In Acts 15:1–21 we read about what has become known to posterity as the apostolic council of Jerusalem. There, the disciples of Jesus, now called ‘apostles’ on account of their having been sent (ἀπο-στέλλω) into the world to preach the Gospel, gathered to determine whether or not circumcision – an essential part of the Mosaic covenant for Jews – should be imposed on Gentiles who wished to become Christians. That it was not deemed essential would lead to the further development of the Christian religion as distinct from its Jewish roots, with baptism comprising its foremost initiation ritual (together with the Eucharist). What is important for us here is that this meeting established the precedent for the successors of the apostles, the bishops, to come together in synod or council to decide authoritatively on matters pertaining to Christian faith and practice. Many subsequent local councils of the churches took place thereafter, until in 314 ce a council was called in Arles that was convoked, not by bishops, but by the Roman emperor Constantine the Great, who had converted to Christianity two years previously.
While local councils continued to take place, heretofore major theological disputes would unfold – and be solved – within what were to be called ecumenical councils, coming from the Greek word οἰκουμένη (oikoumene), which means ‘inhabited or civilised world’ – in this context solely applying to the Roman empire that encompassed the Mediterranean and most of Western Europe. The first of these, the council of Nicaea, was convoked by the emperor – yet presided over by a bishop of the Church, Ossius of Cordova –, to address the subordinationist heresy of Arianism that posited that Christ was a creature, not equal to the eternal God the Father. The solution, that Jesus, while a distinct person as the Son of God, is ‘of one essence with the Father’ (ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί), was contested for decades until a second council in 381, this time held in the imperial capital Constantinople, reaffirmed the Nicene faith. Two subsequent ecumenical councils, at Ephesus in 431 and at Chalcedon in 451, focused – instead of the relationship between Jesus and his Father – on the unity of Christ's person as divine and human.
While attempting to maintain unity of faith and thus stability in the empire, these councils were not without problems. Some Christians began to break away, for various reasons, from the official faith promulgated by Church and state: thus, for example, the Coptic and other non-Chalcedonian churches did not accept any ecumenical council beyond the third. Nevertheless, because of their existentially relevant and nuanced articulation of the person of Jesus, which is more-or-less consistent with Christian liturgical experience and memory – i.e. that Jesus is God –, the ecumenical councils became a benchmark of Christian doctrine for most churches both then and now. Orthodox Christians, for example, accept and venerate the first seven ecumenical councils, not accepting any after the schism with Roman Catholicism that took place in 1054, while Catholics have counted 21 ecumenical councils up until the present day, and most Protestants acknowledge the first four as universally relevant for most Christians.
This is what brings us to the present volume. While many of the acts and doctrinal definitions of the councils, especially those that took place in late antiquity, have been remembered and celebrated in various Christian churches – and critically edited, translated and studied in scholarship –, ‘the exertions of secretaries and scribes concerned with the production’ of conciliar acts ‘has attracted little scholarly attention’ (p. 1). The volume importantly addresses this major lacuna by honing in on and analysing previously ignored and variegated textual practices that were utterly instrumental for these councils to effectively take place. These practices include: ‘note taking, reading, copying, transcribing, arranging, editing, handling, collecting, and distributing significant quantities of texts, in different formats and material manifestations’ (p. 1).
G. has benefited from a rich and ongoing collaboration with R. Price, the critical editor and translator of some of the most significant councils that took place in late antiquity – the ‘Acts of Ephesus I (431), the Council of Chalcedon (451), the Second Council of Constantinople (553), the Lateran Council (649), and Nicaea II (787)’ (p. 5). He is thus well placed to supplement the theological and historical assessment of these acts with a thorough analysis of their composition, redaction and presentation as instrumental objects in the effective execution of the councils under investigation. The book is divided into five parts. The first, ‘The Quest for Documentation’, addresses the earliest church council documents, variations of conciliar documentation and reading patterns, and the Conference of Carthage in 411 as an imperial model case of processes and practices.
Having established the methods and modes of conciliar act composition and presentation, Part 2 deals with ‘“Reading” and “Using” Acts’. In this lengthy section another case study is presented in the form of the 449 ce trial of Eutyches, whose theological errors prompted the fourth ecumenical council to take place in Chalcedon in 451. The types of text reflected in this document are thoroughly analysed along with visual features. Next, the original acts and documents at Chalcedon are assessed, followed by the annotations and administrative handling of documents in the various collections that have come down to us of this and other councils. Insights from the trial of Eutyches and the acts of Chalcedon are then used to address later councils – including the sixth ecumenical council (Constantinople III, in 680/81 ce) and the seventh (Nicaea II, in 787 ce) –, in order to determine the manner in which they portrayed authenticity in relation to their conciliar pronouncements.
Part 3 focuses on ‘Writing Acts: the Council's Secretariat in Action’. Whereas there has been no shortage of panegyrising and analysing the figures who convoked and deliberated in the councils – emerging as heroes and villains respectively –, those responsible for the composition of the acts have, thus far, not received adequate attention in scholarship. This section solves this by analysing the administrative aides and official secretariat that helped bring the councils to life, along with their stenographic protocols, the processes of memory, recording and writing, the comprehensiveness of the written record and whether anything was (or would have been) deliberately omitted as well as appeals for alteration to the texts by senior authorities.
Part 4 turns to ‘The Written Record’. The production and quality of the records – called in Greek τὰ ὑπομνήματα (hypomnēmata) – of many of the conciliar acts and related documents addressed thus far are evaluated, as well as the description and identification of documents in the redaction history of these texts, their running order, filing and placement etc. Other practical elements including the summary records and compilation of signatures are also assessed.
The final part, ‘Files, Collections, Editions: Dossierization and Dissemination’, brings the accumulated insights and findings together in a synthesis that addresses how the council acts were gathered and organised by assessing the minutes, case files and collected records. The ‘bringing together of separate protocols from individual sessions into a coherent corpus of conciliar “acts”’ – including their formal session records – that become part of the transmitted manuscript tradition, is best characterised as ‘dossierization’ (p. 277). This is immediately relevant as this is the form in which these acts are then prepared as editions for dissemination.
Thus, we come full circle to the reception and working of these texts into critical editions that, thankfully, are today being translated into English for the benefit of scholars, seminarians and undergraduate and postgraduate students. This would never have been the case without the work of the scribes and secretaries recording and compiling these conciliar acts. While their names are for the most part lost to history, G. should be warmly congratulated for shifting our attention to their efforts and for bringing these to the light of day.
