How many bishops attended the Council of Nicaea?

[DamianWarS]

Tradition tells us 318. 318 is the number of Abraham's armed servants in Gen 14:14 and it is also a number in Greek that reads TIH which is a symbol of the cross and Jesus. But is this the actual number or is this the "better" number? What does this tell us about what is important and stressed in traditional values? Does it follow western logic or eastern logic and how should we continue to value these truths?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Eusebius has 250, Athanasius 318, Eustatius 270. All three are eyewitnesses. I have also seen a claim of 381, but I can't recall where, and it may just be a copying error of 318.

Does it matter if it can be placed in relation to previous numbers? Look deep enough, and you can do this for most things - as many numerological conspiracy theories attest. If anything, you could argue it as a prophetic support of it, if you really want to. Any number from 250-318 can be supported on historic grounds though, depending which source you primarily value.

 

[DamianWarS]

Does it matter if it can be placed in relation to previous numbers?

not to me, but to Athanasius it may have mattered.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Traditional tells us 318. 318 is the number of Abraham's armed servants in Gen 14:14 and it is also a number in Greek that reads TIH which is a symbol of the cross and Jesus. But is this the actual number or is this the "better" number? What does this tell us about what is important and stressed in traditional values? Does it follow western logic or eastern logic and how should we continue to value these truths?

It is true that western thinking tends to focus on details (for example the exact chronology of the week before the Crucifixion) and when it finds inconsistencies between one Gospel account and another, the western thinker sometimes panics and fears the Godpels cannot be trusted, often creating explanations in order to try to harmonize things and preserve the accuracy of the Gospels. But the early Church fathers were brilliant men. They didn't simply fail to realize inconsistencies. In fact they recognized more than we do, being more familiar with customs, cultural nuances, and such that we miss unless they are pointed out to us. Yet they did not panic, it did not introduce doubt, and they made no attempts to "fix" the writings and force them to harmonize as though their credibility would be damaged otherwise.

It's a western prejudice that thinks that way.

Such things as the number of bishops at Nicea - does it invalidate the truth of the faith if they did use a spiritually significant number (close to the actual number) to make a point? I'm not saying they did or didn't - only asking if if actually matters or means that the Gospel or the Creed would be invalidated?

Scripture often mentions a number such as 1,000 or 10,000 that are meant to say "very many" ... it wouldn't make Scripture untrue if the actual number were 1,012 or 9,847.

But there may be good answers for your particular question. There are documentation of of the Councils. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a list of actual names. I've just never concerned myself with that particular question.

Differences in numbers could reflect something of who was counted and who might not have been included for various reasons, or the point in time at which they reported.

 

[DamianWarS]

Such things as the number of bishops at Nicea - does it invalidate the truth of the faith if they did use a spiritually significant number

the number of bishops at a council is inconsequential but it reflects how the early church fathers took liberties in the name of calling something orthodox, calling the best version of something truth. how does this affect doctrine? and how do we approach these doctrines knowing they are based on a system of an eastern honor code that cares less about what actually happened and more about what should have happened or what sounds best?

 

[~Anastasia~]

the number of bishops at a council is inconsequential but it reflects how the early church fathers took liberties in the name of calling something orthodox, calling the best version of something truth. how does this affect doctrine? and how do we approach these doctrines knowing they are based on a system of an eastern honor system that cares less about what actually happened and more about what should have happened or what sounds best?

It's a fair question. And the best answer in a particular case to allay fears is probably what you are doing - at least ask.

But when we begin to read the body of writings, we very quickly realize that while there was a time not to worry about every little inconsequential detail, because they had no bearing on the faith overall - there are other questions that DO matter and we can see how meticulously these were set forth and defended with fervor.

It's really a matter of getting to know the early Church and how they think and how they consistently treat such things - in my case at least, after a few years of asking such things, seeking them out, and seeing that the early Christians held a very good balance between charity in inconsequential matters, but rigorous affirmation in the important ones - it helped me to relax and trust them more. That experience can't be transmitted to anyone else of course. But in case it helps answer your question or give you a direction, I offer it.

Just look into such things as what was set forth in the Creed, our beliefs about Christ especially, but the Holy Trinity and events in the chain of human history, etc. and you will see how vigorously they defended these important issues ... regardless of how they counted and reported who was present.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

the number of bishops at a council is inconsequential but it reflects how the early church fathers took liberties in the name of calling something orthodox, calling the best version of something truth. how does this affect doctrine? and how do we approach these doctrines knowing they are based on a system of an eastern honor code that cares less about what actually happened and more about what should have happened or what sounds best?

So they acted exactly as all of their contemporaries? You are importing an anachronistic modern standard and thinking this matters. History writing was a literary genre, using tropos and themes to make a point, not the brute recording of facts that we pretend it was today.

Look at Plutarch's Parallel Lives for a good example. History was written to inculcate virtue, to learn a lesson. To emulate or avoid the examples of the past. Historians placed material in the best manner to make their point. Modern Historical Criticism is its own thing entirely, and we do exactly the same: We rearrange and debate the details provided by the Ancients and put it in our own framework of what we think 'really happened', creating our own artificial timeline based on rigid criteria of what we moderns think more plausible. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, or playing off the supposed reliability of ancient writers against each other.

So no, it matters not one iota that they maybe prefered a number for aesthetic or dialectical reasons. It doesn't change the point of their narrative, and only really matters if you are writing a modern history on it. Even then, you'd just state what the various sources said, whose number you prefer and why, but the validity of those accounts aren't thrown in question here - for all those numbers remain plausible, you just need to choose between them. No one said something ludicrous like 3000 bishops or the like, after all.

 

[DamianWarS]

It's a fair question. And the best answer in a particular case to allay fears is probably what you are doing - at least ask.

But when we begin to read the body of writings, we very quickly realize that while there was a time not to worry about every little inconsequential detail, because they had no bearing on the faith overall - there are other questions that DO matter and we can see how meticulously these were set forth and defended with fervor.

It's really a matter of getting to know the early Church and how they think and how they consistently treat such things - in my case at least, after a few years of asking such things, seeking them out, and seeing that the early Christians held a very good balance between charity in inconsequential matters, but rigorous affirmation in the important ones - it helped me to relax and trust them more. That experience can't be transmitted to anyone else of course. But in case it helps answer your question or give you a direction, I offer it.

Just look into such things as what was set forth in the Creed, our beliefs about Christ especially, but the Holy Trinity and events in the chain of human history, etc. and you will see how vigorously they defended these important issues ... regardless of how they counted and reported who was present.

in a highly steep honor/shame eastern culture I would argue the early church fathers may not had the capacity to think different, and why would they? counting people doesn't mean much but doctrines like apostolic succession do. "apostolic succession" is not my issue, so don't misunderstand me, but it is a scalable point. So when did the early church fathers know when it was appropriate to stretch the truth to make a point and know when to be stewards of divine truth without the need for it to be sold, exaggerated or made into a better version?

 

[DamianWarS]

So they acted exactly as all of their contemporaries? You are importing an anachronistic modern standard and thinking this matters. History writing was a literary genre, using tropos and themes to make a point, not the brute recording of facts that we pretend it was today.

Look at Plutarch's Parallel Lives for a good example. History was written to inculcate virtue, to learn a lesson. To emulate or avoid the examples of the past. Historians placed material in the best manner to make their point. Modern Historical Criticism is its own thing entirely, and we do exactly the same: We rearrange and debate the details provided by the Ancients and put it in our own framework of what we think 'really happened', creating our own artificial timeline based on rigid criteria of what we moderns think more plausible. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, or playing off the supposed reliability of ancient writers against each other.

So no, it matters not one iota that they maybe prefered a number for aesthetic or dialectical reasons. It doesn't change the point of their narrative, and only really matters if you are writing a modern history on it. Even then, you'd just state what the various sources said, whose number you prefer and why, but the validity of those accounts aren't thrown in question here - for all those numbers remain plausible, you just need to choose between them. No one said something ludicrous like 3000 bishops or the like, after all.

the actual number of people doesn't matter, but it does matter for foundational doctrines of the church, especially in the case of doctrines that are not biblical emphasised. The way the small things are handled gives insight on how how the large things are as the same underlying values are present in both. But maybe it's not an issue and the idea of doctrines as a malleable thing until they are declared cemented as orthodox is comforting knowing they were handled by the right people, perhaps to others this is worrisome.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

the actual number of people doesn't matter, but it does matter for foundational doctrines of the church, especially in the case of doctrines that are not biblical emphasised. The way the small things are handled gives insight on how how the large things are as the same underlying values are present in both. But maybe it's not an issue and the idea of doctrines as a malleable thing until they are declared cemented as orthodox is comforting knowing they were handled by the right people, perhaps to others this is worrisome.

Of course something is malleable until explicitly stated. The question is more if it existed in potentia, whether it had been implicitly there or not.

On the questions of Nicaea, it was nearly unanimous. At the end of debate, only three bishops disagreed, but accepted the verdict as that of the Church. So a large group of disparate bishops agreed on these points, making it likely that they were probably the general understanding of the fourth century Church - which is our closest estimation on these issues we have, and a significant point on what beliefs were implicitly held prior to this, though not yet articulated. On Doctrine, I don't see how or what Church Historians wrote on minutiae could impact it. It doesn't change that the church as a body accepted or repudiated set doctrines. It is not as if the historians made up the doctrines they were discussing, even if they were recording the disputes around them in a literary way.