Jeffrey Gibson

Since you apparently regard Rowan Williams not only as a good authority on Constantine and Arius (othewise why quote him?), but as an Arius scholar who would, if he was given the chance, confirm your claims about them, why don't you give him this chance to do so? Why don't you send him your thesis to see what he has to say about it? I know that he does reply to questions related to his work and would not think that your writing to him a bother.

Williams may be reached here.

Or is my impression that you think that Williams does/would support you wrong? If it is wrong, if you think that Williams would repudiate your claims, why do you appeal to him to back them up?


Jeffrey

Casper

While I don't necessarily agree with Pete, on that particular point he has put forth the notion that the recalling was a sham designed to bring Arius out of hiding so that he could be assassinated by poison, and yet wash his hands of culpability in the affair.

In that limited context, it does not seem unreasonable, although I don't think it prudent to single out Constantine as Arius must have had numerous political (??) enemies. I've asked this before, but it was worded poorly so I'll ask again in a more straightforward manner; who had Arius assassinated and why? Or was it coincidental, or even a myth about his insides falling out during a bathroom break?

Jeffrey Gibson

The story of Arius' death during a bathroom break comes to us from Socrates Scholasticus, who, btw, does not say or apparently think that Arius was assasinated.

His account reads:

See http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf...v.xxxviii.html

See also Athanasius' letter "To Serapion, concerning the death of Arius."

The idea that Arius was poisoned seems to originate AFAIK with Gibbon.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Pete,

Here's a list of bishops (and where they had their sees) who were supporters of Arius before, during, and after Nicea.

As far as I know, they were never persecuted by Constantine -- which is odd if he was as powerful and as adamant to stamp out challenges to his new religion by Arius and his supporters as you claim he was.

How do you explain this, especially given that they were claiming what Arius claimed about the Son?

Jeffrey

Quote:

Dachius Beronice Libya Secundus Tauchira Libya Zopyrus Barce Libya Secundus Ptolemais Libya Theonas Marmarice Libya Sentianus Boreion Libya Meletius Lycopolis Upper Egypt Eusebius Caesarea Palestine Patrophilus Scythopolis Palestine Aetius Lydda Palestine Paulinus Tyre Phoenicia Gregory Berytus Phoenicia Theodotus Laodicea Syria Leontius [Antioch] Syria Athanasius Anazarbos Cilicia Amphion Epiphanea Cilicia Narcissus Irenopolis Cilicia Tarcondimatus Aegeai Cilicia Antonius Tarsus Cilicia Leontius Caesarea Cappadocia Basil Amasea Diospontus Longinus Neocaesarea Pontus Polemoniacus Meletius Sebastopolis Armenia Eulalius Sebastea Armenia Eusebius Nicomedia Bithynia Theognis Nicaea Bithynia Maris Chalcedon Bithynia Menophantus Ephesus Asia Asterius, traveling Sophist, never ordained

No Robots

Don't forget the Arian Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, who baptised Constantine on his deathbed.

No Robots

Oh, yeah, and Pete doesn't like to talk about the fact that Eusebius of Caesarea was himself briefly excommunicated for Arianism.

Jeffrey Gibson

Pete,

Here's a list of some of the orthodox contemporaries of Arius and the Arian controversy who wrote works against Arius and his "heresy" in which they outline in great detail what he was claiming and what Arianism was all about.

* Alexander, bishop of Alexandria
* Hosius, bishop of Cordoba
* Eustathius, bishop of Antioch
* Cyrus, bishop of Beroe
* Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria
* Paul, bishop of Constantinople
* Julius, bishop of Rome (337-352)
* Asclepas, bishop of Gaza.
* Lucius, bishop of Adrianople
* Maximus, bishop of Jerusalem
* Paulinus, bishop of Treves
* Dionysius, bishop of Alba
* Eusebius, bishop of Vercelli
* Angelius, (Novatian) bishop of Constantinople.[97]
* Gregory of Nazianzus
* Gregory of Elvira
* Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari
* Hilary, bishop of Poitiers
* Servatius, bishop of Tongeren.


Now when one takes the time to read through all that these fellows wrote about Arius and his (and his disciples') teaching -- as of course, you, being an avowed disciple of the way of Momigliano, have surely done, right? -- the curious thing is that not a single one of them ever mentions -- or even hints -- that Arius was intent to deny, let alone that he actually did deny, that the man Jesus of Nazareth (or Paul or the apostles we hear about in the NT) ever existed, let alone that there was a NT and all of the Patristic literature attributed to pre-Eusebian Christian writers, before Constantine, as you claim he did. Nor are any of the arguments that any one of them uses against Arius and his claims ever aimed at showing either that the man Jesus of Nazareth, as well as Paul and the apostles mentioned in the NT and in the Apostolic Fathers, etc, did indeed exist (let alone when the NT and writings attributed to the fathers say they did), or that Christianity was indeed a pre-constantinian institution.

So how do you explain this -- especially since, if you are correct about what Arius claimed, we could reasonably expect that they would both note this and produce arguments of this sort, since the best way to condemn Arius would be to explicitly charge him with making, and to argue pointedly against, the specific denials that you say he made?


Jeffrey

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

Do you not know yourself, this - the answer to your own question? I am astounded that you would ask me this question. I am astounded that you would ask a question related to the scientific dating process of carbon dating in this BC&H discussion group, considering your admitted standing as a classicist and specialist of the greek language. I will respond to your additional and further questions in additional and further posts.

Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

The issue isn't what I know, but what you know.

And since you are the one who not only constantly brings up the issue of C-14 dating as an indication of the date of writing of a document, but who says that if a document cannot be C-14 dated to the time in which it is purportedly written, we have no reason to accept it as authentic and/or written at the time it (or others) claim it to have been written, why shouldn't I -- or anyone -- ask this question of you?

In any case, responses to questions such as the one above are a good sign that the one issuing them is hiding his/her ignorance about the matter at hand. So it's clear you don't know what the C-14 dating of the earliest MS of Constantine's letter is.

Thanks for clarifying.

Jeffrey

Clivedurdle

Were not most of the 4th century emperors - including Constantine - Arians?

I thought orthodoxy only got going in the 380's with Ambrose. Lovely bath.