• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

OXFORD THEOLOGICAL MONOGRAPHS Editorial Committee M. McC. ADAMS M. J. EDWARDS P. M. JOYCE D. N. J. MACCULLOCH O. M. T. O’DONOVAN C. C. ROWLAND OXFORD THEOLOGICAL MONOGRAPHS FAITH, REASON, AND REVELATION IN THE THOUGHT OF THEODORE BEZA Jeffrey Mallinson (2003) RICHARD HOOKER AND REFORMED THEOLOGY A Study of Reason, Will, and Grace Nigel Voak (2003) THE COUNTESS OF HUNTINGDON’S CONNEXION Alan Harding (2003) THE APPROPRIATION OF DIVINE LIFE IN CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA Daniel A. Keating (2004) THE MACARIAN LEGACY The Place of Macarius-Symeon in the Eastern Christian Tradition Marcus Plested (2004) PSALMODY AND PRAYER IN THE WRITINGS OF EVAGRIUS PONTICUS Luke Dysinger, OSB (2005) ORIGEN ON THE SONG OF SONGS AS THE SPIRIT OF SCRIPTURE The Bridegroom’s Perfect Marriage-Song J. Christopher King (2005) AN INTERPRETATION OF HANS URS VON BALTHASAR Eschatology as Communion Nicholas J. Healy (2005) DURANDUS OF ST POURC¸ AIN A Dominican Theologian in the Shadow of Aquinas Isabel Iribarren (2005) THE TROUBLES OF TEMPLELESS JUDAH Jill Middlemas (2005) TIME AND ETERNITY IN MID-THIRTEENTH-CENTURY THOUGHT Rory Fox (2006) THE SPECIFICATION OF HUMAN ACTIONS IN ST THOMAS AQUINAS Joseph Pilsner (2006) THE WORLDVIEW OF PERSONALISM Origins and Early Development Jan Olof Bengtsson (2006) The Eusebians The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the ‘Arian Controversy’ DAVID M. GWYNN 1 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox26dp Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York ß David M. Gwynn 2007 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2007 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Gwynn, David M. (David Morton), 1975– The Eusebians : the polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the construction of the Arian controversy / David M. Gwynn. p. cm. — (Oxford theological monographs) ISBN–13: 978–0–19–920555–4 (alk. paper) ISBN–10: 0–19–920555–8 (alk. paper) 1. Athanasius, Saint, Patriarch of Alexandria, d. 373. 2. Arianism. 3. Theology, Doctrinal—History—Early church, ca. 30–600. 4. Eusebius, of Caesarea, Bishop of Caesarea, ca. 260–ca. 340. I. Title. BR65.A446G89 2006 273’.4—dc22 2006027695 Typeset by SPI Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by Biddles Ltd., King’s Lynn, Norfolk ISBN 0–19–920555–8 978–0–19–920555–4 13579108642 In memory of Norman James Edmonstone Austin Teacher, Inspiration, and Friend This page intentionally left blank Preface This monograph derives directly from my Oxford doctoral thesis, submitted in 2003 and entitled ‘Hoi peri Eusebion: The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the early ‘‘Arian Controversy’’’. I have updated the bibliography and certain sections of my argument, particularly to allow for the recent important works of Lewis Ayres and John Behr, and I have incorporated various modifications recommended by examiners and reviewers. The present work is not intended to be a general study of the career of Athanasius or of the controversies that divided the fourth-century Church. My aim is more specific, to present a systematic literary, historical, and theological re-evaluation of the polemical writings of Athanasius and their influence upon modern interpretations of the so-called ‘Arian Controversy’. The particular focus of this study is the origins and evolution of Athanasius’ presentation of those whom he regarded as ‘heretics’ as a single ‘Arian party’, hoi peri Eusebion (‘the ones around Eusebius’ or the ‘Eusebians’). These are the men, named after their alleged leader Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, whom Athanasius held responsible for his own condemnation at the Council of Tyre in 335, and whom from that date onwards he accused of manipulating episcopal and imperial politics in order to persecute the ‘orthodox’ and to impose their ‘heresy’ upon the Church. My examination of Athanasius’ polemic and of what little external evidence survives against which that polemic can be com- pared reveals that the ‘Eusebians’ who play so prominent a role in modern scholarly accounts of the ‘Arian Controversy’ were in fact neither a ‘party’ nor ‘Arian’. Athanasius’ image of a fourth-century Church polarized between his own ‘orthodoxy’ and the ‘Arianism’ of the ‘Eusebians’ is a polemical construct, and the distortions inherent within that construct must be recognized if we are to fully under- stand the fourth-century Church. My hope is that my conclusions will contribute to the ongoing reinterpretation of the events and participants of the fourth-century controversies. In that process of reinterpretation, we must do justice viii Preface to the contribution of those whom Athanasius and later generations would come to condemn as ‘Arian’ and also do justice to Athanasius himself. It is inevitable that a study focused almost exclusively upon Athanasius’ polemical writings will offer only a partial reflection of the true theological and ecclesiastical importance of the bishop of Alexandria within Christian tradition. But I continue to believe that it is only if we see past the polemical and distorted construction of the ‘Arian Controversy’, created primarily by Athanasius himself, that we can fully appreciate Athanasius’ own achievement in the emer- gence of Christian ‘orthodoxy’ in the crucial formative period in which he lived. I am deeply grateful to all those without whose assistance I could never have completed my original thesis nor brought this mono- graph to the point of publication. My supervisor Dr Mark Edwards (Christ Church) has continued to offer his support and advice, and his comments have consistently forced me to extend my research and to correct and strengthen my conclusions. Professor Averil Cameron (Keble College) assisted my first arrival to Oxford, and has ever since been outstandingly generous with her encouragement and critical suggestions. At an early stage in my research, I was extremely fortu- nate that the Reverend Professor Christopher Stead agreed to read a preliminary version of my argument, and I would once again like to express my thanks for his time and his valuable suggestions. Profes- sor Maurice Wiles and Archbishop Rowan Williams were extremely acute and helpful doctoral examiners, and Reverend Professor Stuart Hall read through my original manuscript and made a number of important comments and corrections. The responsibility for any remaining errors is, needless to say, entirely my own. For his supervision of my first struggles with the fourth-century Church and for his continuing encouragement since, I would further like to thank Dr Paul McKechnie of Auckland University, and like- wise all the other scholars who supported my initial studies in New Zealand, particularly Dr Tom Stevenson (also in Auckland) and Dr Stuart Lawrence (of Massey University, Palmerston North). In my years in Oxford I have received guidance and assistance from many individuals, among whom I must thank Professor Elizabeth Jeffreys, Dr James Howard-Johnston, Dr Bryan Ward-Perkins, Dr Peter Heather, and Dr Roger Tomlin. The colleagues and friends who Preface ix have heard and commented on the arguments that I present here are too numerous to record in full, but my thanks again to you all, particularly Alan Dearn, James George, Scott Johnson, Susanne Ban- gert, Judith Gilliland, Eleni Lianta, Anthi Papagiannaki, and Teresa Shawcross. I must also express my gratitude both to Keble College, where I wrote my original thesis, and to Christ Church, whose generosity in granting me a Junior Research Fellowship allowed me the opportunity to adapt that thesis into monograph form. And of course I am grateful to Oxford University Press for accepting this monograph for publication, and above all to my editor Lucy Qureshi, whose enthusiasm and patience throughout this long process have been equally appreciated. I trust that my family already know how deeply I appreciate all their love and support. In particular, to my parents Margaret and Robin, and to Jenny and Steve, thank you. I have deliberately omitted one name from these acknowledge- ments thus far. The late Professor Norman Austin was my first supervisor at Massey University, and it was he who drew me into the classical and late antique worlds and who opened up to me the delights for both learning and teaching that those centuries offered. I can never repay everything that I owe to Norman and the example that he set me, but it is to him that this monograph is dedicated. David M. Gwynn Christ Church, Oxford Summer 2006 This page intentionally left blank Contents List of Abbreviations xiii Introduction 1 PART I 1. The Polemical Writings of Athanasius: Chronology and Context 13 PART II 2. Athanasius’ Earliest Polemical Work: the ‘Eusebians’ in the Epistula Encyclica of 339 51 3.

Load more

  295

Copy Link