stephan huller

I still find the letter of Arius to Alexander problematic. Let's start by understanding what is being said in the treatise. Let's suppose that the letter is authentic. Let's suppose that someone named Arius wrote or signed on to the letter. What is the letter at its core saying?

Valentinus is named as one of four heretics who assigned a creaturely status to the Son. According to the language of the times, Valentinian was one who multiplied gods. That is his heretical 'profile.' Historically speaking Valentinism seems to have been historically concentrated in Rome. Yes there were stories to the contrary - of an Alexandrian origin for Valentinus. But as Lampe and others have shown, there was a historical concentration of Valentinians in Rome.

It is interesting to note that this same charge was laid against Origen soon after his death. He was accused of making the Son coeternal with the Father, that he was positing two unbegotten principles of equal rank or deriving one from the other by material emission. Who were those people making the charge against Origen. The most famous seems to have been Methodius of Olympius. But it was must be also acknowledged that Origen faced a lot of resistance at home (= Alexandria).

After the Council of Nicaea this charge of the Orthodox promoting a form of this Valentinism could be pressed more effectively against champions of the watchword homoousios. This word homoousios was probably of Valentinian origin. It entered the ecclesiastical lexicon under quarantine, as a Valentinian term denoting the consubstantiality between members of the same embodied species. As Edwards notes:

So this is the context of the letter. The letter was essentially accusing the orthodox of having developed from gnosticism. This is important for understanding the counter-charge that those of Arius made the Son a Creature.

Now the question arises was this letter really from Arius to Alexander or was it from a group of signatories of which Arius was one who signed on. I do not believe that the letter was originally written by 'Arius' but rather it was a group of bishops addressing Alexander, the new Pope of Egypt who was basically installed into the position by Hosius of Cordoba.

Notice the opening line says it is from:

and then on the signature Arius's name has been inserted in front of these same 'priests' and 'deacons':

I am quite certain the original signature page read:

Now it would appear that there was a consistent effort to make Arius the scapegoat for the disturbances in the lead up to Nicaea. Why?

Huon

Arius was born in Lybia (bad origins !), lived in Alexandria. He was excommunicated in 321 by the bp Alexander of Alexandria.

He made certainly a better scapegoat than his friend Eusebius of Nicomedia...
and he was not invited to Nicaea.

Huon

Ulfilas, Wulfila:
little wolf (ca. 310 – 383) was a bishop, missionary, and Bible translator into Gothic language. Wulfila was ordained a bishop by Eusebius of Nicomedia and returned to his people to work as a missionary. In 348, to escape religious persecution by a Gothic chief, probably Athanaric, who was a christian orthodox, he obtained permission from the emperor of the East Constantius II (337-361), sympathetic to Arianism, to migrate with his flock of converts to Moesia and settle near Nicopolis ad Istrum in modern northern Bulgaria.

The name Ister (ad Istrum) or Istros is a name for the Danube. The Danube was the northern frontier of the Roman Empire. There, with the protection of Constantius, Wulfila translated the Bible from Greek into the Gothic language.

The history of the Goths during the 4th and 5th centuries shows divisions between orthodox, allied to the roman orthodox emperors, arians allied to the roman arian emperors, and pagans, who were progressively absorbed by one of the two christian parties.

The roman emperors wanted to enrol in their legions a great number of Goths, who were good soldiers.

Huon

Alaric I (395-410), Ataulf (410-415), Sigeric (415), Wallia (415-419).

Arian Wisigothic kingdom of Toulouse (418-507) :
Theodoric I (418-451), Thorismond (451-453), Theodoric II (453-466), Euric (466-484), Alaric II (484-507).

Alaric II was killed at the battle of Vouillé in 507, by the king of the Franks Clovis I, who converted to catholicism immediately after, since he had had the protection of the true God.


Reccared (or Recared) I (559–601) (reigned 586–601) was Visigothic King of Hispania, Septimania and Galicia. His reign marked a climactic shift in history, with the king's renunciation of Arianism in favour of Catholic Christianity in 587.

Huon

Rothari was king of the Lombards from 636 to 652; previously he had been duke of Brescia. He succeeded Arioald, who was an Arian like himself, and was one of the most energetic of Lombard kings. Fredegar relates (Chronicle, 71) that at the beginning of his reign he put to death many insubordinate nobles, and that in his efforts for peace he maintained very strict discipline.

Rodoald was a Lombard king of Italy, who succeeded his father Rothari on the throne in 652. He was assassinated after a reign of just six months in 653.

Aripert a rival claimant was elected with the support of the Catholic Church, which opposed the Arian monarchy. Aripert I (653-661) was the first Roman Catholic king of the Lombards.

Grimoald I (c. 610 – 671) was Arian duke of Benevento (651–662) and king of the Lombards (662–671).

mountainman

How do you then view the Fifty Bibles of Constantine

Constantine did not publish Homer.










εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

Many people do consider it was written by the Boss.



Someone wrote the letter. Let's just start here.


What is the consensus about the letter?



Of course I have read the letter. I have spent a great deal of time actually analysing the letter in regard to what the author tells us about Arius. See below for a sample. (I did link to my notes earlier).



Until we see what the consensus of opinion is about this letter let's leave such formalities aside.

Whether it was written by Constantine or by some forger from a later epoch (perhaps as late as the 5th century) it tells us what this author thought and what his biases were towards Arius of Alexandria.

Here is a sample outlining what this author thought about Arius as an author of Books - in terms of how these books related to the Christian Church and Jesus at the time, presumably around Nicaea c.325 CE

Arius as an Author of Books - in terms of the Christian Church and Jesus


He brought state orthodoxy into the light;
He hurled his wretched self into darkness.
He ended his labors with this

He wrote that he did not wish God to appear to be the subject of suffering of outrage
He wrote that (on the above account) he suggested and fabricated wondrous things indeed in respect to faith.
He wrote books that collected and gathered terrible and lawless impieties
He wrote books that agitated tongues [Editor: Very popular books]
He wrote books which deceived and destroyed

He introduced a belief of unbelief.
He introduced a belief of unbelief that is completely new.
He accepted Jesus as a figment
He called Jesus foreign
He did not adapt, he did not adapt (it was said twice) to God [Editor: the "new" orthodox God]
He was twice wretched

He reproached the church
He grieved the church
He wounded he church
He pained the church
He demoted Jesus
He dared to circumscribe Jesus
He undermined the (orthodox) truth
He undermined the (othodox) truth by various discourses
He detracted from Jesus who is indetractable
He questioned the presence of Jesus
He questioned the activity of Jesus
He questioned the all-pervading law of Jesus
He thought that there was a place outside of Jesus
He thought that there something else outside of Jesus
He denied the infiniteness of Jesus
He did not conclude that God is present in Christ
He had no faith in Christ
He did not follow the law that God's law is Christ
He had little piety toward Christ
He detracted from the uncorrupted intelligence of Jesus
He detracted from the belief in immortality of Jesus
He detracted from the uncorrupted intelligence of the Church
He was barred publicly from God’s church

All these desriptions are sourced in this letter.

Arius does not sound like a Christian of any substance.

In fact he sounds just about as opposite as one might get.

This sort of evidence suggests the extreme possibility he may not have been Christian at all.




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

.

I will second that again.

Another interesting question arises when we investigate the amount and the titles of the non canonical books which were preserved by the so-called Arians. To summarise this question, what is the relationship between the Arian heretics and the preservers of books of the non canonical new testament?



εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Iskander

Excellent work, Huon,
Thanks

Clivedurdle

On Constantine possibly not being a xian, I wonder if the history of Hagia Sophia is of note. I am getting the impression xianity was making headway in fits and starts in the fourth century - it was not obvious it had won until the 400's.

http://www.itw.com.tr/html/st_sophia.html

(Although arguably xianity has never been stable!)