed outlasted the politics precisely because it did not depend on them.

The 'imperial fiat' reading — Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code (Doubleday, 2003), ch. 55 — Teabing“…establishing Christ's divinity was critical to the further unification of the Roman empire and to the new Vatican power base.”

Primary — the documented sequence · Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History I.26 (chapter heading) and I.35 (trans. A. C. Zenos, NPNF² 2)“Arius, on being recalled, presents a Recantation to the Emperor, and pretends to accept the Nicene Creed. … Hence the emperor being deceived, and excited to indignation against Athanasius by this charge, at once condemned him to exile, ordering him to reside in the Gauls.”

Before Nicaea, was Jesus seen only as a prophet?

The Da Vinci Code's premise: 'until that moment' at Nicaea, Jesus' followers regarded him as a mortal prophet — a great man, but a man. Divinity came later.

The evidence is centuries earlier. Around AD 112 the Roman governor Pliny — a hostile witness — reports that Christians met before dawn to 'sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god.' Around AD 107 Ignatius writes of 'our God, Jesus Christ.' The scholar Richard Bauckham judges that 'a higher Christology than Paul already expresses in 1 Corinthians 8:6 is scarcely possible' — decades earlier still. And John records Thomas calling the risen Jesus 'My Lord and my God!' and Jesus himself saying, 'before Abraham came into existence, I AM.' Christians worshiped Jesus as God for two centuries before any bishop reached Nicaea.

Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code (Doubleday, 2003), ch. 55, p. 233 — Teabing“Until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet… a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless.”

Primary — hostile (Roman governor) · Pliny the Younger, Letters 10.96 (c. AD 112), translation as published at Early Christian Writings“[The Christians] were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god…”

Primary — church father · Ignatius of Antioch, Ephesians 18 (c. AD 107; trans. Roberts & Donaldson, ANF 1)“For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary…”

Scholarship · Michael J. Kruger, quoting Richard Bauckham (Jesus and the God of Israel, 2008, p. 30)“A higher Christology than Paul already expresses in 1 Corinthians 8:6 is scarcely possible, and…[is] the common character of all New Testament Christology.”