“Arian” Controversy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Come gather round people, wherever you roam And admit that the water around you has grown And accept it or soon you’ll be drenched to the bone If your time to you is worth saving You better start swimming or you’ll sink like a stone For The times they are a-changin’ —Bob Dylan CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION: THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THE “ARIAN” CONTROVERSY The “Arian” Controversy as a hermeneutic for understanding the fourth century has become anachronistic. Recent scholarship has ren- dered this hermeneutic inviolable in two particular areas.1 The first concerns the polemical creation of the term, the second the false dichotomy between “heresy” and “orthodoxy.” 1 The last twenty years have seen a number of works deconstructing the “Arian” controversy. An important early article was Maurice Wiles’ “In Defence of Arius,” Journal of Theological Studies 13 (1963), 339–347. Robert Gregg and Dennis Groh’s “The Centrality of Soteriology in Early Arianism,” Anglican Theological Review 59 (1977) 260–278 and Early Arianism: A View of Salvation (Phiadelphia: Fortress, 1981) were significant in examining the theology of Arius from a constructive element. Gregg and Groh argued that early Arianism presented a comprehensive soteriol- ogy based on Arius’ teaching concerning the nature of Christ. Roughly contempo- raneously to Gregg and Groh, two other works also appeared: Thomas A. Kopecek’s A History of Neo-Arianism (Cambridge, MA: Philadelphia Patristics Foundation, 1979), tracing the theology of Aetius and Eunomius; and Rudolf Lorenz’ Arius judaizans?: Untersuchungen zur dogmengeschichtlichen Einordnung des Arius (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1980) examining possible influences from Judaism on the develop- ment of Arius’ theology. Two major works on the fourth century were produced towards the end of the 1980s: Rowan Williams’ Arius, Heresy, and Tradition (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1987; second edition, 2001) and R.P.C. Hanson’s magisterial The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: the Arian Controversy 318–381 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988). Williams’ work was essential in placing Arius within the context of the development of early fourth-century theology. Hanson’s work, as the title indicates, was broader in scope, and was fundamental in helping to recast the understanding of the development of doctrine. For a comparison and critique of Gregg and Groh, Williams, and Lorenz, see Richard Vaggione’s lengthy review article, “‘Arius, Heresy, and Tradition’ by Rowan Williams; also Gregg and Groh’s ‘Early Arianism,’ and Rudolph Lorenz’ ‘Arius judaizans?’,” Toronto Journal of Theology 2 chapter one First, scholarship has demonstrated the polemic creation of “Arianism.” Put simply, no contemporary in the fourth century was aware that an “Arian” controversy was engulfing the church. No one considered themselves “Arians” or even considered Arius the predominant figure in the debate. Rather the category of “Arian” was a creation of Athanasius of Alexandria to recast his struggles in the see of Alexandria and in the empire. Faced with a variety of disciplinary charges against him, it was Athanasius who argued that a group of supporters of the presbyter Arius were systematically attempting to unseat him from his see for doctrinal reasons. Linking himself with the Creed of Nicaea as his defense, in Athanasius Arius becomes the archetypal heretic. Both the “Arian” controversy and “Arian” as a group designation are the polemical creations of Athanasius. Nicaea and “Arianism” became polar opposites when in fact the theological landscape was much more complex.2 There were persons opposed to Nicaea who would have nothing to do with Arius or his followers; likewise there were supporters of Nicaea who would have nothing to do with Athanasius.3 Not only is the “Arian” con- troversy not an accurate description of the theological climate of the fourth century, it was a polemical creation which became standard- ized in historical discourse. In regards to the second point, previous assumptions assumed a body of doctrine which can be identified as “orthodox” from which one knowingly and purposely dissents.4 For centuries the “Arian” 5 (1989), 63–87. Two important collections of essays also appeared: Arianism: Historical and Theological Assessments, Robert Gregg, ed. (Cambridge, MA: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1985); and Arianism after Arius: Essays on the Development of the Fourth Century Trinitarian Conflicts, Michel Barnes and Daniel H. Williams, eds. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993). For a recent assessment of this time period and the theological issues involved, see Joseph Lienhard, Contra Marcellum: Marcellus of Ancyra and Fourth Century Theology (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2000). Richard Vaggione’s Eunomius of Cyzicus and the Nicene Revolution (New York: Oxford, 2001) has thoroughly re-examined the development of doctrine in the fourth century, focusing on the role of Aetius and Eunomius. 2 See Timothy Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993), and Maurice Wiles, “Attitudes to Arius in the Arian Controversy,” Arianism After Arius. 3 On the variety of parties within Nicene Christianity itself, see Vaggione, Eunomius, 315–317; Philip Rousseau, Basil of Caesarea (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 97; and Lienhard, Contra Marcellum, 31–33. 4 For a recent attempt to synthesize how recent scholarship has produced a different historical paradigm for the fourth century, see Michel Barnes, “The Fourth Century as Trinitarian Canon,” in Christian Origins: Theology, Rhetoric, and Community,.