stephan huller

And here is my background on this. When I was writing my article on the Throne of St Mark for the Journal of Coptic Studies, I remember going through all the different versions of the Martyrdom of Peter of Alexandria. Peter dies in 311 CE around November. While Arius is mentioned in some of the traditions, it is Meletius of Lycopolis who is his rival. In one version the leader of the soldiers who arrests Peter is named Meletius.

But what I remember struck me when I going through the material is that there was no room left to fit Arius into the chronology of the episcopal succession. In other words, there is Meletius who must have sat on the throne while Peter ran out of the persecutions to Rome or wherever he went. The Meletian party was resentful of Peter's cowardice. But Achillas is mentioned - from what I remember - as immediately succeeding Peter in many or at least some of the traditions.

It is generally understood that Achillas succeeded Peter and that Alexander succeeded Achillas but the succession is not clearly defined. The fact that Arius is not a bishop makes it hard to believe that he had such influence. Of course the best argument against my understanding is what Philostorgius wrote in his history:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/philostorgius.htm

Yet it has to be reinforced that Philostorgius was writing far later than anyone else on the subject. As Wikipedia notes:

It is hard to believe that Philostorgius's references prove the existence of Arius. Indeed there is very little of note in anything he says. One example. The first mention of Arius is:

Yet this is so utterly confused it is almost laughable. Boucolis is the region just to the east of Alexandia where the Jewish community once stood. It means 'pasture land' all of what follows is obviously a mistake. Arius is understood to have been a presbyter at the church AT Baucalis by Epiphanius - another corruption. So there is a chain of corruption but all of which draws attention to the unreliability of Philostorgius's History.

I am really at a loss to find any real historical references to Arius. What is certain is that:

1. he was never the bishop of Alexandria (or 'Pope')
2. he never attended the Council of Nicaea
3. he was never mentioned in the Nicene Creed
4. no one ever actually reports seeing him or meeting him face to face

In short he seems like the perfect 'heretical boogeyman' used to differentiate between 'the good St Mark' under whose authority Alexandria had always rested and 'the bad side' of this teaching, = doctrines that were passed from Clement to Origen and the rest of the nitwits in the Alexandrian Church.

DCHindley

Spin,

I guess you have to take that up with Migne. I do not know what edition he used. It is online through that Russian site.
DCH

stephan huller

And then you ask - why would the Imperial Church go to such lengths to invent or pin the Markan tradition on a guy named 'Arius.' I've had conversations with people who have written books on this subject. Real authorities. And they don't even consider it possible that Arius represented the original traditions of Alexandria (= St Mark). Seriously. So Eusebius goes out of his way to 'purify' the writings of Clement, Origen et al, is our earliest reference to the St Mark in Alexandria tradition (outside of the Letter to Theodore) but he is identified as an 'Arian' rather than a traditional Alexandrian Christian.

It's amazing how stupid a lot of the experts really are when asked to SYNTHESIZE all the information they possess. It's like a seventy year old can have spent his whole life gambling in casinos but not come to conclusion that you shouldn't gamble because the house always wins.

Clivedurdle

Julian's tutor?

stephan huller

yes and the man who allegedly baptized Constantine. inventing or exaggerating the significance of arius might have been a way to restore the reputation of eusebius given his influence with the royal family. something doesn't add up here. if eusebius was so close to Constantine's inner circle why favor the Eusebius haters (= Alexander, Athanasius). Answer: Constantine wasn't all powerful. He was trying to establish an ecumenical harmony from weakness. The orthodox had the upper hand

jakejonesiv

There is not a shred of evidence that Constantine was a Christian.

jakejonesiv

The conversion of Constantine to Christianity is a myth of a later generation of Christians. When we look at the hard archeological evidence, Constantine is always depicted as a pagan. It seems to me like someone after his death wanted to backdate the Imperial imprimatur of Christianity, and decided to use the person of Constaintine for that purpose.

The only evidence we have that Constantine was a Christian is in the haliographies of Christians, including multiple Eusebiuses. One Eusebius says he was converted on the battlefield after praying all day to the "true" god, and another (different) Eusebius pops up with how he was converted on his death bed. Was Eusebius the "documenter of Constantine" a composite character? A simple reading of Life of Constantine is enough to establish that it was a work of fiction.

The story of Constantine seeing the sign of the cross may be true, but still not refer to Christianity. If Constantine were worshiping the sun and saw a sun dog, he may have taken this as favor from Sol Invictus. This fits the archeological evidence, since the arch of Constantine etc. portrays Sol and not Jesus.

So a latter generation latched onto the sun dog story, reinterpreted it as Christian, and then tacked on a death bed baptism to escape the public record of Constantine being a lifetime pagan.
He looks much more like a religously tolerant pagan Emperor (which benifited Christianity) who was transformed into a Christian saint.

What is generally attributed to Constantine in 325 CE, really only occured later, e.g. Codex Theodosianus, xvi.1.2, 2/27/380 CE.

Here it is.

EMPERORS GRATIAN, VALENTINIAN AND THEODOSIUS AUGUSTI. EDICT TO THE PEOPLE OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our Clemency and Moderation, should continue to profess that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of
our authority which in accordance with the will of Heaven we shall decide to inflict.
GIVEN IN THESSALONICA ON THE THIRD DAY FROM THE CALENDS OF MARCH, DURING THE FIFTH CONSULATE OF GRATIAN AUGUSTUS AND FIRST OF THEODOSIUS AUGUSTUS
—Codex Theodosianus, xvi.1.2, 2/27/380 CE

Jake Jones IV

stephan huller

Right. I used the word 'allegedly' before 'baptized Constantine' for that reason. Nevertheless, Eusebius of Nicomedia seems to have been extremely tight with the royal family. Hard to explain then why - if Constantine was all powerful - that his theological view came up short during the reign of Constantine.

The question now is whether 'Arius' and 'Arianism' is a similar myth of a later generation of Christians. I don't see much in the way of contemporary witnesses to Arius. He seems to be at best, a stooge, the Lee Harvey Oswald, the guy upon whom the whole blame for disagreement was pegged.

Iskander

325 - 1st Ecumenical Council – Nicea settles the major heretical challenge to the Christian faith when the heretic Arius asserts Christ was created by the Father. St. Athanasius defends the eternality of the Son of God. The Arians continue their assault on true Christianity for years. Nicea is the first of Seven Ecumenical (Churchwide) Councils.

381 – 2nd Ecumenical Council – Constantinople repudiated Arianism and Macedonianism, declared that Christ is “born of the Father before all time”, completed the Nicene Creed in regard to the Holy Spirit

431 – 3rd Ecumenical Council – Ephesus repudiated Nestorianism, proclaimed the Virgin Mary as the Theotokos (“Birth-giver to God”, “God-bearer”, “Mother of God”), repudiated Pelagianism, and reaffirmed the Nicene Creed

451 – 4th Ecumenical Council – Chalcedon affirms apostolic doctrine of two natures in Christ.

553 – 5thEcumenical Council – Constantinople II, reaffirmed decisions and doctrines explicated by previous Councils, condemned new Arian, Nestorian, and Monophysite writings.

589 - In a local synod in Toledo, Spain, the filioque clause (“and the Son”) is added to the Nicene Creed and adopted by Rome asserting that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the Son – an innovation the Orthodox reject.

680 – 6th Ecumenical Council – Constantinople III repudiated Monothelitism and Monoenergism.

stephan huller

The Syrian tradition holds that there was one previous in Galatia in the early second century.