The Chronicon Paschale and Non-Nicene Historiography

CHAPTER THREE THE CHRONICON PASCHALE AND NON-NICENE HISTORIOGRAPHY I. Introduction: Athanasius and the Eusebian Paradigm We have seen how Eusebius’ Church History can be read as an apol- ogy. For Eusebius history, in particular recent history, is not so much the faithful representation of sources and events but rather the col- lecting, editing, and adaptation of source material out of demon- strative loyalty for one’s local traditions and theology. This chapter will examine two authors who also played important roles in the development of church history. The first is the great episcopal influence on church historians of the fourth century, Athanasius of Alexandria. The second is an important but obscured anonymous chronicler of the mid-fourth century. This chronicler has been labeled an “Arian”, and was a crucial source for the later non-Nicene church history of Philostorgius. Modern scholarship has done much to cast Athanasius in a different light than the steadfast defender of Nicene orthodoxy.1 This reap- praisal of Athanasius is of critical importance in looking at the development of the ancient telling of the “Arian” controversy. Rather than emerging from protracted theological discussions, or set in the proper background of previous theological debate, as presented by Eusebius, as the “Arian” controversy emerged from the pen of 1 For scholarly reappraisals of Athanasius’s role in shaping the “Arian” controversy, see Michael Barnes, “The Fourth Century as Trinitarian Canon,” 53–58; Hanson, Search, 239–273; Williams, Arius, 29–91; Timothy Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, 19–33; Wiles, “Attitudes Towards Arius,” 32–38; and Lyman, “A Topography of Heresy,” 54–58. See also magisterial work of Annick Martin, Athanase d’Alexandrie et L’Église d’Égypte au IV e Siècle (Rome: École française de Rome, 1996). As her title implies, Martin’s work is largely focused on the role of Athanasius in shaping the many elements (urban, monastic, ascetic, role of the bishop of Alexandria, construction of churches) which made up the Egyptian church, and contains a wealth of architectural and archaeological as well as historical material. I will largely reference Barnes’ work, since he is more focused on the larger role Athanasius in shaping the controversy throughout the empire, but will cite Martin’s work where appropriate. 58 chapter three Athanasius it became something quite different. The subtle and nuanced differences of opinion became rigid, and the prior theological conflict of the period of the Great Persecution was omitted. In describing a debate between theological traditions Athanasius invoked traditional heresiological topoi to paint Arius as the arch- heresiarch, inspired by Satan, founder of a new sect, who in deny- ing Christ’s divinity was no different from the Jews who murdered him.2 Whereas an appreciation of the complexity of the theological cli- mate of the fourth century was not part of Athanasius’ agenda, scholarship in recent years has done much to reassess the events of the early fourth century. This necessitates critically examining the most important (extant) source for these events, Athanasius himself. Reassessing Athanasius’ own works and taking into account sources previously scorned as “Arian,”3 has revealed a different picture of the unfolding of events. One of the most important details that has emerged is the amount of time it took for the “Arian” controversy to develop. The supposed steadfast defender of Nicene orthodoxy waited almost ten years after the Council of Nicaea to turn his atten- tion to the “Arians,” and only when he considered himself forced to do so. After his initial condemnation in 325, Arius was later read- mitted to communion at the Council of Jerusalem in 335, largely due to the efforts of Eusebius of Nicomedia. In the years following Nicaea Athanasius was concurrently engrossed in managing the Meletian schism in Alexandria and establishing his own legitimacy as bishop rather than working to expunge the “Arians” from his church.4 He engaged in a dispute over doctrine with rival bishops 2 These categories are employed by Athanasius very early on in his crusade against the “Arians,” in what is generally considered his earliest theological work dealing with Arius, the Orations Against the Arians, begun roughly in 339. Athanasius manages to invoke all of these topoi in a tumultuous opening chapter. 3 Such as Eusebius himself ! For a recent article perpetuating the ex post facto heretization of Eusebius, see K.R. Constantine Gutzman, “Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea and his ‘Life of Constantine’: A Heretic’s Legacy,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 42 (1997), 351–358. A brief extract from Gutzman serves as an excellent example of this mode of thinking: “In declaring Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea an Arianist heretic, the fathers assembled at Nicaea [Nicaea II, 787] brought the last great council of the Catholic church to a close on the same issue that had prompted St. Constantine to call the first: Trinitarianism...Eusebius of Caesarea was a sub- ordinationist heretic...(Gutzman, 351).” 4 For a discussion of Athanasius’ election as bishop of Alexandria and the events.

Load more