stephan huller

But Arius WAS the real deserved head of the Alexandrian Church. That's the part you don't get. Alexander was arguably installed through the manipulation of Hosius. But Arius was undoubtedly a continuation of the Origenist Patriarchs of the city. When early Arians made their appeal to Dionysius they were certainly correct that Dionysius must have pre-figured their beliefs. The only reason that they avoided citing Origen was because that would have been unhelpful to their claims.

The reality is that you really should read more books on the subject of traditions WITHIN Christianity. Read Tim Vivian's Peter of Alexandria for example. You should read the section in his work where he demonstrates that it is impossible to demonstrate that any of the Patriarchs of the city were anti-Origenist. Not even Peter.

The point again is that your analysis lacks NUANCE. Christianity wasn't one monolithic block before Constantine. This is what is so damn frustrating about you misuse (and abuse) of Arius. It's not only impossible to hold that Arius viewed Jesus as a fiction but this notion that all these writers before Constantine were just invented out of thin air as some sort of plot doesn't take into account how their were frictions within the ranks.

Look at Hippolytus's resentment at Callixtus's position. Even without the Letter to Theodore a comparison of sections of Irenaeus's account of the Marcosians and Clement of Alexandria's Stromateis Book Six Chapter Fourteen (from memory) demonstrates that he had some affiliation with a secret order associated with a figure named Mark. Origen's rebuke by Demetrius can hardly be explained by your theory. Methodius's hatred of all things Origen too.

Yet without going into too much detail I see the Alexandrian tradition as the ultimate proof of your arguments. Now to be fair there are some who argue that there isn't such a thing as a Markan tradition in the city to the fourth century. Similarly Christopher Haas does not agree with my assessment that Arius represented the legitimate tradition of St. Mark in the city. So I want to stress that there isn't some monolithic 'block' in scholarship. We all agree and disagree with one another on various issues.

However it is utterly implausible to argue that everything was made up before Constantine. There is so much nuance even at Nicaea - the manner in which Alexander has to be brought in as a figurehead in Alexandria and then the tradition is allowed to determine the date of Easter. Why go through all of this if this is just made up? They were clearly throwing a bone to Alexander to give him credibility at home, to allow the Alexandrians to save face.

The point again is that you wouldn't have had two clear factions set apart by geography in the city of Alexandria (this Haas WOULD and does agree with me) if the religion were just made up. The Orthodox were clearly tied to the Greek metropolitan areas and in Alexandria proper while the Arians seemed to have had their own strongholds in the countryside and in the traditional home of Markan authority - the martyrium of St. Mark in the Boucolia.

I happen to be involved in an archaeological expedition in Alexandria. I have been informing Birger Pearson about updates. We have been using his work as well as early maps to determine the location of the martyrium and we have recent brought to the surface some relics from an early period. More on that later.

The point is that I don't agree with Pearson about everything but I respect his knowledge and learning. He has published numerous papers on the location of this physical building which can be dated to the period BEFORE CONSTANTINE. While the Passio Petri Sancti was undoubtedly compiled relatively late the tradition does point to a historical incident that occurred in 311 CE - that is long before Nicaea.

I have also been working with Tjitze Baarda who is publishing a forthcoming monograph on the Martyrium Marci (which is a parallel source used by Pearson to compare details about the location of the building. While the history of St. Mark's martyrdom is likely bogus the details of the physical building mentioned in both traditions is not.

There certainly was a Christian presence in Boucolia the former Jewish quarter of Alexandira before the beginning of the fourth century. There can be no doubt about this. In fact even if you dismiss my article linking the Cathedra di San Manco in Venice as the episcopal chair mention in some of these references (I date the throne to the third century based on the Passio Petri Sancti) the point still is that your theory that Christianity was invented by Constantine doesn't hold up to the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE my team will be bringing forward from the site shortly.

The real question I think is why is the history of the Alexandrian Church OBSCURED before 311 CE? Not whether or not there is a Church before 325 CE.

stephan huller

I forgot to mention that Arius is said to have been the presbyter of the Martyrium of St. Mark in the same period that the Orthodox bishops were cut off from the traditional seat of authority in Egypt. One can make the argument that veiled within the reference that Arius was the 'presbyter of the Martyrium of St. Mark' was that he was viewed by his followers to be the true heir of St. Mark - i.e. the real Pope

PhilosopherJay

Hi Stephan Huller,

Sounds exciting. I wish I could go and see it.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

stephan huller

Really. The disciple of mountainman makes his pronouncement. So your teacher's claim that Arius really 'knew' that everything about Jesus was made up and that he was somehow 'in on' the plot to make up this 'fake religion' doesn't need any supporting evidence. After all 'anything is possible' since we 'don't know anything about Arius.'

Who are you? Who are you to say we don't know anything about Arius? Who are you to say what is reasonable given the fact that you have bought into an absurd minority position promulgated by a mountainman in a country (Australia) that doesn't have tall mountains.

There certainly is enough evidence to suggest that Arius was not some asshole who just went along with a recently made up religion. Here are some points for your mountain-top academy to consider at your next assembly:

1. Arius is said to be the presbyter of the Martyrium of St. Mark, which implies that he held a leadership position in the Markan tradition at Alexandria.
2. the Passio Petri Sancti and related traditions all describe events from a slightly earlier period and make it clear that at least four other heads of the Martyrium preceded Arius - Theonas (who is said to be Peter's predecessor), Peter, Meletius (who is said to have assumed the throne when Peter ran away during the persecution), Achillas who succeeded Peter after Peter returned from his flight and then Arius.
3. the Passio Petri Sancti makes explicit that during Peter's reign a controversy arose about Peter's refusal to sit in the traditional seat of authority in Alexandria - the throne of St. Mark. Peter, for some reason, claimed that he saw Jesus sitting on the throne and so chose to sit on the footstool in front of the chair. During that controversy the text references the witness of the church parishioners that previous generations of Patriarchs dating back to the time before the oldest witness all sat in this throne. The narrative describes events from 311 CE. The witness of the crowd asserts that there were Patriarchs sitting in the throne of St. Mark at least to the mid-third century (i.e. the time of Heraclas/Demetrius).
4. arguments between Athanasius and Arius over the witness of Demetrius and whether his writings support the Arian position again reinforce the idea that there was a third century Alexandrian tradition.
5. documents cited by Eusebius make witness to Heraclas being referenced with the title Papa (Pope). Why would an Imperial conspiracy make up an Alexandrian Papacy?
6. the followers of Meletius of Lycopolis actually represent a third claimant to the tradition of St. Mark. They called themselves the Church of the Martyrs (i.e. referencing the persecutions which decimated the Alexandrian tradition at the end of the third century/beginning of the fourth century). The persecutions not only witness once again that there must have been an Alexandrian tradition before Constantine (the influence of the Meletians can likely be seen in the continued calculation of the Coptic calendar from the Age of Martyrs 285 CE).
7. the persecutions of Diocletian help explain why there appears to be a break between the Alexandrian Church tradition that starts from Demetrius, Heraclas, Dionysius and the one which goes Theonas, Peter, Achillas (Alexander's election seems to mark the beginning of Constantine's influence through Hosius of Cordoba). The Alexandrian tradition is older than Theonas; its just that the mass destruction of the Alexandrian ecclesiastical structure makes the appearance of a break with Dionysius. Indeed the confusion over the issue of Dionysius's writings witnessing the Arian cause was influenced by a break in the presbytery at this point.
8. there is a clear notion in the writings of Severus of al'Ashmunein that there was only one church in Egypt before Theonas - the Martyrium of St. Mark. In other words it was a centralized ecclesiastical structure which is witnessed in other ways too. There is some evidence that there weren't bishops in the Egyptian church until Demetrius. This expansion that occurred under Demetrius was augmented by Heraclas (the fact that Heraclas is said to be the first Pope might only be due to the fact that Demetrius preferred to call himself by the Catholic title 'bishop.' Demetrius appears to be an outsider to the original Alexandrian tradition and certain clues in the surviving legendary stories about him which could argue for him being a foreigner.
9. there is also a clear sense that the Alexandrian church claimed to have authority over Palestine. This is clear from certain statements made by the Meletians (who claimed that to have jurisdiction over the bishop of Gaza). These arguments can be backdated to the time of Demetrius with Origen's flight to Caesarea, Clement's close affiliation with Narcissus and Alexander of Jerusalem and certain statements made at the time of Irenaeus about the communion of the two churches regarding the calculation of Easter. I would guess - and this is only a hunch - that when Demetrius was installed in Alexandria from Rome the native Egyptian tradition sought leadership from Jerusalem until Narcissus was put to flight. In the age that followed there was no leadership of the Church until Heraclas resumed the so-called 'Origenist' contol of the Papacy (Origenism is a misnomer in my opinion; Origen only adapted the native interpretation which was highly influenced by Alexandrian Judaism and the exegesis of Philo to the new Roman orthodoxy established by Irenaeus at the end of the second century. Origen was a skilled bullshitter to use the common expression in North America. He could somehow preserve the original exegesis and make it seem to be in harmony with the scriptures of the orthodox New Testament canon. Clement was less successful and less adroit although still quite a thinker.

The point then is that a solid argument can be made that there was an Alexandrian tradition which dated to the mid-third century. The center of this tradition was the Martyrium of St. Mark which is located under the modern structure of Casion Chatby on Chatby Beach, Alexandria in the traditional Jewish quarter of the city. If one accepts the authenticity of Clement's Letter to Theodore the church was also the center of Alexandrian Christianity at the end of the second century. There is an implicit claim that the site dates back to the first century which is less certain. Nevertheless there can be no doubt that certain physical features of the pre-Nicene Alexandrian tradition survive into the modern age (i.e. the physical structure of the Martyrium, his throne which I have argued in a peer reviewed paper http://poj.peeters-leuven.be/content...issue=0&vol=11 [alongside articles written by James Robinson and Bentley Layton] was taken from Alexandria around 828 CE by Italian sailors and brought to the Basilica di San Marco which still exists today, and certain other physical objects described in the literature which have not survived).

I have some authority on this issue as my views were peer reviewed and published in an academic journal. We can be certain that Arius did not believe that the Passion was a myth. People who say these things should shut their mouths or face the consequences because they are ill-informed and only contribute to confusion on the subject of early Christianity. If you as a member of the academy of mountainman wish to promote your nonsensical ideas about Arius within the confines of your academy you are free to do so. If you do so in public you should be prepared for merciless criticism of your untenable views by people with more familiarity of the surviving historical evidence from the period.

Transient

"Who are you? Who are you to say we don't know anything about Arius? Who are you to say what is reasonable given the fact that you have bought into an absurd minority position promulgated by a mountainman in a country (Australia) that doesn't have tall mountains."

Ok now that is just plum rude mate - Australia leaves the US for dead and who cares how high your mountains are lol.
Your own ideas are way out on a limb anyway.
Attack the position not the man or the country.
Way out theories have a place because they can balance back other way out theories which is what Mountainman's theory does to an extent.

stephan huller

I'm Canadian in fact. We share the Commonwealth in common. I actually generally like Australians. The joke about being a mountainman in a country without sizeable mountains was hardly meant as an insult against Australia.

avi

I, (and everyone else currently living on Planet Earth,) have no useful information about Arius, because everything substantive that he wrote was destroyed by Constantine.

Here's what little I think I know about him: his teacher, Lucian of Antioch, was from Libya, and was himself the originator of the theorem that Jesus was, by definition created by God, therefore there must have been a point in time when Jesus did not exist.

Arius was quite influential in providing instruction on the fundamentals of Christianity to Lord Constantine, BEFORE Constantine became Emperor. Arius' influence was even more pronounced with Constantine's second son, (his eldest having been murdered by Constantine), so that upon Constantine's death, there was a short interval, while the second son ruled as emperor, during which Arius' thought prevailed throughout the Roman Empire.

The faction fight in Alexandria over Arius' ideas was non-trivial. Constantine had been obliged to demand loyalty to Rome, and therefore to the Roman Trinitarian version of Christianity, in order to end the sectarian violence, which had been disrupting grain and meat exports to Rome. Nicea was not just about doctrine. It was also about getting the whole empire moving forward in unison.

Arius was then removed from his status as head of the Alexandria branch of the nascent church, and was excommunicated, briefly, but was reinstated into the Church, on orders of Lord Constantine himself.

A few years later, Arius was assassinated in Constantinople, then a thriving new city, constructed on orders of Constantine.

When I write that we on the planet earth know nothing about Arius' philosophy, I am simply pointing to a profound paucity of documentary evidence, authored by Arius, to assist us in the evaluation of his ideas.

avi

stephan huller

Yes but it is one thing to say that we don't have any reliable information about Arius and then another to posit that because of this historical situation that Arius was a witness to the idea that Christianity was bullshit. To argue that Arius 'knew' that Jesus was a fiction is akin to claiming that Hugh Hefner really had no interest in women, that he was secretly practicing monastic celibacy when presiding over Playboy Enterprises. It's ridiculous.

mountainman

Stephan should admit his error in this one, but then he goes on to say this ...

My claim is that everyone in the empire really 'knew' that everything about Jesus was made up. Arius was not 'in on' the plot. He like the rest of the citizens in Alexandria and far beyond were simply innocent bystanders. Like the rest of the citizens at that time, he was not "Christian". In fact, he was just one of your average "pagans". Arius may have been a follower of Plotinus and Porphyry and the neoplatonic lineage back to Ammonias - whom Arius calls his father. The evidence by which I am convinced that Arius was not your average "christian" but in fact the opposite is presented below. Arius was rubbed out of history at precisely that spot where Eusebian history of the Church finishes. The Council of Nicaea is apparently convened in order to deal with the words of Arius - the words of resistance which should be expected at that epoch.

My claim is that Arius authored books against the new and strange religion of Constantine immediately it appeared 324/325 CE with Constantine's army from the west and northwest. Constantine makes explicit references to these "books of Arius" in his "Dear Arius Letter of c.333 CE". These books were the subject of Constantine's uncontrolled wrath and exasperation. What did Arius author?

My claim is that Arius authored many of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" (which I claim are not derived from before Nicaea despite assertions found in the books of the "early orthodox heresiologists" (such as Eusebius and Irenaeus and Tertullian) to the contrary. My claim is that these "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" (ie: the NT Apocryhpa) were authored by Arius as popular Greek stories and "plays/acts/performances in the greek theatres" about Jesus and the Apostles, and became known as "The Circuits (or Travels) of the Apostles" as cited by Photius. My claim is that because the name of Arius of Alexandria had suffered Constantinian "damnatio memoriae", that name could not longer be employed, and the pseudonym of "Leucius" - the son of the Devil - appears in the later 4th century. For an analysis of the sources in this issue see Arius of Alexandria and Leucius Charinus: Two sides of the ONE fourth century Heretical Author


The Arian controversy also involved these "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" and their preservation. The orthodox cracked down with great force upon the eradication of the extraneous Gospels and Acts, and their preservation to today's world over 16 centuries is miraculous.

The key evidence I present on these claims is the letter of Constantine.


Constantine's "Dear Arius" Letter

A political analysis of a letter composed about 333 CE by Constantine, addressed to Arius and the Arians. Constantine would very much like to publically execute Arius, but he does not know exactly where Arius is - perhaps Syria. Arius is revealed as someone who had previously been conspicuous by his silence and unobtrusive character. He is described in the manner of an ascetic priest. Constantine is stung by the anti-christian polemic in the writings of Arius; Arius is the focus of belief in unbelief of Constantine's new political and religious initiatives. Constantine reveals that Arius "reproaches, grieves, wounds and pains the Church". A very nasty letter by a very nasty despot. Eventually Constantine manages to poison Arius, but before that time when Arius was no longer, he had composed a number of texts against the Pontifex Maximus' preferred and sponsored cult. These heretical writings were sought out by the orthodox.

there is also an ANALYSIS OF THIS LETTER

An analysis of this letter discloses a great deal of information about what Constantine thought about Arius of Alexandria, and his books, and his mode of authorship.

(1) Arius - the Author of Books - in terms of the Christian Church and Jesus.
(2) Arius in terms of the Political Support of the Hellenistic Masses
(3) Arius and his Modus Operandi of Authorship
(4) Constantine's unwitting positive descriptions of Arius' character and nature.

and finally, the balance of the letter consists of data related to ...

(5) Constantine's purposeful derogatory descriptions of Arius' character and nature.

***


(1) Constantine tells us the following information about Arius of Alexandria in regard to Arius as an author of Books that related to 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.

The 4th century saw a war employing the new high technology of the codex.
Whoever owned, operated and controlled "God's Book Technology" were assured of power.
The history of the Graeco-Roman "Gnostic" resistance against the NT was burnt and buried and "harmonised".
At the beginning of that history, and the Council of Nicaea, we have the five sophisms of that "Porphyrian Arius".

avi

It annoys me when you insult aa5874 or mountainman, but, I confess that it does not bother me, to read your insulting remarks about my writing. In part, that's because I think that you are quite a gifted and talented author, with a lot of potential to do a great deal of good, and in part it is because of low self-esteem, due to my profound ignorance of hebrew, greek, and the bible.

However, I don't think that the forum as a whole benefits from any of us hurling personal insults at one another. I think it is the ISSUE, not the personality, that is important. I hope in the future, you would try to funnel your skill and energy in a direction aimed at elucidating WHY a certain position is improbable, rather than focusing on the personality of the forum participant.

I deny having written, as you have suggested, above, that Arius considered Christianity as nonsensical.

I urge you to furnish a quote of mine to substantiate your accusation, else to recant, and admit that whatever you were thinking, it had nothing to do with what I have written about Arius.

In my opinion, unsophisticated though that surely is, Arius was a "true believer". He was the real McCoy. He was as devout a Christian as anyone else of that era, early fourth century. That he did not accept orthodox Trinitarianism, in no way equates, at least in my thinking, with disputing the authenticity of the fundamental tenets of the religion.

He simply insisted on the primacy of logic: if Jesus is the son of god, then, by definition, there must have been a time when Jesus did not exist....

That argument is in no way inconsistent with a devout faith in the divinity and resurrection of JC. Indeed, nearly half of the Bishops supported Arius, as did both Constantine, and at least one of his sons. So, this was not some kind of fly by night uprising. Arius led the most serious challenge to Catholicism, until Martin Luther. He did so, not ridiculing Christianity, but ridiculing Trinitarianism.

avi