stephan huller

I never realized what the etymology of the name Arius (Αρειος = 'of Ares') was before. There is a strange parallel here with regards to the name Mark or Marcus (= 'belonging to Mars'). The Arians claimed to represent the original Alexandrian tradition. They pointed to Dionysius as preserving their teachings but it surely also went back much further as Eusebius of Caesarea edited the writings of earlier Alexandrian masters (Clement, Origen) to purge them of heresy.

But there is so much more to consider too. The first evidence for Mark's association with Alexandria suddenly appears with Eusebius (if we don't count the Letter to Theodore of Clement). The only link with the past is Arius who is said to sit on the Throne of St Mark in the Church of St Mark in the region called Boucolia (or some such variant). He appears almost as something of a caricature of St Mark surrounded with virgins, living in the tombs. St Mark is now said to come from Pentepolis in Libya by the Copts, the traditional home of Arius.

I also find it odd the way Arius and Meletius of Lycopolis act as opponents to the Orthodox almost at the same time. Indeed the Meletians are originally identified as Arians by outsiders but call themselves 'the Church of Martyrs' or some such related term. Eventually they are distinguished from Arianism just as what is deemed 'Arian' changes.

It is also significant that George the Cappadocian is directly associated with the throne of St Mark too. We don't see the same association in orthodox circles. Arianism = Marcianism on some level. The question is was it an elaborate rouse set up by the orthodox to avoid insulting the traditional veneration of St Mark in Alexandria. In other words, the population would have risen up in revolt if they dared impugn St Mark. But create a boogeyman called 'Arius' and it could - and did - work.

What is the historical reality of Arius anyway? He wasn't even at Nicaea but look at the picture. He is being trampled. Isn't this what happened to St Mark's authority?



---------- Arius here

Chili

Mark was no saint . . . God had forsaken him when they crucified him and went back to Galilee, for another 40 years and die there nonetheless.

That is why Luke had to write it right and John to show us how it is done.

stephan huller

It is also interesting that Nicaea does not name Arius or Arians. This has to wait for the Council of Constantinople in 381

stephan huller

I should also correct one thing I said earlier, Sabellius was from Pentepolis, Arius from Libya.

stephan huller

I don't know that anyone could 'disprove' the existence of Arius. But then again, what is there to disprove? There are a couple of letters which claim to be from Arius. But these could well be forgeries. And then those citations of the Thalia. What does that prove? There was a work called the Thalia which the Orthodox associated with someone named Arius (or the Arians). I really can't see much of anything in all of this. Arius was a common name so there certainly would have been Christians named Arius (at least before the Arian controversies, sort of like Germans named Adolf). Even Arians named Arius.

But there are a lot of things which don't make sense. For instance at the very start we have to accept that 'Arianism' was a complete misnomer. Arius didn't invent 'Arianism.' It wasn't like he was Anthony Robbins and then presto after writing a book there's 'Anthony Robbins-ism.'

Indeed there are no writings of Arius left behind. How could Arius have been that influential? Oh yes, there was supposedly a decree that all Arian books should be burned. How convenient ...

stephan huller

Eusebius's references to 'Arius' and 'Arians'

Commentary on Psalms 23.112 Ἀστέριος δὲ ὁ ἀρειανὸς

Life of Constantine Pin.2.61 Ὅπως ἀπὸ τῆς Ἀλεξανδρέων διὰ τὸ κατὰ Ἄρειον
ἐκινοῦντο ζητήσεις. Pin.2.62 Περὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ περὶ Μελιτιανῶν. Pin.2.63 Ὅπως
περὶ εἰρήνης πέμψας Κωνσταντῖνος ἔγραψεν. Pin.2.64 Κωνσταντίνου πρὸς
Ἀλέξανδρον τὸν ἐπίσκοπον καὶ Ἄρειον τὸν πρεσβύτερον. Pin.2.65 Ὅτι περὶ τῆς
εἰρήνης ἐμερίμνα συνήθως. Pin.2.66 Ὅτι καὶ τὰς ἐν Ἀφρικῇ ζητήσεις διωρθώσατο.
Pin.2.67 Ὅτι ἐκ τῆς ἀνατολῆς τὰ τῆς εὐσεβείας ἤρξατο. Pin.2.68 Ὅτι λυπηθεὶς διὰ
τὴν στάσιν τὰ περὶ εἰρήνης συμβουλεύει. Pin.2.69 Πόθεν ἡ Ἀλεξάνδρου καὶ Ἀρείου
ζήτησις ἤρξατο, καὶ ὅτι μὴ ἐχρῆν συζητεῖν ταῦτα. Pin.2.70 Παραινέσεις περὶ
ὁμονοίας. Pin.2.71 Μὴ διὰ μικρὰς λέξεις φιλονεικεῖν περὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ. Pin.2.72 Ὅτι δι'
εὐλάβειαν ὑπεραλγῶν δακρύειν ἠναγκάζετο καὶ μέλλων εἰς τὴν ἀνατολὴν ἐπέσχε
διὰ ταῦτα. Pin.2.73 Ἐπίμονος καὶ μετὰ τὸ γράμμα τοῦτο ταραχὴ τῶν ζητήσεων.
Pin.2.74n Κεφάλαια τοῦ δευτέρου λόγου.
Pin.3.t ΤΟΥ ΤΡΙΤΟΥ ΛΟΓΟΥ ΤΑ ΚΕΦΑΛΑΙΑ
Pin.3.1 Σύγκρισις εὐσεβείας Κωνσταντίνου καὶ τῆς τῶν διωκτῶν παρανομίας. Pin.3.2
Ἔτι περὶ τῆς εὐσεβείας Κωνσταντίνου ἐμπαρρησιαζομένου τῷ τοῦ σταυροῦ σημείῳ.
Pin.3.3 Περὶ εἰκόνος αὐτοῦ, ἐν ᾗ ὑπερέκειτο μὲν ὁ σταυρὸς πέπληκτο δὲ κάτω ὁ
δράκων. Pin.3.4 Ἔτι περὶ τῶν διὰ Ἄρειον ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ ζητημάτων

spin

:realitycheck:

Whose benefit is this mess of Greek and what does "Pin." indicate?

Clivedurdle

Terry Jones Barbarians comments on "lovely bath". One could not have a nice bath without getting pulled into a heated discussion about is the son equal to the father or not. The fourth century emperors were often arian - including Constantine. Many of the barbarian groups were.

So the question is are there key figures behind this dispute? Is it only a result of the formalising in creeds of theological viewpoints?

Constantine is alleged to have said on his death bed to his xian priests - you better be right!

mountainman

We have very few primary sources for the period and the history of Nicaea is reliant upon much later accounts. However as these accounts are often relied upon in discussion, the above claim is contrary to the evidence.


Firstly take a look at the Comparison between Creed of 325 and Creed of 381. The Nicaean Creed shows the famous disclaimer clause:

These are the five sophisms of Arius of Alexandria which were echoed down the centuries in various combinations and permutations under the massive controversy precisely OVER THESE WORDS OF ARIUS. According to some later historians the council of Nicaea was invoked precisely because of "the words of Arius".


Secondly, Constantine specifically pronounces "damnatio memoriae" on Arius in the first memo to the Bishops Everywhere after Nicaea. Constantine calls Arius a "Porphyrian" and if you read this bit in the letter of Constantine a most interesting question arises:


Constantine wanted to call Arius a "Porphyrian" and the followers of Arius's opinion .... "Porphyrians" (not Arians).

It's amazing that the Boss's express wishes were not complied with.

Why were the followers of Arius' opinion (on the 5 sophisms???) called "Arians" and not "Porphyrians" ?





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

If you disregard a few probable forgeries AFAIK we have the following evidence from the literary tradition of the 4th century, supporting the historical existence of Arius. (Athanasius's accounts are omitted)

SOURCE (1): Thalia (See Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, Revised Edition, 98-116)
SOURCE (2): 0325 CE - Earliest of the Nicaean "Creeds"
SOURCE (3): 0327 CE - Emperor Constantine to Arius
SOURCE (4): 0333 CE - Emperor Constantine's "Circular"
SOURCE (5): 0333 CE - Constantine's "Dear Arius Letter
SOURCE (6): 0425 CE - Philip of Side - Fragments (MAR 2011)

If you have not checked the Philip of Side fragment translation published by Roger in 2011 now is the time. The account declares that there were a great many philosophers present at the Council if Nicaea. After reading the translation, the following two quite surprising claims might be argued:

(1) The myriad philosophers associated with Arius of Alexandria were not "christians".

(2) The Council of Nicaea was therefore attended by "very many" non christian philosophers.



εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia