In the realm of ideas, some notions have far-reaching consequences, and one such idea has yielded particularly dangerous results—the belief that the Council of Nicaea, convened in AD 325 under the authority of Roman Emperor Constantine, was responsible for establishing the Christian biblical canon. This notion, perpetuated by works like Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code” and Daniel Silva’s “The Order,” has cast a shadow of suspicion on the origins of the Bible, undermining its authority.
However, this claim lacks historical basis. The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity and other early evidence reveal that discussions about the boundaries of the biblical canon were ongoing both before and after the Council of Nicaea. Even pro-Nicaean figures such as Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius of Alexandria disagreed on the inclusion of Revelation.
The absence of a unified stance on the canon during the council is evident in the records from pro-Nicaean fathers. Notably, there is no mention of any conciliar decision that formally established the biblical canon. Even figures like Eusebius and Athanasius, who were present at the council, do not report such a decision.
One historical text that has contributed to the misconception is the Synodicon Vetus, a late-ninth-century Greek manuscript. It claims that a divine miracle at Nicaea determined the canonical and apocryphal books, with the authentic ones miraculously remaining on the table and the spurious ones falling underneath. This narrative, however, lacks credibility and was later cited by influential thinkers, including Voltaire.
The truth is, the early adopters of Nicene orthodoxy, such as Athanasius and Jerome, did not uniformly include all the books now recognized as canonical. Jerome’s reference to the Nicene Council in the preface to his translation of Judith is more likely a description of discussions rather than a formal decision on the canon.
