Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 04-28-2010, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

... none of the material you have presented provides adequate grounds for your conclusion that Arius was not a Christian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

You haven't presented material that would provide adequate grounds for that conclusion either.

You keep putting the word "conclusion" into my mouth.
I have to keep reminding you that the word I am using is "hypothesis".

That's why I keep asking you whether you know what the word "hypothesis" means.
The word "hypothesis" has a different spelling than the word "conclusion".
To me anyway, this spells out a warning that the two words may represent things that are logically distinct from one another.

Do you have any conclusion then?

J-D · 04-29-2010, 11:43 PM

I can say this, though: your hypothesis is clearly a hypothesis. You have proceeded hypothetically to hypothesise a hypothesis whose status is hypothetical. If, hypothetically, anybody had doubted that you had a hypothesis, your hypothesisation of your hypothesis would have established it as hypothetical.

mountainman · 04-30-2010, 12:06 AM

Here are some further notes from my current reading of ARIUS: Heresy & Tradition by Rowan Williams, Revised Edition (2002). They suggest (but do not conclude) that Arius thought like Plotinus and the Neoplatonists.

ANALOGY and PARTICIPATION

p.227

Arius is tempting a bold and delicate task, simultaneously
stressing the total disjunction between monad and dyad, in
strongly Neoplatonist and Neopythagorean style, and asserting
real knowledge of the monad as a gracious will.

He is walking exactly the same tightrope as the Cappodocians
later in the century. [75]"

Conclusion

p.230

"In so far as we can catch a glimpse of Arius; metaphysics
and cosmology, it is of a markedly different kind from the
philosophical assumptions of Eusebius of Caesarea or, for
that matter, Athanasius himself in his apologetic works.

....[...]...

"In his insistence on the utter independence and separateness
of the source of all, he unquestionably stands closer to
Plotinus and his successors.

J-D · 04-30-2010, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Here are some further notes from my current reading of ARIUS: Heresy & Tradition by Rowan Williams, Revised Edition (2002). They suggest (but do not conclude) that Arius thought like Plotinus and the Neoplatonists.

ANALOGY and PARTICIPATION

p.227

Arius is tempting a bold and delicate task, simultaneously
stressing the total disjunction between monad and dyad, in
strongly Neoplatonist and Neopythagorean style, and asserting
real knowledge of the monad as a gracious will.

He is walking exactly the same tightrope as the Cappodocians
later in the century. [75]"

Conclusion

p.230

"In so far as we can catch a glimpse of Arius; metaphysics
and cosmology, it is of a markedly different kind from the
philosophical assumptions of Eusebius of Caesarea or, for
that matter, Athanasius himself in his apologetic works.

....[...]...

"In his insistence on the utter independence and separateness
of the source of all, he unquestionably stands closer to
Plotinus and his successors.

'he unquestionably stands closer' is a conclusion, not just a suggestion. But whether it concludes it or suggests it, what it suggests or concludes is not that Arius was not a Christian.

You suggest that Arius was not a Christian, but so far you have given no reason why your suggestion should be taken seriously.

mountainman · 04-30-2010, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Do you have any conclusion then?

So far my only conclusion is that the hypothesis appears to be consistent with all the available evidence. That is, that the hypothesis that Arius of Alexandria appears in history, at the epoch of the Council of Nicaea c.325 CE, in the role of an anti-Christian satirist, appears to be consistent with all the available evidence.

Further, that subsequent generations twisted the name, and the religious and political memory of Arius into being some type of "orthodox christian", and "harmonized" everything to cover over (and bury) the incredibly bad and utterly disrespectful reception that Arius (and his Greek Neoplatonic supporters) first layed on the State Religion, from the stage of the local Greek theatres in downtown Alexandria.

“… the sacred matters of inspired teaching
were exposed to the most shameful ridicule
in the very theaters of the unbelievers.”

[Eusebius, “Life of Constantine”, Ch. LXI,
How Controversies originated at Alexandria
through Matters relating to Arius.]

mountainman · 04-30-2010, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

'he unquestionably stands closer' is a conclusion, not just a suggestion.

Rowan Williams qualifies this - his conclusion.

mountainman · 05-01-2010, 06:50 PM

The following brief paragraph cited from Rowan William's book
about Arius should serve to provide a measure of caution against
the traditional assessment of the role of Arius of Alexandria in
a political history as just another one of those many and readily
available "Constantinian churchmen".

The following quote almost seems to summarise Rowan William's
preceeding 230 pages about Arius, and the conclusion is that

"Post-Plotinian cosmology and logic
are what make Arius a 'heresiarch'"

Perhaps this may be paraphrased ...

Arius was considered a political/religious heretic
because he followed the Logos of Plotinus
and not the Logos of Constantine's Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROWAN WILLIAMS

Conclusion

p.231

"If the analysis in the foregoing pages is accurate,
what finally sets him [Arius] apart as a theologian
is the attempt to incorporate such a metaphysic within
an account of God's creating and revealing work
drawn largely from Scripture and retaining
a strong personalist element in its view of God.

Post-Plotinian cosmology and logic are what make Arius a 'heresiarch'"

ARIUS: Heresy & Tradition
Rowan Williams
Revised Edition (2002)

(my bolding)

J-D · 05-02-2010, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The following brief paragraph cited from Rowan William's book
about Arius should serve to provide a measure of caution against
the traditional assessment of the role of Arius of Alexandria in
a political history as just another one of those many and readily
available "Constantinian churchmen".

Arius is not traditionally assessed as a Constantinian churchman.

J-D · 05-02-2010, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Do you have any conclusion then?

So far my only conclusion is that the hypothesis appears to be consistent with all the available evidence. That is, that the hypothesis that Arius of Alexandria appears in history, at the epoch of the Council of Nicaea c.325 CE, in the role of an anti-Christian satirist, appears to be consistent with all the available evidence.

Further, that subsequent generations twisted the name, and the religious and political memory of Arius into being some type of "orthodox christian", and "harmonized" everything to cover over (and bury) the incredibly bad and utterly disrespectful reception that Arius (and his Greek Neoplatonic supporters) first layed on the State Religion, from the stage of the local Greek theatres in downtown Alexandria.

“… the sacred matters of inspired teaching
were exposed to the most shameful ridicule
in the very theaters of the unbelievers.”

[Eusebius, “Life of Constantine”, Ch. LXI,
How Controversies originated at Alexandria
through Matters relating to Arius.]

Your hypothesis appears not to be consistent with the evidence available from subsequent generations, as I have previously pointed out to you.

Further, although your hypothesis appears to be logically consistent with the contemporary evidence, that consistency involves auxiliary assumptions which make your hypothesis far less plausible than the alternative hypothesis.

mountainman · 05-06-2010, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila Pacis

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Thanks again for the reference AP. Just a question for you on the fly. Elsewhere you posted that reference to Arius (via Anathasius) using the text which directly echoes Mark Antony’s letter (via Josephus) concerning the "Passion" of Caesar.

Do you see --- in any small measure --- the same "Arius-like overtones" in this section of the Gospel of Nicodemus?

The instances where the divine father is mentioned, plus Jesus as Son of God, being of the Holy Ghost, plus the co-eternal light—which all doesn't seem Arian to me—are only found in the later Latin/Western addition (Jesus' descent into hell). But that doesn't mean that the original Greek/Eastern Acta Pilati (the first part of the Gospel) somehow relate to an Anti-Trinitarian ideology. At first glance I don't see anything in this direction.

Of course this all doesn't change that Arius was essentially correct, when interpreted according to the Caesarian approach: the father [Divus Iulius] did come before the son [Divi filius], i.e. Caesar before Octavian. The declaration of co-eternity was after the fact; it was the Augustan view after Actium superimposed onto the original Antonian view. It's all politics, West against East. For Mark Antony Caesar was to be only an hêrôs, because Octavian had accepted the adoption and began to call himself "Son of God". That's why Antony destroyed the early cult of Caesar and had Amatius executed, that's why at first he didn't inaugurate as highpriest of Divus Iulius, as the senate had originally decreed. These actions would have meant that Caesar is in fact god, it would have acknowledged Octavian's "son of god"-propaganda and sealed his divine (and therefore political) superiority. By delaying his inauguration as flamen, i.e. the final step of Caesar's deification, Antony retained power and influence, especially over the soldiers and veterans of Caesar.

Thanks for the further analysis Aquila Pacis.

In both the extracted fragment from Arius in Athanasius, and in the mention in "The Gospel of Nicodemus/The Acts of Pilate" of the Roman "Longinus" piercing the side of "Jesus" with a spear, the source material, as you have abundantly pointed out, is based on the death and execution of Julius Caesar. In the first instance (the fragment of) Arius equates the "passion" of Jesus and the "passion" of Julius Caesar. In the second instance, the author of the "Gospel of Nicodemus/Acts of Pilate" does precisely the same thing.

Do you know of any other sources who perform this same comparison, and if not, to what extent would you consider it may be reasonable to entertain the notion that the views and/or writings of Arius of Alexandria influenced the (perhaps late 4th century author) of the "Gospel of Nicodemus/Acts of Pilate".

I appreciate that there may be difficulties answering this question simply because the writings of Arius are extremely fragmentary and even then, appear to be only preserved in the refutations of his detractors. Nevertheless, the fragment of Arius cited in Athanasius is generally considered to have been authored by Arius. On the other hand, while the author of the "Gospel of Nicodemus/Acts of Pilate" is unknown, it is generally agreed that this tract was authored in the (later) 4th century.

04-30-2010, 12:06 AM	#133
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Arius as a Neoplatonist thinker - Rowan Williams, ARIUS: Heresy and Tradition Here are some further notes from my current reading of ARIUS: Heresy & Tradition by Rowan Williams, Revised Edition (2002). They suggest (but do not conclude) that Arius thought like Plotinus and the Neoplatonists. ANALOGY and PARTICIPATION p.227 Arius is tempting a bold and delicate task, simultaneously stressing the total disjunction between monad and dyad, in strongly Neoplatonist and Neopythagorean style, and asserting real knowledge of the monad as a gracious will. He is walking exactly the same tightrope as the Cappodocians later in the century. [75]" Conclusion p.230 "In so far as we can catch a glimpse of Arius; metaphysics and cosmology, it is of a markedly different kind from the philosophical assumptions of Eusebius of Caesarea or, for that matter, Athanasius himself in his apologetic works. ....[...]... "In his insistence on the utter independence and separateness of the source of all, he unquestionably stands closer to Plotinus and his successors.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-29-2010, 11:43 PM	#132
J-D Moderator - General Religious Discussions Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: New South Wales Posts: 27,330	I can say this, though: your hypothesis is clearly a hypothesis. You have proceeded hypothetically to hypothesise a hypothesis whose status is hypothetical. If, hypothetically, anybody had doubted that you had a hypothesis, your hypothesisation of your hypothesis would have established it as hypothetical.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.