Classification Difficulty: A Case of Athanasius and Hilary Based upon Their Respective De Synodis 1

JUNGHOO KWON / TORONTO

This paper will explore a problem of applying the label "Nicene" to Atha• nasius and Hilary by comparing the De Synodis of Athanasius2 with the De Synodis of Hilarl. Both bishops fought against "Arians" and against the "Arian" policies of Constantius; both of them were sent into exile for the "Nicene" cause; they both attempted to reconcile homoousians and homoi• ousians; both of them even wrote a treatise ab out the same time (ca. 359) in which they dealt with the virtually same subject, namely, the post-Nice• ne Councils of the Ease. Not surprisingly, ancient ecclesiastical historians

1 The topic of this paper was originally suggested by Or. Richard Paul Vaggione and an abridged version of this paper was presented at an annual Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church conference (Meibourne, Australia: Australian Catholic University, 2010). , For the Greek text and its referencing, I will follow H. G. OPITZ, Athanasius Werke, 3 vols., Berlin 1996-, vol. IJ. 6-7, 232-280. For an English translation, I will use A. ROBERTSON, Select Writings and Letters of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, (London 1892) repr. Peabody 2004 (= NPNF, 2 Sero 4), 451-480.

3 PL, vol. 10 will be used as the Latin text. Otherwise mentioned, an English translation will be from E. W. WATSON, et al., St. Hilary ofPoitiers. Selected Works, (1899) repr. Peabody 2004 (= NPNF, 2 Sero 9), 4-29.

4 The inadequacy of the terms such as "Arian," "Arian Controversy," "Arianism" and "Nicene" has been noted by the modern scholars. See R. WILLIAMS, Arius: Heresy and Tradi• tion, (London 1987) Cambridge '2001, 247; R. P. C. HANSON, The Search for the Christian Ooc• trine of God: the Arian Controversy, 318-381, Grand Rapids 2005, xvii-xxi; M. R. BARNES - O. H. WILLIAMS, eds., Arianism after Arius, Edinburgh 1993, xiii-xvii; M. WILES, Archetypal Heresy: Arianism through the Centuries, Oxford 1996, 1-26; L. AYRES, Nicaea and its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, Oxford 2004, 1-15;J. BEHR, The Formation of Christian Theology, 2 vols., New York 2004, vol. 2/1, 1-36; D. H. WILLIAMS, Another Excep• tion to Later Fourth-Century "Arian" Typologies: The Case of Germinius of Sirmium, in: JEeS 4 (1996) 335-357; O. M. GWYNN, The Eusebians: The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the 'Arian Controversy', Oxford 2007, 1-10 and 182-86 and 227. GWYNN has gone further and argued that Athanasius' designation of his opponents as "the Euse• bians" is also problematic and that there was no Eusebian party as opposed to the orthodox party immediately before and after the Council of Nicaea. In this paper for convenience's sake, I will avoid the excessive use of the commas (" ") whenever these problematic terms appear even though I am fully aware of its unsuitableness except either when such inappro-

IAHe 42 (2010~ 146 Junghoo Kwon

portrayed Athanasius and Hilary as staunch defenders of the "Nicene" faith against "Arians". Though they were often conscious of differentiating the latter into sub-groups, we do not find any such attempt in the case of Hila• ry and Athanasius. Following the footstep of the ancient church historians, we often find that Hilary and Athanasius are lumped together under the category of "Nicene" . Does this labeling do justice to both Hilary and Atha• nasius? To answer that question, we will examine what stance Athanasius and Hilary took respectively on four key issues in their respective De Synodis: the authority of synods, the interpretation of the theological terms (homoousiosjhomoiousios), the attitude toward the homoiousian party and finally, the notion of development of doctrine.

1. Respective Understanding ofthe Authority ofCouncils To comprehend properly his view on councils and their authority, it is de• sirable to examine how Athanasius interprets the Nicene Council in his De Synodis. Strangely, Athanasius paid little attention to the Nicene Creed in the earlier part of his careers• The Creed began to become a signficant part of his polemic against the Arian heresy only after 350 and we find his full• blown adhesion to it in his De Synodis 6• The bishop lauds the Nicene Council great {megalen)7, ecumenical {oikoumeniken)8, ancient {archaian)9 and apostolic (apostolikon)1°. He also claims that the Council at Nicaea is not a common meeting {ouch haplös gegonen)l1 and its participants were no ordinary persons {ouch hoi tuchontes)12.

priateness needs to be highlighted or when these words are directly quoted from the text of the ancient authors.

5 This neglect is also true of the majority of the Eastern bishops. Even though it suc• ceeded in condemning Arius, the Nicene Council was, overall, unpopular among them. The Nicene Creed was set aside from the theological landscape of the East for more than 25 years since its existence. The majority of conservative Eastern bishops held the Dedication Creed of Antioch as the traditional faith of the Church. According to Gwynn, U[v]arious eastern bishops continued to appeal to the se co nd creed of Antioch in the 360s and even as late as 381": GWYNN (as note 4), 220-229. For a further study on the Dedication Creed, see G. BARny, Recherches sur Saint Lucien d'Antioche et Son Ecole, Paris 1935, 82-132.

6 For a further discussion, see L. AYRES, Athanasius' Initial Defense of the Term 'Omoou- sios: Rereading the De Decretis, in: Journal ofEarly Christian Studies 12 (2004) 337-359.

7 ATHANASJUS, De Synodis, 39, OPITZ, 11/7, 265.

8 In., De Synodis, 5, OPITZ, 11/6, 234; De Synodis, 33, 11/7, 260.

9 In., De Synodis, 20, OPITZ, 11/7, 246. 10 In., De Synodis, 5, OPITZ, 11/6, 234.

11 Ibid., OPITZ, 11/6, 233.

12 ATHANASIUS, De Synodis, 33, OPITZ, 11/7, 261.