um, yeah it is. there were 5 bishops in attendance from the western church and around 300 from the eastern.
. That is true, providing that you accept the account of St. Athanasius, a member of the council who numbered 300 in attendance in one writing and then changed it to 318 in a later work. Eusebius speaks of “more than 250 bishops,” and later Arabic manuscripts raise the figure to 2000 but they obviously included the entire entourage of each bishop. The subject has been long debated since the signers of the creed developed at the council numbered only 220 and 218 names. “With information derived from one source or another, a list of 232 or 237 fathers known to have been present may be constructed.” H. Gelzer, H. Hilgenfeld, and O. Contz
This is my reference to one-dimensional since your position is based upon one report and while there was a time when Athanasius was widely accepted, there is now more doubt cast upon his report. To truly address the question, one must examine all the reports and make a personal but educated judgment.
“It is impossible to know how many bishops attended the ecumenical council called by Constantine since existing records are in conflict and the fact that Aristidius reports that the bishops in direct communication with the emperor refused to invite bishops from areas where there had been reports of heresies.” J.B. Cline, Ebert Sutter, DTA, No. 1094, Cambridge University.
In fact, there is no report indicating that five bishops were in attendance from the “western church.” The statement was that there were five bishops from latin-speaking regions. “The Latin-speaking provinces sent at least five representatives: Marcus of Calabria from Italy, Cecilian of Carthage from Africa, Hosius of Córdoba from Hispania, Nicasius of Dijon from Gaul, and Domnus of Stridon from the province of the Danube."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council...icaea#AttendeesJust as an example, there was a bishop at Syracuse where Latin was not spoken even in church rituals and there is no reason to believe that he was not in attendance at Nicaea.
It is, in fact, an error to refer to the “western church” and an equal error to mention the “Eastern Church.” No such references were made in those days except when speaking of the Arian-adherent-churches that were being viewed as heretical. It should be known that when one refers to the “Eastern Church” in reference to the times of the Council of Nicaea, it is not referring to the “churches in the East.” If that were true, you would be correct in saying that the majority of the bishops were from the East . . . . but not the Eastern Church. As Ursacius clearly states, the “Eastern Church” rested within the grasp of the followers of Arias and would probably have refused the invitation if it had been given. Eusebius himself (Eusebius of Nicomedia) was a supporter of Arias and it is commonly believed that he attended as a spokesman for all those within the Eastern Church. Dr. Maurice Cross scolded the Schools of Religion within universities at the Maldane Conference in Bern for texts referring to the “Eastern Church” and their failure to teach the correct form of references that truly divided Eastern and Western churches. Soochow University Conference Report, Feb. 2002.
of course, the council of nicea had nothing to do with the NT canon. check out the first link i posted (
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html ). you should be able to properly appreciate it.
Roger Pearse's study of this issue is quite correct when he concludes:
"...there appears no evidence that the council of Nicaea made any pronouncements on which books go in the Bible, or about the destruction of heretical writings, or reincarnation. However it did condemn Arius and his teachings, and the Emperor Constantine did take the usual Late Roman steps to ensure conformity afterwards..."
What he does not mention, however, was the functional policies of the early church. It was Minucius Felix, alter all, who claimed that Latin should be the official language of the church even though the majority of its members did not speak or understand the tongue because, “The light of truth would be too bright for minds that have been so long dimmed.” It is historically obvious that the church did not publish the content or procedures of its meetings and thus should not be surprising that the agenda of the Council of Nicaea remains somewhat unknown. The church did not feel obligated to inform anyone outside of its hierarchy of its functions and simply never did so.
It is not entirely unknown, however, since some independent writings exist even though their authors remain unknown:
"By the fourth century it became necessary for the Church to decide which of the many Gospels then in circulation were to be accepted as authentic. The question came up in the Council of Nicea. Fortunately the testimonies of two eye-witnesses have been preserved, so there can be little doubt as to the method used in the selection of the Gospels. There were 318 Bishops present in this Council, and one of the two eye-witnesses, Sabinus, Bishop of Heraclea, left a description of their mental capacities. "With the exception of the Emperor (Constantine)" he said, "and Eusebius Pamphilus, these Bishops were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing." About forty Gospels were submitted to these Bishops. As they differed widely in their contents, the decision was difficult. At last it was determined to resort to "miraculous intervention." The method used was known as the Sortes Sanctorum, or "the holy casting of lots for purposes of divination." Its use in the Council of Nicea was described by another eye-witness, Pappus, in his Synodicon to that Council. He says:
"Having promiscuously put all the books referred to the Council for determination under a communion table in a church, they (the Bishops) besought the Lord that the inspired writings might get upon the table, while the spurious ones remained underneath. And it happened accordingly."
"When the Bishops returned to the Council room on the following morning, the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were resting on the communion table. Their presence in the New Testament is due to the art of divination, for practicing which the Church subsequently condemned men and women as sorcerers, enchanters and witches, and burned them by the thousands."
The author may well have been one Sabinus since Socrates Scholasticus wrote, "Sabinus, however, the chief of the heresy of the Macedonians, willfully rejects these authorities, and calls those who were convened there ignorant and illiterate persons . . . . “
What does become apparent, however, is that in spite of the absence of official church records, there were (and are) references to the council dealing with New Testament canon being part of the Council of Nicaea agenda. Other writings reveal a dispute over the inclusion of the Book of John as reported by Clarence Vinton of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Hierarchies and Heresies, pp 314-322. Kings Cross Press.. “The Life of Constantine,” in its third book, contains the reference by Eusebius that not all bishops were invited but it is obvious in that reference that he was referring to the Eastern Church or the Arians with whom he had sided and by some reports, represented at Nicaea..
