Jeffrey Gibson

So the answer is no. He does not say what you claimed he said (that Arius himself was the Antichrist) and you cannot back up your claim that he did. Thanks for clarifying.

Jeffrey

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

The quote of the translated Athanasius in context:

The Arians were the followers of the words of Arius, whatever in those days these words were supposed to represent. Perhaps you are making a differentiation between Athanasius describing Arius as the Antichrist, and Athanasius describing the Arian heresy as the harbinger of Antichrist. This sounds like splitting hairs. Athanasius was trying not to swear and cuss at Arius for some reason.

A proper treatment of the use of the term "anti-christ" in the writings of fourth century authors would be prudent at this stage, and it would be interesting to determine how many more of them actually point the finger at Arius in this regard. If I had access to a database to run a search for the term anti-christ in this period (or for that matter since the year dot) I am sure that the results would be illuminating. You could do this is 15 seconds Jeffrey.

Is there any sensational difference in Athanasius describing the Arian heresy as the forerunner to the AntiChrist, or Arius as being the forerunner of the Antichrist, since one cannot dispute the fact that he was the author of this very novel heresy. What do we know of the antichrist? What bounds are there on this extravagant term? At the lower ends of the orthodox spectrum the antichrist might represent the wrong interpretation of dogma. From a non-christian perspective, at the other end of the spectrum of belief, the "Anti-Christ" is simply the theological "Bogey-Man" of christianity: that is, stated simply, "the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction" and/or "that the Historical Jesus was a fabricated literary collage".


Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

There is nothing corresponding to this in the original text of the Discourses which is entitled

ΑΡΧΙΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΟΥ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΕΙΑΣ ΚΑΤΑ ΑΡΕΙΑΝΩΝ ΛΟΓΟΣ ΠΡΩΤΟΣ.

and begins with:

Αἱ μὲν αἱρέσεις ὅσαι τῆς ἀληθείας ἀπέστησαν,

ἐπινοήσασαι μανίαν ἑαυταῖς φανεραὶ τυγχάνουσι, καὶ

τούτων ἡ ἀσέβεια πάλαι πᾶσιν ἔκδηλος γέγονε.


Here's the Greek for this:

Αἱ μὲν αἱρέσεις ὅσαι τῆς ἀληθείας ἀπέστησαν,ἐπινοήσασαι μανίαν ἑαυταῖς φανεραὶ τυγχάνουσι, καὶ τούτων ἡ ἀσέβεια πάλαι πᾶσιν ἔκδηλος γέγονε.

As this text shows, for Athanasius, and for all other members of the Orthodox party, there never were any no non Christian heretics.

And I note with interest that you have engaged (once again) in selective quotation and left out the bit where Athanasius here describes the Arians as (former) Christians -- the bit where he speaks of the Arians as the counterparts of those whom the Blessed John describes as having apostasized from his community, and notes that the Arians have gone out from "among us".

Τὸ γὰρ ἐξελθεῖν ἀφ' ἡμῶν τοὺς ταῦτα ἐφευρόνταςδῆλον ἂν εἴη, ὡς ἔγραψεν ὁ μακάριος Ἰωάννης, ὅτι τῶν τοιούτων οὔτε ἦν, οὔτε νῦν ἐστι μεθ' ἡμῶν


The Greek behind this is

Ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἡ μία τῶν αἱρέσεων ἡ ἐσχάτη, καὶ νῦν ἐξελθοῦσα πρόδρομος τοῦ Ἀν
τιχρίστου, ἡ Ἀρειανὴ καλουμένη

I'm not making a distinction. I'm pointing out that there is a distinction, and a major one at that that Athanasius himself made between saying Ἄρειος ἔστιν ὁ ἀντίχριστος (which, BTW, Athanasius never says anywhere) and αἱρέσις ἡ Ἀρειανὴ καλουμένη ἔστε πρόδρομος τοῦ Ἀντιχρίστου.

No. It sounds like -- because it is -- you trying to save face and to dodge admitting that you were wrong, as you plainly are, when you claimed that in his Discourses against the Arians Athanasius called Arius himself the antichrist.

Jeffrey

gentleexit

the obelisk raised up by Constantius later? Alexandria and Constantine. Lot's of puzzles. For example, at Constantine's behest, Hosius went to Alexander and Arius. Now, as I read it, this happened BEFORE Constantine controlled the east, when Licinius still had Egypt (didn't he?). Meddling? "Soft" warfare? An attempt to smooth feathers (the conventional story) or ruffle them?

Toto

Pete - you don't have any new evidence. If one of Arius' enemies said that he was not a true Christian, that still does nothing to turn him into a Hellenistic pagan.

Shall I close this before we waste more pixels?

mountainman

Dear Toto,

Here is a review of Arius: Heresy and Tradition. By Rowan Williams. We can read here that Williams writes:
Note the third major itemised point related to Arius' "neopythagoreanism"

The question "Was Arius a Christian"? is not trivial. We certainly know that he was treated as the worst example of humanity by the orthodox for many centuries, and it is only in recent times he has managed to appear in print without references to Judas, the traitor of the historical (or otherwise) jesus. The question "Was Arius a Hellenistic Pagan"? has yet to be explored by open minds.


Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear gentleexit,

Probably all of the above. Constantine as a pro-active military general employed whatever tactics maximised his success, which perhaps explains why Lucinius expelled all the christians from his court towards the end - they may well have been "appointed there" by Constantine. In regard to the obelisk felling by Constantine, I cannot find many academic commentaries to date. I am assuming Ammianus is simply telling the ancient historical truth. If I had to make a call I'd say that once Constantine had defeated the army of Lucinius, he still had to deal with the principle cities such as Antioch and Alexandria. Lane-Fox thinks he showed up personally in Alexandria in order to add the personal touch with the new religion. I agree with this. We learn elsewhere that Constantine at timed had fought at the head of his army -- he was no backroom general. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that Constantine also went to Alexandria and Egypt to set examples of his supremacy. At Aegae he utterly destroyed the Ascelpian temple, and this practice was probably repeated in Egypt. The story of Constantine's destruction of the last remaining obelisk to the temple complex at Karnack was not reported by Eusebius. I see Ossius as Constantine's chief-lieutenant who -- if he has to -- takes off his sword and dons the garb of the clergy. Ossius apparently presided over every council held in his lifetime. Lane-Fox writes that Ossius "personally screened" the attendees at Antioch, whatever this might imply. IMO it probably had to do with intelligence gathering by Constantine of who was who in the pecking order of the eastern empire at that time when he "liberated it" as he had earlier "liberated Rome". He was about to implement -- in parallel -- the Chrysargyron and (tax exempt) Christianity. He planned ahead. He had already paced out the new City of Constantine.

Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

Unless Pete ceases to dodge direct questions and takes seriously his responsibility to produce the specific evidence he is asked to produce, yes.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Contrary to what you seem to want to make of it, Pete, the bolded point assumes that Arianism and neo pythagoreanism (of which you have previously not been speaking and which, to my knowledge, had no priesthood) are and always were separate entities. Otherwise speaking of a parallelism between them on any issue, let alone their views of the relaltionship between the Logos and some other higher power (which, BTW, is not spoken of in the quote you adduce), makes no sense.

And I really would be grateful Pete if you'd stop this implied nonsense that you have read an author and actually know what an author is on about because you have read an internet review of that author's work.

Jeffrey

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

Pythagoras, after whom the philosophic doctrines of Pythagoreanism take their name lived and breathed and has his being in a totally different ancient historical epoch than Arius of Alexandria, whose words inflamed the Roman empire at the time christianity was made the official state monotheism by Constantine with effect from his military supremacy therein.

Pythagoras and Arius of Alexandria were separate historical figures. The lineage of neopythagorean philosophers from Pythagoras to Arius is significant and arguably includes Apollonius of Tyana (whom Coneybeare translating Philostratus informs us interacted with the priest(s) of Asclepius) and the name Ammonius Saccas (the neopythagorean, not the christian of the same name asserted to have existed at the same time, and to be the teacher of Origen the christian). From Ammonius (which name Arius is reported ti have given as the name of his father) we have Plotinus and Porphyry, and a host of other related students. Constantine himself, and in no uncertain terms insists that Arius must be viewed as a Porphyrian.

The argument that Arius was one of the leaders c.324 CE in the schools of neopythean thought in Alexandria is not without merit. It is only the reports of the victorious christian orthodoxy who present Arius as just another "christian" on the day the empire turned christian at the command of Constantine.

Constantine said "Let there be Christianity". And there was. The east is described as brimming in overabundance with things christian -- Constantine managed to have three hundred and eighteen signatures to testify that this was in fact so. The problem was that he had let Arius escape, and Arius was a very clever neopythagorean ascetic academic, and very witty with his blasphemous pen. The penalty for possessing any tractates written by Arius at that time was immediate beheading. That's nice, isn't it.

I cannot be held accountable for your own inferences. If you are inferring that a researcher should never quote a review of a text before that researcher has himself or herself read the original text, then I think there is something wrong with your inference meter. Perhaps it got taken out when your irony meter failed?

Best wishes,


Pete