Remarks on the Chronology of the Arian Controversy until the Death of Arius (Uta Heil)
The following essay appeared on pp. xix-xxxviii of Dokumente zur Geschichte des Arianischen Streits. Athanasius Werke , vol. 3, part 1, Lieferung 3 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007), edited by Hanns Christof Brennecke, Uta Heil, Annette von Stockhausen and Angelika Wintjes. Written by Heil, it explains the chronological issues, the major research conducted during the past 70 years, and the German team’s reasoning for altering the order of the “Dokumente” in Lieferung 3 from that of Opitz’s “Urkunden” in the first two Lieferungen in 1934. For a more recent update on the current state of the chronological debate for these documents by the same authoress, click here. We thank Dr. Heil and De Gruyter Brill for allowing us to provide an English translation of these pages, to assist English readers in understanding the complicated issues. For purposes of citation the approximate page breaks in the original German are provided in bold within brackets.
Contents:
The Beginning of the Arian Controversy
A Look Back at Discussions Before Opitz
The 325 Synod of Antioch: An Opposing Viewpoint to H. Strutwolf
The Last Years of Arius’s Life
The Beginning of the Arian Controversy
When Hans-Georg Opitz published two fascicles with “Documents on the Arian Dispute” (Athanasius Werke III) in 1934-1935, he also had to decide on chronological questions when sorting the documents. Fortunately, he explained his understanding of the timing of the Arian dispute in an essay in 19341 for his death in the Second World War prevented the publication of an introduction to his edition of the works of Athanasius. This collection of documents and Opitz’s essay have since formed the basis for understanding the chronology of the “Arian” dispute, and its results have been incorporated into many handbooks and overviews.2
On the one hand, Opitz bases his reconstruction on the two reports on the course of the dispute by Sozomen (H.E. 1.15)3 and Epiphanius (Pan. 69.3-5); on the other hand, he inserts the following events into these reports: firstly, the Antiochene synod identified by Eduard Schwartz with the associated theological declaration (Dok. 20 = Urk. 18)4 and secondly, Licinius’s ban on synods, which he placed in the time span between 322 and autumn 324 AD. (Victory of Constantine over Licinius5). Since this covers the time span between autumn 324 AD. and the Nicene Synod in the early summer of 325 AD. was too short to accommodate all the traditional events and documents, he dated what he understood to be the first document, a letter from Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia, to the year 318, working backwards step by step. On the other hand, this fitted in with the fact that Eusebius must have become Bishop of Nicomedia between 315 and 317 AD. As a result, the dispute for Opitz was as follows:
The disputes began in Alexandria between the presbyter Arius and the local bishop Alexander, and after some hesitation Alexander excommunicated Arius and his followers at a synod of the “100” bishops (as reported in Dok. 15 = Urk. 1 and Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b). Arius nevertheless gained further followers (e.g. a group around a presbyter named Pistus), traveled to Palestine himself and from there wrote to Eusebius of Nicomedia asking for support (Dok. 15 = Urk. 1, 318 AD; Dok. 16 = Urk. 2 may be the corresponding answer). Alexander responded to this with a circular in which he warned against the activities of the “Arians” (Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b); [xix-xx] he also turned again to Egyptian clerics (Dok. 2.1 = Urk. 4a). Eusebius of Nicomedia, in turn, indeed supported Arius; a Bithynian synod confirmed Arius’s orthodoxy (Dok. 3 = Urk. 5). From there, Arius wrote to Alexander (Dok. 1 = Urk. 6) to reach a theological consensus. When this failed, Arius turned back to Palestine (Dok. 9 = Urk. 7; Dok. 4 = Urk. 8; Dok. 5 = Urk. 9 all belong in this context), and a synod there (Dok. 8 = Urk. 10) called on Alexander to reinstate him (also Dok. 11 = Urk. 11; Dok. 6 = Urk. 12; Dok. 7 = Urk. 13). Taking advantage of the ban on synods that had now been issued, Arius returned to Alexandria and formed a special community (as reported in Dok. 17 = Urk. 14). Alexander responded with further letters (Dok. 17 = Urk. 14; Dok. 14 = Urk. 15 and Dok. 18 = Urk. 16), but the situation remained confusing. Now, after his victory over Licinius, Constantine intervened in the dispute (Dok. 19 = Urk. 17) and sent his theological advisor Ossius of Cordoba to Alexandria. An Alexandrian synod was unable to resolve the dispute, but an Antiochene one (Dok. 20 = Urk. 18; 325 AD) made a preliminary decision; The Nicene Synod finally excommunicated Arius and his closest followers.
A Look Back at Discussions Before Opitz
By arranging the documentary material before and after Licinius’ synodal ban, Opitz came to the conclusion that the dispute could not have only begun after Constantine’s victory over Licinius about 18 months before the Synod of Nicaea, but that it had already been going on for several years at that point (the so-called long chronology). This is the only way to classify the many documents and the travels of the “Arians”. In doing so, Opitz confirmed the old view of Tillemont6 from the end of the 17th century and also differentiated himself on this issue from Eduard Schwartz, who spoke out in favor of the so-called shorter chronology and dated all the events only after the end of the Licinian synod ban in 323 AD7 which must have occurred within a period of just a few months before the Council of Nicaea. The basis for this shorter chronology is the old dating of Constantine’s victory over Licinius (according to Mommsen, Chronica minora I, 2.32.) in the year 323 AD. and the decision to reject the report of Eusebius of Caesarea, V.C. II 61-73, which describes the Arian dispute as starting suddenly and spreading rapidly.
Pierre Batiffol8 also assumed a short chronology of only a few months, agreeing in this with Schwartz, but otherwise followed the report in Sozomen (H.E. 1.15), since it was based on a credible source (Sabinus).9 Gustave Bardy10 also follows E. Schwartz11 not Opitz in dating the beginning of the dispute to 323 AD, although like Opitz he dates Constantine’s victory over Licinius to the year 324 AD.12– with Licinian synod ban playing no role for Bardy.
Apart from these external dates for the beginning of the dispute, the internal order of the existing documents was also discussed before Opitz, in particular the arrangement of the letters of the Alexandrian bishop Alexander (in Opitz now Dok. 2.1 = Urk. 4a, Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b , Dok. 17 = Urk. 14, Dok. 14 = Urk. 15). [xx-xxi] The focus of this older discussion about Alexander’s letters was the condemned Arians listed, whose designation as presbyters and deacons does not match. Valesius already concluded from this that the deacons from Dok. 17 = Urk. 14 had now risen to the rank of presbyter (Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b) and that consequently Dok. 17 = Urk. 14 should be placed before Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b.13 This thesis was contradicted by Eduard Schwartz, who assumed that the list of names had been corrupted.14 Sigismund Rogala15, in turn, placed Dok. 17 = Urk. 14 again before Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b, firstly because at the beginning there was the longer, more detailed letter (Dok. 17 = Urk. 14), and secondly, the situation in Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b appears to be more advanced and thirdly, Dok. 17 = Urk. 14 originally does not have a list of heretics. Furthermore, Rogala doubted the identity of the schismatic Colluthus mentioned in Dok. 17 = Urk. 14 with the Colluthus who signs Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b. Viktor Hugger16 responded to Rogala’s theses, who clearly viewed Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b as a document from the early days before Dok. 17 = Urk. 14: the Arians had only recently appeared, and Alexander initially wanted to ignore them in silence; the intervention of Eusebius of Nicomedia forced a condemnation, and the letter also only warned against agitations by the Arians outside Egypt. Hugger thereby repeated arguments that Paavo Snellman17 had already formulated. Otto Seeck18 also analyzed the lists of names of the heretics mentioned and even used these as an opportunity to postulate a temporary return of condemned Arians to the Alexandrian church (he also places Dok. 17 = Urk. 14 before Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b), because they had risen in rank, which would only have been possible under Alexander. Seeck further developed this view into the thesis that Alexander, under pressure from Licinius, accepted the Arians back into the church community19, but this was soon refuted in detail by Snellman20 and Rogala21. Like Schwartz, Gerhard Loeschcke22 also assumed that the lists of heretics had been corrupted and further described how the prescriptions could have come about: a vertical list of names had been incorrectly read horizontally. Finally, his suggestion was used by Opitz for his reconstruction of the text (see Opitz’s apparatus, 29), so that without much discussion Opitz again placed Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b before Dok. 17 = Urk. 14, as can be seen from his numbering.
For other reasons, Gustave Bardy voted for the priority of Dok. 17 = Urk. 14 over Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b: In formulating [his account of] Arius’ theses in Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b, Alexander used the Thalia, which was apparently still unknown to him in Dok. 17 = Urk. 14.23 [xxi-xxii] In this way Bardy attempted to provide an answer from a new perspective to the older question of what order should be assigned to Alexander’s letters. Opitz himself rejected these references to Arius’ Thalia,24 since the Thalia was not the basis for the presentation in Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b, but conversely the presentation in Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b was itself the basis for the later presentations or summaries of Arian theses in Athanasius. However, this question was discussed again later, and R. Williams in particular brought Bardy’s old thesis back into focus for his chronological sorting (see below). Even later, Bardy stuck to his reversal of the Alexander letters,25 but without going into Opitz in more detail, so that the following sequence of argumentation arose for him: After several discussions in Alexandria, Arius refused to bow to Alexander and was therefore condemned at the Synod of the Hundred; Arius then traveled to Palestine, and later from there to Nicomedia, where he wrote both his confession (Dok. 1 = Urk. 6) and the Thalia; Alexander now responded with two letters: first with Dok. 17 = Urk. 14 and, after he had read the Thalia, with Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b; Polemical writings were exchanged and collected, and after synods in Bithynia and Palestine, Arius returned to Alexandria. For Bardy, both of Alexander’s letters follow one another without much space between them.
Reactions to Opitz’s Theses
Opitz’s proposal was soon criticized by W. Telfer26, who also assumed a much shorter chronology. Firstly, Telfer questioned whether the Arians’ travels actually took place – Epiphanius only read this from Doc 2.2 = Urk. 4b27–and secondly, shortened the period of Licinius’ synod ban from 322-324 to April to September 324, so that for him the dispute only began almost two years before Nicaea. The report Soz., H. E. I.15 should also only be used with caution, since it is based on the tendentious presentation of Sabinus’ synodal collection, in which Alexander’s persistent stubbornness against repeated requests from the Eusebians to readmit Arius was emphasized. In reality, the events certainly happened much faster and sometimes simultaneously, unlike what Sozomenus portrays. From Dok. 9 = Urk. 7, a letter from Eusebius of Caesarea to Alexander, especially from the sentence ̔όρα εἰ μὴ εὐθυς πάλιν αὐτοῖς ἀφορμὴ δίδοται εἰς τὸ ἐτπλαβέσθαι καὶ διαβάλλειν ὁρμᾶσθαι ̔όσα καὶ θέλουσι (15.1 f.), Telfer concluded, that a theological consensus had previously been reached, apparently on the basis of Dok. 1 = Urk. 6, a theological statement by Arius. However, Alexander threatened to destroy this consensus, which was found with Eusebius at a Palestinian synod (Dok. 8 = Urk. 10), with his letter Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b, because he accused Arius of false statements in it, which Eusebius now accuse him in Dok. 9 = Urk. 7. Apparently, however, the Bithynian synod under Eusebius of Nicomedia, which, unlike in Caesarea, did not mediate but decided unilaterally in favor of Arius, incited Alexander to break the consensus and condemn Arius and his followers at its own Alexandrian synod. Telfer scheduled this synod before the synod ban, which he dated from April to September 324, i.e. in March 324, so Alexander must have learned about the activities of Eusebius of Nicomedia around February 324. Accordingly, the Bithynian synod should be scheduled for October/November 323. So it would suffice if the dispute began in July 323: At the beginning there were disputations in Alexandria, which initially led to the expulsion of Arius and his followers from the church in September 323, which were then reintegrated at the end of the year through Caesarea’s mediation based on a compromise, but were finally excommunicated again by Alexander at an Egyptian synod (March 324) after Alexander learned that Eusebius of Nicomedia had sided with Arius [xxii-xxiii] In a later essay28 Telfer defended his basic assumptions, but adapted the presentation of the course of the dispute to the report in Sozomen (H.E.. 1.15), since this was based on a credible source, namely Sabinus of Heraclea (see above). So he now misplaced his presumed consensus (together with Dok. 16 = Urk. 2, Dok. 10 = Urk. 3, Dok. 11 = Dok. 11, Dok. 6 = Urk. 12 and Dok. 7 = Urk. 13, which belonged in this context) to an earlier time during the initial debates about Arius in Alexandria before his exclusion at an Egyptian synod (Dok. 2.1 and 2.2 = Urk. 4a/b). Dok. 1 = Urk. 6 is also a document from this early period. After the Alexandrian Synod follow Dok. 15 = Urk. 1 and Dok. 9 = Urk. 7, then Dok. 3 = Urk. 5, then Dok. 4 = Urk. 8, Dok. 5 = Urk. 9 and Urk. 8 = Urk. 10 (the Bithynian and Palestinian synods now follow the Alexandrian synod again); finally, Dok. 17 = Urk. 14.
Norman H. Baynes29 and Wilhelm Schneemelcher30 responded to Telfer’s arguments, both of whom defended Opitz’s proposal against Telfer. Baynes pointed to CTh 16.2.5 as evidence that the ban on synods also applied in December 323, and emphasized the importance of this measure by Licinius, which was unfairly diminished by Telfer. In addition, Baynes criticized the fact that, according to the portrayal of Sozomen/Sabinus, the person of Alexander was by no means particularly stubborn; on the contrary, Alexander reacted only slowly and wanted to avoid condemning Arius at first, which is why he only wrote the circular after the intervention of Eusebius of Nicomedia. In particular, Baynes criticized Telfer’s interpretation of one sentence from Dok. 9 = Urk. 7 because it was in no way allowed to read from it a previously found theological consensus. In this letter, Eusebius only criticizes the fact that Alexander misrepresents statements by Arius (!). Schneemelcher pointed out that Telfer could neither use the emperor’s surprise at the dispute (in Dok. 19 = Urk. 17) nor the suddenness reported by Eusebius of Caesarea (V.C. II 61 f.) as arguments for a short chronology, since both have a rhetorical character. Both Baynes and Schneemelcher criticize that Telfer wants to set the beginning of the Arian dispute later in order to start the apologetic double work of Athanasius (Against the Gentiles and On the Incarnation) beforehand, in which, as is well known, references to this dispute are missing. However, the dating of this double work is controversial and many even place it much later, to the time of Athanasius’ first exile in Trier (335-337 AD), so that this work is unusable for a chronological understanding of the beginnings of the Arian dispute.
Again unlike Telfer, but also criticizing Opitz, Éphrem Boularand reconstructs the beginnings of the Arian dispute.31 He agreed with Bardy to reverse the order of Alexander’s two letters, and dated as Opitz, the end of the synod ban to 324 AD. But unlike Telfer, he puts the travel activity of Arius and his followers preceding it, even if, unlike Opitz, he tightened the time sequence somewhat, so that for him the dispute began in Alexandria in 322 AD.
Without going into Opitz’s chronological investigations, Thomas A. Kopecek presented the beginnings of the Arian dispute;32 but in his presentation he obviously followed Boularand33 and G. Bardy34. For both Kopecek and Boularand, the dispute only began in 322 AD, and after two hearings in Alexandria, Alexander excommunicated Arius and his followers. Since resistance remained, there was a synod of the “Hundred” in Alexandria and ultimately [xxiii-xxiv] Arius was expelled from the city. Arius traveled to Syria (Dok. 10 = Urk. 3); Due to this expansion, Alexander also turned to colleagues outside Alexandria (Dok. 17 = Urk. 14); Now again Arius addressed Eusebius of Nicomedia (Dok. 15 = Urk. 1 and Dok. 16 = Urk. 2), traveled there and wrote the Thalia. The Arian circle of supporters grew, so Alexander published the earlier condemnation of Arius (Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b). Now Eusebius of Nicomedia also called a synod in favor of Arius (Dok. 3 = Urk. 5), for which Arius wrote a theological declaration, which he also sent to Alexander (Dok. 1 = Urk. 6). A Palestinian synod also confirmed Arius’ orthodoxy (Dok. 8 = Urk. 10) and Eusebius of Caesarea criticized Alexander in a letter (Dok. 9 = Urk. 7). Supported in this way, Arius returned to Alexandria, but Alexander continued to refuse communion with him. Now Constantine intervened in the dispute (Dok. 19 = Urk. 17; Dok. 20 = Urk. 18 etc.). The absence of Paulinus of Tyre at the Antiochene synod was the reason for Eusebius of Nicomedia’s call to no longer remain silent but to stand up for Arius (Dok. 4 = Urk. 8). This chronological understanding differs not only in that the time period is much shorter, but also in the switching of Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b with Dok. 17 = Urk. 14; Dok. 15 = Urk. 1; Dok. 16 = Urk. 2 with Dok. 10 = Urk. 3; Dok. 4 = Urk. 8.
In 1981, at a colloquium in Berkeley on the Arian dispute, chronological questions were also discussed in passing.35 Ch. Kannengiesser accepted Opitz’s order of the documents here, but observed that Dok. 1 = Urk. 6 completely ignores Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b (which Opitz said preceded it), and likewise Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b in turn [ignores] Dok. 15 = Urk. 1.36 T. Kopecek supported these observations at this colloquium and in his response referred to his own chronological suggestion,37 according to which he also sees Dok. 15 = Urk. 1 as preceding Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b and both as being before Dok. 1 = Urk. 6; but the Thalia he inserts before Doc 2.2 = Urk. 4b. Also G.C. Stead addressed chronological questions, especially Dok. 15 = Urk. 1, and pointed out that this document assumed, firstly, that Arius had been expelled from Alexandria, and secondly, that Alexander was already in contact with bishops in Antioch and some there were excommunicated, and thirdly, that these events could only have been caused by Arius’s previous search for contact there.38 However, without further processing these considerations, Stead referred to Dok. 15 = Urk. 1 as Arius’s first work, and Dok. 1 = Urk. 6 as the second.39
In another essay, Stead went into more detail about Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b and, based on stylistic observations, assigned this text not to Alexander, but to his deacon and successor Athanasius.40 Nevertheless, Stead remained, like Opitz, continued to place this letter in the initial phase of the Arian dispute41. L. Abramowski drew completely different conclusions from Stead’s theses; She would also like to delete this text completely from the prehistory of Nicaea, since no one could had formulated ̔όμοιος κατ’ οὐσίαν before the Nicene ὁμοούσιος, and date it about ten years later. It was written by Athanasius [xxiv-xxv] only after the return of Eusebius of Nicomedia from his western exile in 328,42 so that only then does the remark in Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b make sense that Eusebius was renewing his old bad disposition. However, these considerations seem to be unlikely given the fact that Eusebius of Caesarea in Dok. 9 = Urk. 7 refers directly to Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b.
In 1987, R. Williams presented a new proposal for the chronology of the beginnings of the Arian dispute in his monograph on Arius.43 He discussed in detail (in Part I, Arius and the Nicene Crisis, Β. Documents and Dating) problems of Opitz’s chronology and finally organized most of the documents very differently.44 This is how Williams rearranged the two Arius letters Dok. 15 = Urk. ι and Dok. 1 = Urk. 6: Dok. 1 = Urk. 6 belongs to the beginning of the disputes and is the first written statement by Arius, written for the initial hearing in Alexandria (c. 320 AD). He also reversed the order of the two documented non-Egyptian synods, since Arius first sought support in Palestine (Dok. 8 = Urk. 10) after his Alexandrian condemnation (321 AD) and only then made contact with Eusebius of Nicomedia (Dok. 15 = Urk. 1). Thirdly, Alexander’s letter Dok. 17 = Urk. 14 is his first and should be understood as a reaction to this Palestinian support: Alexander was now also looking for supporters in his cause. After the successful expansion of the dispute from Arius’s point of view (Dok. 10 = Urk. 3; Dok. 15 = Urk. 1 and Dok. 16 = Urk. 2; Dok. 11 = Urk. 11; Dok. 7 = Urk. 13). Alexander now established the so-called Synod of a Hundred Bishops (Dok. 14 = Urk. 15).
Williams therefore assumed that the beginnings of the Arian dispute were based on three Egyptian synods: a first Alexandrian one in 321 AD, an Egyptian one in 323 AD. and thirdly, the synod under Ossius of Cordoba in 325 AD. Williams only dated the Bithynian synod (Dok. 3 = Urk. 5) after Licinius’ ban on synods (324 AD). Now Constantine also intervened in the dispute and sent Ossius to Alexandria. The circular letter of Alexander Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b is the result of this Alexandrian assembly under Ossius Winter 324/325 AD. Finally, Williams also dated Dok. 9 = Urk. 7, the letter of Eusebius of Caesarea, very late, namely after this last Alexandrian synod and even after the Antiochene synod at the beginning of 325 AD. It should be understood as a last-minute attempt to clarify theological positions in advance of the Synod of Nicaea.
In terms of external dating, Williams does not differ significantly from Opitz. Williams dated Constantine’s first letter to Arius and Alexander (Dok. 19 = Urk. 17) a little later than Opitz, namely around Christmas 324, i.e. during Constantine’s stay in Nicomedia in connection with his journey to the East (November 324 to February 325), citing T. D. Barnes45. Citing Boularand46, Williams shortened the period of the synod ban to around 16 months, since it was only enacted in the summer of 323. Licinius issued it in order to create a Christian “fifth column” after Constantine had violated his borders in the early summer.47 Accordingly, it was sufficient for Williams to date the first document in 320 AD. and not like Opitz to 318.
Williams justified the many changes in the order of the documents with examinations of the texts themselves. His focus is on the two letters of Alexander of Alexandria (Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b and Dok. 17 = Urk. 14). Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b is signed by a certain presbyter Colluthus; however, in Dok. 17 = Urk. 14, his schism is reported, namely that Colluthus had complained that Alexander was too tolerant towards Arius. [xxv-xxvi] However, this cannot be explained after the Alexandrian synod and the condemnation of Arius, so that Dok. 17 = Urk. 14 must be placed before Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b. Furthermore, it is strange that Dok. 17 = Urk. 14 only reports on three Syrian bishops who supported Arius and not on the activities of Eusebius of Nicomedia (Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b). In addition, the remark in Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b that Eusebius of Nicomedia was renewing his old bad attitude refers to the interruption of activities due to the ban on synods. The period of peace mentioned in Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b also fits better into the phase after Constantine’s victory over Licinius and the lifting of the ban on synods. Fourthly, the parallels between Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b and the Thalia are so obvious that Urk. 4b undoubtedly presupposes the Thalia – but then it is strange that these theological contents are forgotten again in Dok. 17 = Urk. 14.48 If Dok. 17 = Urk. 14 belongs before Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b, then at the beginning of the dispute after the Alexandrian condemnation Arius first tried to establish contact with Syria/Palestine (hence Dok. 8 = Urk. 10 before Doc . 3 = Urk. 5) and only secondarily did he turn from Caesarea to Nicomedia. Furthermore, it could well be possible that Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b is a document from the synod under Ossius in Alexandria at the beginning of 325, since according to Ath., Apol.Sec. 76 Colluthus was reintegrated into the church at a synod with Ossius, which explains the prominent place of his signature.
A first critical reaction to this new suggestion from Williams can be found in Thomas Böhm.49 Although he initially spoke approvingly of William’s chronology, he then doubted whether Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b can be assigned to the Alexandrian synod under Ossius; he suggested a different date for this encyclical, closer to the c. 323 AD date of the Thalia and before Dok. 17 = Urk. 14.
Uta Heil [Loose] also took a stand against this new chronology by R. Williams in 1990,50 in order to defend Opitz’s organization at the time. Colluthus’s protest could also have been directed against the return of the Arians during the synod ban; Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b also says not a word about a settlement of the Colluthus schism; the time of peace mentioned in Dok. 17 = Urk. 14, as a rhetorical device, is not necessarily an indication of a real time of peace, i.e. the early period before the ban on synods; The renewed bad disposition of Eusebius of Nicomedia in Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b refers to his previous change of bishop and career aspirations, not to Eusebius’ activities for the Arians, which were interrupted by the ban on synods. Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b fits better overall into the early days of the Arian dispute and Dok. 17 = Urk. 14 presupposes a circular letter that had already been sent, to which Alexander had already received replies from Syria, Pamphylia, Lycia, Asia and Cappadocia.
Williams responded to this again in the second edition of his monograph on Arius, but without changing his opinion.51 Here he referred to the following additional observations: According to Opitz’s idea, Arius returned to Alexandria and thereby caused the conditions as described in Dok. 17 = Urk. 14, a description questioned by Williams. He thinks that the Synod in Palestine (Dok. 8 = Urk. 10) could only have allowed special congregations to be formed in Palestine and not in Alexandria. Furthermore, it is strange that in the letter from Alexander of Alexandria to Alexander of Byzantium (Dok. 17 = Urk. 14) nothing can be read about the activities of his neighboring colleague Eusebius of Nicomedia, so that Dok. 17 = Urk. 14 belongs at the beginning of the dispute before these activities. [xxvi-xxvii] Furthermore, Williams once again repeated the observation that Doc 2.2 = Urk. 4b probably draws on the Thalia, which Arius wrote at the suggestion of Eusebius of Nicomedia.
Winrich Lohr now offers a detailed analysis of Arius’ life and work in his longer, two-part essay,52 the first part of which deals with historical and chronological problems and the second part with theological and dogmatic-historical problems. Lohr also deals very critically with Williams’ chronological framework and focuses on three main problems: firstly, the ordering of Alexander’s two letters (Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b and Dok. 17 = Urk. 14); secondly, the relative relationship to each other of the three items Dok. 15 = Urk. 1, Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b and Dok. 1 = Urk. 6; and finally, the relevance of the Thalia for these texts. Firstly, Lohr also argues for the priority of Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b over Dok. 17 = Urk. 14, since the latter reflects a later stage of the discussion.53 The schism of Colluthus should not be used chronologically because it would probably have no relation to the Arian question,54 which in my opinion seems to be a credible interpretation. Dok. 14 = Urk. 15 should not be assigned to a separate synod, but is a circular from Alexander and is related to Dok. 17 = Urk. 14. Furthermore, it is not surprising if Alexander in his second letter Dok. 17 = Urk. 14 did not repeat his presentation of the Arian theses after Eusebius of Caesarea had criticized it (in Dok. 9 = Urk. 7) as incorrect.55 For Lohr, unlike Williams, the summary of Arius’ teaching in Dok. 17 = Urk. 14 is shorter, simpler and more clearly structured.56 Secondly, like Stead, Lohr also judges Dok. 15 = Urk. 1 as a document of a later stage; he also would not place this text at the beginning,57 but rather Dok. 1 = Urk. 6. Lohr also reverses the order of Arius’ two letters. The relationship between Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b and Dok. 1 = Urk. 6 cannot be determined more precisely, since Alexander in Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b does not refer directly to the explanation of Arius, Dok. 1 = Urk. 6. However, both texts are undoubtedly documents of the early period. Thirdly, the connection between the Thalia and the presentation of the Arian theses in Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b should not be drawn too closely, since, firstly, Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b also refers to an oral debate and, secondly, Arius certainly would have addressed this topic several times.58
How should the many observations, suggestions and criticisms be assessed? It should certainly be noted that only a selection of the actual letters and declarations of faith have survived. Therefore, some things must remain incomplete. Secondly, Telfer’s observation that some surviving documents should possibly be placed at the same time is certainly correct, so that the chain of events suggested by the list of documents should only be viewed with caution. Thirdly, some questions and problems must remain unanswered.
To summarize, the following problems with the documents can be identified: With regard to the external dating, an agreement has been reached on the dating of the end of the ban on synods, i.e. the victory of Constantine over Licinius, so that today no one cites the documents of the Arian dispute as dating to between the ban on synods and the opening of the Synod of Nicaea. However, it is still unclear how long the ban on synods was in force, on which the dating of the beginning of the Arian dispute depends. How far back do you have to go? Until 318 AD. like Opitz, or to 320 AD. or 322 AD? It should be taken into account that no documents have survived from the early days of the internal Alexandrian discussions; [xxvii-xxviii] the report by Sozomen alone suggests that the disputes had been simmering for quite a long time before Alexander finally made a decision. So, the date 318 AD could apply, but we don’t have a document that can be dated from this time (see below).
When and where did Arius travel? Or did he not travel at all? Did he travel to Palestine, then to Syria, finally back to Palestine and finally returned to Alexandria? Snellman even saw a travel route for Arius in the list of names from Dok. 15 = Urk. 1.59 Or did he just travel to Palestine and stay there? Or did he even stay in Alexandria, as Telfer assumes? Alexander reports in Dok. 17 = Urk. 14 that there is a danger that “Arians” would invade other cities, be it in person or through letters (Dok. 17 = Urk. 14.2.58). Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b also warns against accepting Arians (Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b, 20) and Arius writes in Dok. 15 = Urk. 1.2 that Alexander persecutes and drives him and his followers out of the city. Does this “wandering through the cities” refer to Arius or just to the “postmen” who asked for supportive letters or signatures? If Arius’ travel activity is shortened, the documents do not have to be arranged parallel to an assumed Arius travel route
The question about Arius’ travels directly affects the understanding of Dok. 1 = Urk. 6, Arius’ theological explanation. Much depends on how one assesses the introductory remark in Epiphanius (Pan. 69.7) that Arius wrote Dok. 1 = Urk. 6 in Nicomedia and sent it from there to Alexander. Telfer’s critic was that it was unlikely that Arius would travel through Syria and Asia Minor with his followers, presbyters, deacons and two Libyan bishops (according to the signatures under Dok. ι = Urk. 6). Williams pointed out that the signatures from Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b could also have been entered there, but he also wanted to understand Dok. 1 = Urk. 6 as an early document before an Alexandrian conviction, since every reference to a conviction or banishment is missing. Stead also pointed out that Dok. 1 = Urk. 6 did not seem to know anything about the events reported in Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b. The text of Dok. 1 = Urk. 6 suggests that the introductory remark in Epiphanius should not be given too much weight; Epiphanius may have come to his assumption based on the previously cited Dok. 15 = Urk. 1, the letter from Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia. The chronological assessment of Dok. 1 = Urk. 6 also influences the theological understanding of this document: Is it a moderate, mediating letter from Arius to Alexander in order to reach an understanding, or does it uncompromisingly reflect Arius’ theses?
Particularly important and also difficult for the question of Arius’ travels is Dok. 8 = Urk. 10, the report on the synod in Palestine – how should this note be assessed? There is no doubt that the Synod is in favor of Arius, but what does it allow? “Follower” communities in Palestine or in Alexandria? Are a type of exile communities actually permitted in Palestine, as Williams suspects (“émigré congregations”, Williams, Arius, 51), if at the same time it is recommended to submit to Alexander, or does this only make sense for Alexandrian communities? Furthermore, Sozomen reports here that the synod allows Arius and his followers to hold services “as before”, i.e. as before the outbreak of the dispute and excommunication, and to be considered presbyters “as before”, even if they are supposed to subordinate themselves to Alexander. This can actually only be referring to Alexandrian conditions.60 If this interpretation is correct, then Alexander rightly complains in Dok. 17 = Urk. 14 about the unlawful interference from outside by Syrian bishops, which made the situation worse (Dok. 17 = Urk. 14.3761). [xxviii-xxix]
In addition to these trips, the chronology of Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b and Dok. 17 = Urk. 14 remains a problem. Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b and Dok. 17 = Urk. 14 both report on events in Alexandria that do not coincide. What is reported in Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b (especially the interference of Eusebius of Nicomedia) is missing in Dok. 17 = Urk. 14; conversely, the influence of Eusebius of Caesarea and other Syrians is absent from Dok. 17 = Urk. 14 but is in Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b if one reverses the order. It is also difficult to assess why the presentations on Arian theses in the two documents are so different. However, it is certainly methodologically problematic to draw chronological conclusions from the manner in which the Arians’ theses are presented. Furthermore, it is a modern judgment of taste to keep evaluating the Arians’ theses in Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b as better structured and well thought out.
Another related question, which also directly affects chronology, is that of Arius’s Thalia. It is usually assumed that Arius wrote this work in Nicomedia at the suggestion of Eusebius there. Kannengiesser, based on another translation by Ath., De syn. 15, moved the composition to Alexandria before the departure of Arius.62 Lorenz also dated the composition of Arius’s Thalia to this early date, since in the Thalia Arius’ theological theses appear less mature.63 Already G. Bardy, as now again R. Williams, justified the changes between Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b and Dok. 17 = Urk. 14 to the existence of the Thalia, which is assumed in Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b, but not in Dok. 17 = Urk. 14. All of these considerations are very problematic in establishing the relationship between Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b, Dok. 17 = Urk. 14 and the Thalia. It is methodologically questionable to date the Thalia based on a certain understanding of the beginnings of the Arian dispute and then to use this dating to determine in turn the timing of texts from the Arian dispute. Secondly, it does not follow from Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b itself that the Thalia is the source for Arius’s theses reported there (Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b, 7-10); rather, reference is made several times to a conversational situation (esp. Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b, 10), so that it is very likely that the Alexandrian theological discussions and any protocols prepared there could form the basis for Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b.64 If you reverse the order of Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b and Dok. 17 = Urk. 14, then the same problem actually arises for Dok. 20 = Urk. 18 (the writing of the Antiochene Synod), which in any case is to be placed after Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b, but also, like Dok. 17 = Urk. 14, ignores theses from the Thalia of Arius.65
Stead’s observations on Dok. 15 = Urk. 1 seem to be important. Here Arius has already been condemned and expelled from the city, here several Syrian-Palestinian bishops have already been condemned by Alexander, obviously because they had spoken out in some way for Arius. So this letter certainly does not belong at the beginning of the Arian dispute, but rather presupposes a supra-regional development. Furthermore, it must be asked whether this letter must be the first from Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia. Rather, Arius reminds Eusebius of his previously expressed community or support (Dok. 15 = Urk. 1,2); He only addresses the situation briefly, mentions the persecuting bishop without naming him (1.7 Opitz) and refers to the fact that Eusebius was actually already informed about the dispute (Dok. 10 = Urk. 3.6: διὰ τοῦτο διωκόμεθα, λοιπόν σύ οἰ̄δας). The real reason for this letter is that Eusebius of Caesarea, Theodotus of Laodicea, Paulinus of Tyre, Athanasius of Anazarba, Gregory of Berytus and Aerius of Lydda were also condemned – but not “heretics” like Philogonius of Antioch and Hellanicus of Tripoli and Macarius of Jerusalem – about which Arius wants to inform Eusebius of Nicomedia in this letter. [xxix-xxx] With the term “condemnation,” Arius seems to exaggerate the situation somewhat, since the subsequent synods of Antioch and Nicaea do not seem to know anything about this condemnation.66 He can only have meant that Alexander, as a supporter of Arius, also viewed them as condemned (by means of Dok. 17 = Urk.14 and Dok. 14 = Urk. 15; see below). Arius is convinced that he has a like-minded person in Eusebius of Nicomedia, so that in Dok. 15 = Urk. 1.4-5 he only presents his theses again in a short version, and probably not in order to ask whether the Nidomedian agrees with him , but to maintain the existing consensus and remind him of the common theses. Despite this brevity, the keywords mentioned in Dok. 15 = Urk. 1 match the content of Dok. 17 = Urk. 14: Alexander taught that the father is always father, the son is always son (cf. Dok. 17 = Urk. 14.15 ff., esp. 26); He also teaches the eternal generation of the Son from the Father (cf. Dok. 17 = Urk. 14.52); Alexander criticized that the son came from nothing (cf. Dok. 17 = Urk. 14, 15, 22). Both documents also focus on the question of whether the son was also unbegotten (Dok. 17 = Urk. 14.19, 44f, 47f., 52; cf. also Dok. 4 = Urk. 8.3). These convergences in content indicate that the two documents are also close in time. Finally, special attention must be paid to the mention of Paulinus of Tyre in Dok. 15 = Urk. 1. Apparently Paulinus commented positively on Arius’ theses in some form and thus attracted condemnation; but then the letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia (Dok. 4 = Urk. 8) and also, the letter of Paulinus (Dok. 5 = Urk. 9) must precede Dok. 15 = Urk. 1. It would make no sense for Eusebius to ask Paulinus to finally take a stand (Dok. 4 = Urk. 8) after he had already been condemned in this regard according to Dok. 15 = Urk. 1! In Dok. 15 = Urk. 1 Arius counts Philogonius among those who were not condemned. Now Dok. 14 = Urk. 15 with fragments from a encyclical letter from Alexander has been handed down in the version with the signature of Philogonius of Antioch (Dok. 14 = Urk. 15.5), so it must be considered whether this document is exactly the one that Alexander had sent with the request to sign it, so that anyone who does not sign it would be considered condemned like Arius himself. This is exactly what Arius seems to be referring to in Dok. 15 = Urk. 1, so that this document probably should not be placed at the beginning, but at a later point in time. There are two surviving encyclical letters from Alexander—one is Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b, the other Dok. 14 = Urk. 15. In Urk. 4b Alexander informs all his fellow bishops that Arius and his followers have been condemned in Alexandria, in order to warn all the addressees of further Arian activities, especially since Eusebius of Nicomedia was committed to them. This circular letter seems to have been used by Alexander once again, since in Dok. 2.1 = Urk. 4a he presupposes the sending of this circular letter, but now that two presbyters and four deacons from Alexandria and the Mareotis did not agree with this deposition of Arius and his followers, he wanted to secure his position in Alexandria and the Mareotis anew. So Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b is handed down with signatures of the presbyters and deacons from Alexandria and the Mareotis, as Alexander demands in Dok. 2.1 = Urk. 4a. Unfortunately, little has survived from the second circular letter (Dok. 14 = Urk. 15), since in the Christological dispute only the section with the confession of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the signature of the Antiochene Philogonius was of interest. This letter was sent to collect signatures: According to the introductory note, around 200 bishops came together, according to the report in Dok. 14 = Urk. 15.4, bishops signed from Aegyptus, Thebais, Libya, Pentapolis, Palaestina, Arabia, Achaea, Thracia, Hellespont, Asia, Caria, Lycia, Lydia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Galatia, Pisidia, Pontus, Polemoniacus, Cappadocia, Armenia and Philogonius from Antioch. Why shouldn’t this circular letter be the one mentioned in Dok. 17 = Urk. 14, which, according to Dok. 17 = Urk. 14.59, bishops from Egypt, Theba’is, Libya, Pentapolis, Syria, Lycia, Pamphylia, Asia and Cappadocia had already signed? [xxx-xxxi] The connection between the two texts is immediately apparent when one reads Dok. 17 = Urk. 14.53-56 parallel to Dok. 14 = Urk. 15.2f., which Opitz already referred to in the apparatus for the text.67 Dok. 17 = Urk. 14 is obviously a more detailed presentation of the statements in Dok. 14 = Urk. 15, which Alexander wrote because he had not yet received an answer from his namesake. Both texts also show a certain close relationship to Dok. 20 = Urk. 18 (see especially Dok. 17 = Urk. 14.53-55; Dok. 14 = Urk. 15.2; Dok. 20 = Urk. 18,12), which also suggests a temporal connection, as Markschies already noted, citing Abramowski.68 Comparable are also the sections Dok. 17 = Urk. 14.47 and Dok. 20 = Urk. 18.9, in which the inexpressible way of begetting the Son is dealt with (with reference to Mt 11.27; unlike in Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b,8), as well as Dok. 17 = Urk. 14,29-31 and Dok. 20 = Urk. 18,10,13 about the unchanging natural sonship. It should also be noted that Skarsaune69 observed that the anathemas of the Nicaenum summarize the description of heresy from Dok. 17 = Urk. 14.10 f.
Dok. 9 = Urk. 7, the letter from Eusebius from Caesarea to Alexander, is chronologically significant in that Eusebius here presupposes both Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b (Alexander’s circular letter), and Dok. ι = Urk. 6 (the theological explanation of Arius), because in the fragment transmitted here, Eusebius compares Alexander’s statements about Arius from Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b with his own statements from Dok. ι = Urk. 6. The fact that this does not presuppose an existing consensus, as Telfer assumed, has already been explained above. Now Williams puts Dok. 1 = Urk. 6 as the first document at the very beginning, and Dok. 9 = Urk. 7 as the last just before Nicaea; since he places Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b so late, Dok. 9 = Urk. 7 can only have been written afterwards. However, it seems unlikely that these texts can be separated so far, and it is also hardly credible that Eusebius, having been provisionally condemned in Antioch, would have been in a position to take an initiative to mediate.
It is not convincing to view Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b as a document from the synod under Ossius in Alexandria in 324/325, as Williams does. The Arian dispute in Alexandria was obviously not settled at this synod; However, the schism of Colluthus could be resolved (Ath., apol.sec. 74.4; 76.3: Ischyras, as a presbyter ordained by Colluthus, becomes a layman again; cf. apol.sec. 12.1). Now Colluthus signs Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b in a prominent place, but neither the imperial envoy Ossius is mentioned in Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b, nor the agreement over the Schism of Colluthus, but the excommunication of Arius and his followers decided by 100 Egyptian bishops. This is reported as the first condemnation, whereas according to Williams this was the third Alexandrian assembly against the Arians. If, contrary to Williams, Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b can be placed in the early period and Dok. 1 = Urk. 6 is also a document of this time, then the relationship between these two texts must be clarified. Dok. 1 = Urk. 6 knows nothing about a condemnation of the followers of Arius, which Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b reports, and does not directly refer to the theses that, according to Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b, Arius should teach. Conversely, the author of Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b does not refer to Dok. 1 = Urk. 6 in the presentation of the Arian theses, but rather to statements that were probably made in the context of the theological discussions in Alexandria. So it would be one possibility to understand Dok. 1 = Urk. 6 as a preparatory document for these discussions; Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b then makes direct reference to statements made during these theological discussions.
Based on his new chronology, Williams reweights the roles of the two Eusebius’s. First, Eusebius of Caesarea supported Arius (Dok. 8 = Urk. 10: Synod in Palestine; Dok. 10 = Urk. 3: Eusebius writes to Euphration), [xxxi-xxxii] and only then did Eusebius of Nicomedia support Arius (Dok. 15 = Urk 1 and Dok. 16 = Urk. 2: correspondence with Arius; Dok. 4 = Urk. 8: Eusebius writes to Paulinus; Dok. 3 = Urk. 5: Bithynian Synod). The objection to this, however, is that especially in the final phase before Nicaea, in which Williams mentions Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b with the activities of Eusebius of Nicomedia therein, Eusebius of Caesarea is the one who faithfully continues to support Arius and even accepts a provisional condemnation in Antioch. In Dok. 20 = Urk. 18 one reads nothing of Eusebius of Nicomedia. Perhaps it is more likely that Eusebius of Nicomedia initially supported Arius. Furthermore, it is generally problematic to pit the activities of the two Eusebius’s against each other chronologically. The only evidence for this is the presentation in Sozomen, H.E. 1.15.9-12, which first reports on the activities of the Nicomedian and then moves on to the Palestinian synod under Eusebius of Caesarea. In general, Sozomen’s report is said to be very credible; however, what was reported probably also overlapped in time.
Summary of Chronology
These considerations result in the following new proposal for a chronology of the beginnings of the Arian dispute:
| First phase: The Conflict in Alexandria | |
| The dispute breaks out in Alexandria. | |
| Arius probably turned to Eusebius of Nicomedia early on (personal contacts, as an admirer of Lucianus). | not preserved |
| There are two meetings or theological discussions in Alexandria. | Soz., H.E. 1.15.4-6 |
| Arius writes a declaration of faith for this. | Dok. 1 = Urk. 6 |
| Alexander finally demands a consensus against the Arians. | |
| Alexander writes – without success – a warning to the Arians, signed by the presbyters and deacons of Alexandria and the Mareotis, to renounce impiety. | mentioned in Dok. 2.1 = Urk. 4a , but not preserved |
| Meeting of the 100 bishops in Egypt: Arius and his followers are deposed and excommunicated. | |
| Contradiction comes particularly from Eusebius of Nicomedia. | |
| Alexander writes a notice of the removal to all fellow servants. | Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b (possibly Dok. 18 = Urk. 16 is the corresponding copy to Rome) |
| But from Egypt, Chares, Pistus (presbyter, he signed Dok. 1 = Urk. 6), Serapion, Perammon, Zosimus and Irenaeus (Dok. 2.1 = Urk. 4a mentioned) refuse to sign. | see Soz., H.E. 1.15.7. |
| A new meeting with a speech by Alexander takes place in Alexandria: everyone should agree to the deposition of those around Arius and those around Pistus. | Dok. 2.1 = Urk. 4a |
| The presbyters and deacons of Alexandria and the Mareotis sign. | Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b with signatures |
| [xxxii-xxxiii] | |
| Second phase: After the Alexandrian condemnation: expansion of the conflict outside Egypt70 | |
| Arius reconnects with Eusebius of Nicomedia: Synod in Bithynia, supportive letters are to follow. | Dok. 3 = Urk. 5 |
| Eusebius of Nicomedia writes to Paulinus of Tire that he should no longer be silent; | Dok. 4 = Urk. 8 |
| Paulinus of Tyre now writes to Alexander. | Dok. 5 = Urk. 9 |
| George writes from Antioch to Arius and Alexander and wants to mediate between the two opponents. | Dok. 6 = Urk. 12 and Dok. 7 = Urk. 13 (These letters could also belong to the first phase before the conviction.) |
| Arius addresses Eusebius of Caesarea, Paulinus of Tyre and Patrophilus of Scythopolis. | |
| Synod in Palestine: Arius is allowed to function as a presbyter in Alexandria, but is to subordinate himself to his bishop Alexander. | Dok. 8 = Urk. 10 |
| Eusebius of Caesarea criticizes Alexander’s improper approach: he compares statements in Dok. 1 = Urk. 6 with the presentation in Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b and criticizes incorrect citations in his letter to Alexander. | Dok. 9 = Urk. 7 |
| Eusebius of Caesarea writes to Euphration of Balanaea about relevant theological questions. | Dok. 10 = Urk. 3 |
| The letters of Athanasius of Anazarbas and Theognis of Nicaea possibly belong in this context (cf. the introductions to Dok. 12; 13). | Dok. 11; 12; 13 [misprint lists 13; 14] |
| Third phase: Period of the ban on synods | |
| The conflict comes to a head; chaotic conditions arise in Alexandria: a community of followers of Arius is formed (which Dok. 4 = Urk. 8 made possible in principle; cf. Dok. 17 = Urk. 14,3.7), Alexander wants to drive Arians from Alexandria (reported in Doc. 17 = Urk. 14,6.8, cf. Arius’ complaint about persecutions in Dok. 15 = Urk. 1); possibly related to the splitting off of Colluthus. | |
| Alexander wants to clarify the situation in the East with his encyclical: Anyone who does not sign is considered an Arian and condemned; the copy with the signature of Philogonius of Antioch has survived. | Dok. 14 = Ur. 15, with 200 signatures |
| Arius writes to Eusebius of Nicomedia: Eusebius of Caesarea, Theodotus, Paulinus, Gregory, Aetius and all in the East are condemned. | Dok. 15 = Urk. 1 |
| Answer of Eusebius of Nicomedia.71 | Dok. 16 = Urk. 2? |
| Alexander wants to get his namesake from Byzantium involved, to whom he had already sent Dok. 14 = Urk. 15 (through deacon Api). | Dok. 17 = Urk. 14 |
| [xxxiii-xxxiv] | |
| Fourth phase: The end of the ban on synods and intervention by Constantine into the dispute | |
| Letter from Constantine to Alexander and Arius asking them to settle the dispute. | Dok. 19 = Urk. 17 |
| Journey of Ossius of Cordoba, Synod in Alexandria: Followers of Colluthus lose their church positions (Ischyras!). | |
| Synod in Antioch. | Dok. 20 = Urk. 18 |
The 325 Synod of Antioch: An Opposing Viewpoint to H. Strutwolf
It remains to discuss the letter from the Synod of Antioch (325 AD; Doc. 20 = Urk. 1872) discovered by Schwartz, as the authenticity of this text has recently been called into question again. Schwartz’s edition was based on only a single manuscript (Codex Parisinus syr. 62), in which the text was inserted between collections of canons; however, two additional manuscripts have since been discovered,7373 and the observations made by L. Abramowski regarding E. Schwartz’s Greek backtranslation must also be taken into account.74
Adolf von Harnack had already disputed Schwartz’s assessment that the document dated from the period shortly before the Synod of Nicaea;75 Subsequently, the very existence of this synod was occasionally denied, or the document dismissed as a forgery.76 Criticisms raised at the time included the fact that the text survived only in Syriac and that no other early ecclesiastical literature referred to an excommunication of Eusebius; the primary objection, however, was theological: Eusebius of Caesarea would surely have agreed with the text, or rather, “Eusebius’s signature could not have posed any particular difficulties,”77 though the Sitz im Leben (context of origin) of any such forgery was never precisely clarified. Only Harnack speculated that it was a forgery from the sixth or seventh century, intended to avenge the post-Nicene deposition of Eustathius of Antioch by Eusebius of Caesarea by fabricating a deposition of Eusebius himself by Eustathius shortly before Nicaea (325 AD).
In his monograph on Eusebius of Caesarea,78 Holger Strutwolf revisits this old idea of Harnack’s—albeit in a slightly modified form and without actually mentioning Harnack (!)—and concludes that Doc. 20 = Urk.18 is the product of anti-Eusebian Antiochene circles, specifically the small Eustathian community in Antioch, “which sought to discredit the opponents of their revered Eustathius by forging or falsifying a synodal letter from an Antiochene synod, thereby, in a mirror-image reversal of the events of 326, turning the accusers into the condemned.”79
The document was likely forged in Antioch in the early 350s [xxxiv/xxxv], given that, on the one hand, Neo-Arian doctrine is presupposed (the statement that the Son is the image not of the will but of the Father’s hypostasis is directed against the Neo-Arian thesis that the Son is ὅμοιος κατὰ βούλησιν καί ἐνέγειαν, ἀνόμοιον κατ ́ οὐσίαν) and on the other, the term ὁμοούσιος had not yet become the indispensable shibboleth of orthodoxy; theologically, it represents a further development of Athanasian approaches. The specific occasion for the document was the ordination of Aerius as a deacon by Leontius of Antioch. Strutwolf does not dispute that a synod actually took place in Antioch shortly before the Council of Nicaea. Instead, he posits that the Eustathian community expanded the original synodal letter, which had primarily addressed questions of canon law and included a reference to the upcoming Synod of Ancyra alongside the list of bishops, and points to the following “tensions to be interpreted solely through literary criticism”80: the list of bishops (Doc. 20 = Urk. 18.1) does not correspond to the list of provinces (Doc. 20 = Urk. 18.3); the text begins in the first-person singular (Ossius) and switches (starting at Doc. 20 = Urk. 18.4) to the first-person plural; it states at the outset that Ossius is convening a synod due to disorder, yet subsequently, the disorders are only discovered as a result of the synod; and the text alternates between addressing theological issues (Doc. 20 = Urk. 18.2–3, 5 ff.) and disciplinary ones (Doc. 20 = Urk. 18.4).
However, Strutwolf does not carry these literary-critical observations through to a clear distinction between primary and secondary sections of the text, a task that would be difficult in any case, given that the passages in the singular address both theological and disciplinary matters, and theological content appears in both the singular and plural passages. Furthermore, from the very beginning of the text, there is an alternation between first-person singular and plural passages; this arises quite naturally from the flow of the narrative, as Ossius carefully distinguishes in his report between his own actions and those of the synod, as clearly stated in Doc. 20 = Urk. 18.2: “it is fitting that Your Charity should also be apprised of these matters, which were both deliberated and resolved by myself and by our holy, like-minded brothers and fellow ministers.” Thus, Ossius recounts how he arrived in the city of Antioch to find the church in disarray, subsequently convened bishops from neighboring regions for a synod (Doc. 20 = Urk. 18.3), but also found comparable chaos prevailing everywhere else due to synods having been prevented from taking place (Doc. 20 = Urk. 18.4). Subsequently, the theological disagreement was debated first (Doc. 20 = Doc. 18.581), and the position of Alexander of Alexandria was ultimately adopted (Doc. 20 = Doc. 18.7; it is not apparent how Strutwolf can conclude that the condemnation of Arius was no longer up for debate but was already a settled matter); this position is now summarized (Doc. 20 = Doc. 18.8–13), including the provisional condemnation of the three bishops (Doc. 20 = Doc. 18.14)—who, however, would have the opportunity to justify themselves at the upcoming Synod of Ancyra (Doc. 20 = Doc. 18.15). Read in this way, the text presents no inconsistencies or tensions.
It is problematic for Strutwolf to assume, based solely on a brief passage (“For he is an image not from the will nor from anything else, but from the Father’s own hypostasis” [Doc. 20 = Urk. 18.11]), that the Neo-Arian doctrine is presupposed here. The role of the Father’s will in the generation of the Son was discussed even prior to Nicaea, and the passage in question merely presents a slightly expanded scriptural citation (Heb. 1:3). The rejection found in the synodal letter, stating that the Son was not begotten “by will or by decree” (Doc. 20 = Urk. 18.10]), should be understood in this context. Pre-Nicene texts already contain isolated passages making it clear that the Son’s origin from the Father’s will was emphasized in contrast to the notion of a physical generation of the Son from the Father; thus, this formulation in the synodal letter of Antioch [xxxv-xxxvi] is not particularly surprising (cf. Doc. 15 = Urk. 1.4 [3.1 f. Opitz]; Doc. 1 = Urk. 6.2 f. [12.8 f.; 13.4 Opitz]; Doc. 4 = Urk. 8.7 [17.3 f. Opitz]), even though the matter was, of course, discussed at length in the post-Nicene period.
Furthermore, the fact that not all the bishops named in Doc. 20 (= Urk. 18.1) can be assigned to the provinces listed in Doc. 20 = Urk. 18.3 presents no great difficulty, given that only the neighboring provinces are cited there as the most important ones.
All in all, Strutwolf’s assessment—that the text represents an act of revenge by the small Eustathian community directed explicitly against Leontius, while representing theologically a further development of Athanasian (rather than Marcellian) elements—appears highly contrived and inadequately substantiated.82 The criticism that nothing is heard later of this condemnation of Eusebius is just as problematic as all arguments *e silentio*. One could counter Strutwolf by pointing out that if this text had indeed been forged in the early 350s, Athanasius—in his treatise De decretis Nicaenae synodi would have been obliged to refer to this freshly minted forgery condemning Eusebius, particularly since he was arguing precisely about Eusebius’s controversial stance regarding the Nicene Creed in that work (Decr. 3). Admittedly, the event of a “provisional condemnation” remains a unique and unusual occurrence; however, the specific circumstances, an imminent, major synod convened by the emperor for the first time, necessitated extraordinary measures. We therefore maintain the view that Doc. 20 = Urk. 18 is a genuine synodal letter from an Antiochene synod held immediately prior to the Council of Nicaea.
The Last Years of Arius’s Life
At the end of the two fascicles he published, Opitz places two documents that document a condemnation of Arius: the edict against Arius (Doc. 28 = Urk. 33) and a letter from the Emperor Constantine to Arius and his followers (Doc. 27 = Document 34). Since he dates Doc. 37 = Urk. 32 to the year 328, Doc. 28 = Urk. 33 and Doc. 27 = Urk. 34 to the year 333, he skips over a period of five years “to take into account the transmission history of the documents,” as he himself explains.83 Both texts, like other documents before them, are preserved in the manuscripts in the appendix to De decretis Nicaenae synodi and in Anonymus Cyzicenus. However, when looking at all the writings of and to Arius after the Synod of Nicaea 325, together with Doc. 38 (conflicts over the restoration of church unity in Egypt) and Doc. 39 (the Synod of Jerusalem 335), the overall question arises: what happened in the last years of Arius’ life? In particular, it must be checked again whether it can be assumed that Arius has been convicted and rehabilitated multiple times.
Usually, the events since Schwartz and Opitz are presented as follows: Arius was condemned at the Synod of Nicaea in 325, together with the two loyal followers Theona of Marmarice and Secundus of Ptolemaïs (Doc. 25 = Urk. 23.5), but was able to achieve his rehabilitation towards the end of 327 after he was invited to the imperial court in Nicomedia (Doc. 33 = Urk. 29) and presented the emperor with a written confession (Doc. 34 = Urk. 30). It remains to be assumed that not only the emperor lifted the condemnation of Arius, but also a synod decided to do so, since Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea also turned to a synod with the request for their own rehabilitation (Doc. 36 = Urk. 31) and referred to the fact that the synods had also recalled Arius [xxxvi-xxxvii] (Urk. 31.4: . . . ὁπότε αὐτόν τόν ἐπὶ τούτοις ἐναγόμενου ἕδοξε τῇ ὑμῶν εὐλαβείᾳ φιλανθρωπεύσασθαι καὶ ἀνακαλέσασθαι [65.15 f. Opitz]). When and where such a synod is said to have taken place or whether different provincial synods are meant remains unclear, as the references are sparse and unclear (cf. Thdt., H. E. I 26.1; Eusebius, v.C. III 23; Anon.Cyz. II 15.7; Philost., H. E. II 7; Doc. 27 = Urk. 34). Constantine then asked Alexander of Alexandria to accept Arius back into the church community (Doc. 37 = Urk. 32). However, he refused this request, as did the new bishop Athanasius, who was ordained in June 328 – and Constantine initially let things go. Then, however, in 333, Arius wrote to the emperor again to have him reinstated, complained about the unclear situation, but by threatening to form a special church, he got the opposite reaction from the emperor, who brusquely rejected his request (Doc. 27 = Urk. 34) and imposed an edict against him (Doc. 28 = Urk. 33). Nevertheless, the imperial letter (Doc. 27 = Urk. 34) also contains an invitation to come to the imperial court. Arius complied and was able to be rehabilitated again. Constantine now wrote to the synods of Jerusalem asking them to clarify the case of Arius, since he himself had already considered his faith to be legitimate. At the Synod of Jerusalem in 335, Arius was rehabilitated as desired, but there was tumult on his return to Egypt. Arius was then ordered again to Constantinople and rehabilitated, but died in Constantinople before this rehabilitation could be implemented in Alexandria (ep.Aeg.Lib. 18 f.; ep.mort.Ar. 2 f.).84
This presentation is based on the one hand on the reports of the church historians Socrates and Sozomen, and on the other hand on research results by Schwartz85, who rearranged the chronological classification of the church historians on two points. First: According to church historians, the Constantinian edict against Arius (Doc. 28 = Urk. 33) must be placed in the context of the Synod of Nicaea in 325 (Socr., H. E. I 9,30: here Doc. 28 = Urk. 33 is quoted; Soz., Η.Ε. 1.21,4: here Doc. 28 = Urk. 33 is referred to); Schwartz, however, dates this text together with Constantine’s letter Doc. 27 = Urk. 34 to the year 333, since in Doc. 27 = Urk. 34 a Parterius is stated as Egyptian prefect who is attested for this year.86 The consequence of this change is that Arius must have been condemned a second time, so that there is not a longer rehabilitation process (because of the continued refusal of Alexander and Athanasius to readmit Arius), but rather an alternation of condemnation, rehabilitation, condemnation and renewed rehabilitation. Second: Socrates and Sozomenus set Doc. 33 = Urk. 29 and Doc. 34 = Urk. 30 in the period after the election of Athanasius as bishop, namely in the prehistory of the synods of Tyre and Jerusalem, at which Athanasius was condemned and Arius was rehabilitated (Socr., H. E. I 25 f.; Soz., H. E. II 27). Schwartz, however, dates these two texts earlier, in the context of a so-called post-synod of Nicaea in 327, since Arius had already been rehabilitated before the election of Athanasius as bishop and also before the return of Eusebius of Nicomedia. The representation among church historians that Arius and Euzoius were discussed at the Synod of Jerusalem is based on the incorrect classification of Doc. 33 = Urk. 29 and Doc. 34 = Urk. 30, which in fact undoubtedly date earlier (between 325 and 328).
However, the following problems arise with the two Docs. 28 = Urk. 33 and Doc. 27 = Urk. 34, especially if one also takes into account the corresponding later documents up to the Synod of Jerusalem in 335 (Doc. 38 and 39): In Doc. 38, which is used by Athanasius to prove that Constantine asked him to take Arius back, [xxxvii-xxxviii] only speaks of “those around Arius”. In the quoted part of the emperor’s letter this is not even recognizable; it only says generally “those who want to be accepted into the church community”, which even could mean the Melitians (see the introduction to Doc. 38). In the letter from the Synod of Jerusalem to the Egyptians, only “those around Arius” or the presbyters of Arius are addressed, which confirms the impression that in the year 335 it was no longer about Arius personally, but only about “the remaining” followers of Arius in Egypt. Furthermore, it should be noted that Athanasius, in his polemical reports (ep.Aeg. Lib. 18 f.; ep.mort.Ar.) about the heretic’s sudden death, dates this event to the time of the Constantinople bishop Alexander, which despite all Polemics should be credible. However, that Alexander must have died before the Synod of Tyre, since Paul’s participation there as bishop of Constantinople is already documented (see Doc. 43.11, 13). If these observations are correct, then Arius was no longer discussed at the Synod of Jerusalem because he had already died. Theodoret also reports on the death of Arius immediately following the Synod of Nicaea (H.E. 114).
This finding is also supplemented by the events that led to the condemnation of Athanasius. Here the question of whether Arius was readmitted or not or whether Athanasius refused this request plays no role at all, neither during the synodal negotiations in Tyre nor during the talks with the emperor in Constantinople. Schwartz’s new chronology of the imperial condemnation of Arius (Doc. 28 = Urk. 33; Doc. 27 = Urk. 34) is based solely on the mention of the prefect of Egypt, Paterius. However, since the list of prefects of Egypt in the years between Nicaea 325 and 328 is incomplete (cf. Hübner, Praefectus Aegypti), a Paterius could have already been prefect before, so that the chronological order of Doc. 28 = Urk. 33; Doc. 27 = Urk. 34 in the year 333 is not mandatory. Or one could take into account the possibility that Athanasius had obtained this document (Doc. 27 = Urk. 34) again at this later date in order to strengthen his position against the supporters of Arius before the Synod of Caesarea in 333. This imperial edict against Arius (Doc. 28 = Urk. 33) could very well, as church historians report, belong to the period immediately after Nicaea and would then be seen as imperial confirmation of the church’s condemnation by the synod. Doc. 27 = Urk. 34 with the request at the end that Arius come to court again to discuss this, fits well with Doc. 33 = Urk. 29 which mentions a previous invitation to the court. The statements in Doc. 27 = Urk. 34, from which one can partially reconstruct a letter from Arius to the emperor, fit well into this earlier period, just before Nicaea. It is quite possible that Arius tried to avert the impending synodal condemnation and subsequent banishment with a personal letter to the emperor, and that he also mentioned in it how great his support was in Libya. The theological statements, which are only vaguely recognizable, also fit better into the time before Doc. 34 = Urk. 30 than after.
So it can be assumed that, firstly, Arius was not condemned again after the Synod of Nicaea, which is not mentioned in the entire tradition, and secondly, that he was soon rehabilitated (Doc. 33 = Urk. 29; Doc. 34 = Urk. 30), but died before this could be implemented. This probably happened before Athanasius was elected bishop, since all that mattered to him was the acceptance of those “around Arius”. Furthermore, the imperial edict against Arius (Doc. 28 = Urk. 33) is certainly earlier, namely shortly after the Synod of Nicaea in 325, and there is much to suggest that the letter of Arius, which preceded the imperial letter Doc. 27 = Urk. 34, should be placed exactly between the synodal and imperial condemnation. Later, in the 330s, it was only a matter of reintegrating the former followers of Arius (cf. Doc. 38; 39).
Bibliography
Abramowski, L., “Die dritte Arianerrede des Athanasius: Eusebianer und Arianer und das westliche
Serdicense”, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 102 (1991), 389-413.
— “Die Synode von Antiochien 324/25 und ihr Symbol”, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 86 (1975), 356-366.
Arnold, D. W. H., The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria, Notre Dame/London 1991.
Ayres, L., Nicaea and its Legacy. An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, Oxford 2004.
Bardy, G., Histoire de l’Église. Tome III: De la paix constantinienne à la mort de Théodose, Paris 1947.
— “Saint Alexandre d’Alexandrie a-t-il connu la ‘Thalie’ d’Arius?”, Revue des Sciences Religieuses 6 (1926), 527-530.
Barnes, T. D., Constantine and Eusebius, Cambridge/London 1981.
— “Emperor and Bishops, A.D. 324-344: Some Problems”, American Journal of Ancient History 3 (1978), 53-75.
Batiffol, P., “La paix constantinienne et le catholicisme”, in: Le catholicisme des origines à Saint Léon 2, Paris 1929, 301-309.
— “Sozomène et Sabinos”, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 7 (1898), 265-284.
Baynes, N. H., “Sozomen, Ecclesiastica Historia I 15”, Journal of Theological Studies 49 (1948), 165-168.
Bell, H. I., Jews and Christians in Egypt., London 1924.
Böhm, T., Die Christologie des Arius. Dogmengeschichtliche Überlegungen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Hellenisierungsfrage, STG 7, St. Ottilien 1991.
— “Einige Aspekte zur jüngeren Arius-Forschung”, Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift 44 (1993), 109-118.
Boularand, É., L’hérésie d’Arius et la ‘foi’ de Nicée, Paris 1972.
Chadwick, H., “Ossius of Cordova and the Presidency of the Council of Antioch 325”, Journal of Theological Studies 9 (1958), 292-304.
Cross, F. L., “The Council of Antioch in 325 A.D.”, Church Quarterly Review 128 (1939), 49-76.
Frank, K. S. / E. Grünbeck, Lehrbuch der Geschichte der Alten Kirche, Paderborn u.a. 1997.
Grillmeier, A., Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche Bd. 1: Von der Apostolischen Zeit bis zum Konzil von Chalcedon (451), Freiburg u.a. 1979.
Gwatkin, H. M., Studies of Arianism. Chiefly Referring to the Character and Chronology of the Reaction Which Followed the Council of Nicaea, 2. Aufl., Cambridge 1900.
— The Arian Controversy, London 1914.
Hanson, R. P. C., The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. The Arian Controversy 318-381, Edinburgh 1988.
Harnack, A. von, “Die angebliche Synode von Antiochien im Jahr 324/25”, Sitzungsberichte der Preußischen Akademie, Berlin 1908.
Holland, D. L., “Die Synode von Antiochien und ihre Bedeutung für Eusebius von Cäsarea und das Konzil von Nizäa”, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 81 (1970), 173-181.
Hübner, H., Der Praefectus Aegypti von Diokletian bis zum Ende der römischen Herrschaft, Erlanger Beiträge zur Rechtsgeschichte: Reihe A, Beiträge zur antiken Rechtsgeschichte 1, München-Pasing 1952.
Hugger, V., “Wie sind die Briefe des Alexanders von Alexandrien chronologisch zu ordnen?”, Theologische Quartalschrift 91 (1909), 66-86.
Kannengießer, C., “Où et quand Arius composa-t-il la Thalie?”, in: Kyriakon. Festschrift Johannes Quasten 1, hg. von P. Granfield / J. A. Jungmann, Münster 1970, 346-351.
— “Holy Scripture and Hellenistic Hermeneutics in Alexandrian Christology: The Arian Crisis”, Protocol of the 41st Colloquy, 6 Dec. 1981, in: Colloquy 41 of the Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, hg. von C. Kannengießer / I. Lawrence, Berkeley 1982, 1-40.
Kopecek, T. A., A History of Neo-Arianism, Vol. 1, Patristic Monograph Series 8, Philadelphia 1979.
— “Response”, in: Colloquy 41 of the Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, hg. von C. Kannengießer / I. Lawrence, Berkeley 1982, 51-68.
Lietzmann, H., Geschichte der Alten Kirche. Bd. 3: Die Reichskirche bis zum Tode Julians, Berlin 1953.
Loeschcke, G., “Zur Chronologie der beiden großen antiarianischen Schreiben des Alexander von Alexandrien”, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 31 (1910), 584-586.
Löhr, W., “Arius Reconsidered I”, Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 9 (2005), 524-560.
— „Arius Reconsidered II“, Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 10 (2006), 121-157.
Loose, U., “Zur Chronologie des arianischen Streits”, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 101 (1990), 88-92.
Lorenz, R., “Arius judaizans? Untersuchungen zur dogmengeschichtlichen Einordnung des Arius”, Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte 31 (1979), 49-52.
— “Das vierte Jahrhundert (Der Osten)”, Die Kirche in ihrer Geschichte 1.C2, Göttingen 1992.
Möhler, J. A., Athanasius der Große und die Kirche seiner Zeit, besonders im Kampf mit dem Arianismus, Mainz 1844.
Mommsen, T., Chronica minora saec. IV. V. VI. VII. Bd. I, MGH.AA 9, Berlin 1892.
—” Consularia (Nachtrag zu Bd. 32 S. 538)”, Hermes 36 (1901), 602-605.
— “Erwiderung”, Hermes 37 (1902), 156-157.
Nau, F.,” Littérature canonique syriaque inédite”, Revue de l’Orient 14 (1909), 1-31.
Newman, J. H., Historical Tracts of St. Athanasius, translated by M. Atkinson, Oxford/London 1843.
Nyman, J. R., “The Synod of Antioch (324-325) and the Council of Nicaea”, Studia Patristica IV 12 (1961), 483-489.
Opitz, H.-G., “Die Zeitfolge des arianischen Streites von den Anfängen bis zum Jahre 328”, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 33 (1934), 131-159.
Pietri, C. / C. Markschies,” Theologische Diskussion zur Zeit Konstantins: Arius, der »arianische Streit« und das Konzil von Nizäa, die nachnizänischen Auseinandersetzungen bis 337”, in: Das Entstehen der einen Christenheit (250-430), hg. von C. Pietri / L. Pietri, Die Geschichte des Christentums 2, Freiburg/Basel/Wien 1996, 271-344.
Pollard, T. E., “Eusebius of Caesarea and the Synod of Antioch (324-325)”, in: Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, hg. von F. Paschke / J. Dummer, TU 125, Berlin 1981, 459-464.
Quasten, J., The Golden Age of Greek Patristic Literature from the Council of Nicaea to the Council of Chalcedon, Patrology III, Allen, Texas 1959.
Ritter, A. M., “Arianismus”, Theologische Realenzyklopädie 3 (1978), 692-719.
— “Dogma und Lehre in der Alten Kirche”, in: Handbuch der Dogmen- und Theologiegeschichte I, Göttingen 1999, 99-283.
Robertson, A. (Hg.), St. Athanasius. Select Works and Letters, NPNF2 vol. 4, Edinburgh / Grand Rapids (MI) 1991.
Rogala, S., “Die Anfänge des arianischen Streites”, in: Forschungen zur christlichen Literatur- und Dogmengeschichte 7/1, Paderborn 1907, 14-28.
Schneemelcher, W., “Zur Chronologie des arianischen Streites”, Theologische Literaturzeitung 79 (1954), 393-400.
Schwartz, E., “Das antiochenische Synodalschreiben von 325”, in: Zur Geschichte des Athanasius. Gesammelte Schriften III, Berlin 1959, 169-187.
— “Die Dokumente des arianischen Streits bis 325”, in: Zur Geschichte des Athanasius. Gesammelte Schriften III, Berlin 1959, 117-168.
— “Konstantins Aufstieg zur Alleinherrschaft”, Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse (1904), 518-547.
— “Von Nicaea bis zu Konstantins Tod”, in: Zur Geschichte des Athanasius. Gesammelte Schriften III, Berlin 1959, 188-264.
Seeberg, E., “Die Synode von Antiochien im Jahre 324/25. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Konzils von Nicäa”, Neue Studien zur Geschichte der Theologie und der Kirche 16, Berlin 1913 (ND Aalen 1973).
Seeck, O., “Neue und alte Daten zur Geschichte Diocletians und Constantins”, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 62 (1907), 489-535.
— “Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Nicänischen Konzils”, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 17 (1896), 1-71. 319-362.
— “Urkundenfälschungen des 4. Jahrhunderts“, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 30 (1909), 181-227. 399-433.
— “Zur Chronologie Constantins”, Hermes 37 (1902), 155 f.
— “Zur Chronologie des Kaisers Licinius”, Hermes 36 (1901), 28-35.
Simonetti, M., “La crisi ariana nel IV secolo”, Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 11, Rom 1975.
Skarsaune, O., “A Neglected Detail in the Creed of Nicaea (325)”, Vigiliae Christianae 41 (1987), 34-54.
Snellman, P. O., Der Anfang des arianischen Streites. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Streites aufs Neue untersucht, Helsingfors 1904.
Stead, G. C., “Arius in Modern Research”, Journal of Theological Studies 45 (1944), 24-36.
— “Athanasius’ Earliest Written Work”, Journal of Theological Studies S 39 (1938), 76-91.
— “Response to Ch. Kannengießer”, in: Colloquy 41 of the Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, hg. von C. Kannengießer / I. Lawrence, Berkeley 1982, 73-76.
Strutwolf, H., Die Trinitätstheologie und Christologie des Euseb von Cäsarea. Eine dogmengeschichtliche Untersuchung seiner Platonismusrezeption und Wirkungsgeschichte, Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte 72, Göttingen 1999.
Telfer, W., “Arius Takes Refuge in Nicomedia”, Journal of Theological Studies 37 (1936), 60-63.
— “Sozomen I. 15, A Reply”, Journal of Theological Studies 50 (1949), 187-191.
— “When Did the Arian Controversy Begin?”, Journal of Theological Studies 47 (1946), 129-142.
Thümmel, H. G., Die Kirche des Ostens im 3. und 4. Jahrhundert, Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte I/4, Berlin 1988.
Tillemont, L.-S. Le Nain de, Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire des six premiers siècles. VI/3 Qui comprend le Concile de Nicée jusques aux Audiens, 2. Aufl., Paris 1709.
Urbina, I. O. de, Histoire des conciles œcuméniques 1. Nicée et Constantinople, Paris 1963.
— Nizäa und Konstantinopel, Göttinger Orientforschungen 1, Mainz 1964.
Valesius, H., “Notae ad Historiam ecclesiasticam Theodoreti”, in: Theodoreti Cyrensis episcopi opera omnia, Patrologia Graeca 82, Paris 1864, 1522-1596.
Williams, R., Arius. Heresy and Tradition. Revised Edition, Grand Rapids MI 2002.
Translated by TM
Last updated 10/21/2026 by JSW
- Opitz, “Zeitfolge”
- Lietzmann, Geschichte der Alten Kirche, 93—103; Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus, 357; Thümmel, Kirche des Ostens, 53—58; Lorenz, “Das vierte. Jahrhundert”, 126—129; Pietri/Markschies, “Theologische Diskussion zur Zeit Konstantins”, 291, 294-300; Hanson, Search for the Christian Doctrine, 129-138; Ritter, “Arianismus”, 699-703; Frank/Grünbeck, Lehrbuch Alte Kirche, 243-245; Quasten, Golden Age of Greek Patristic Literature, 6-19, 190 f.; Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 202—217; Ritter, Dogma und Lehre, 144 f.147; only general information without chronological details in Simonetti, Crisi ariana, 26, n.1.
- Sozomen is here more detailed than Socrates, H.E. 1.5f.
- Schwartz, “Dokumente”
- That the victory over Licinius was not in 323 AD, but in 324 AD. has already been pointed out by Otto Seeck (Seeck, “Urkundenfälschungen”, 433 note 3 and Seeck, “Neue und alte Daten”, 493-501), against Schwartz, “Konstantins Aufsteig,” 540, and Mommsen, Chronica minora I, 232. Cf. the longer discussion about this between Seeck and Mommsen: Mommsen, “Consularia”; Seeck, Chronologie Licinius’; Mommsen, “Consularia (Nachtrag)”; Seeck, “Chronologie Constantins”; Mommsen, “Erwiderung.” Seeck was also cited by Opitz, “Zeitfolge,” 132, who once again gives detailed evidence of the victory over Licinius in 324 AD (Opitz, “Zeitfolge,” 133-142).
- Tillemont, Mémoires VI/3, 737-740. A long chronology was also presented by Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, 32-38; Gwatkin, Arian Controversy, 5-15; Seeck, Geschichte des Nicänischen Konzils; and Snellman, Der Anfang des arianischen Streits; Urbina, Histoire des conciles oecumenique I, 37 f. Gwatkin also lets the dispute begin in 318 AD, although for him Licinius’s anti-Christian measures were irrelevant.
- Schwartz, Dokumente, 165-168.
- Batiffol, Paix constantinienne.
- Batiffol, Sozomene; 1.15, n.19.
- Batiffol, Sozomene; 1.15, n.19.
- Bardy, Histoire de l’Eglise, 71 n.2.
- Bardy, Histoire de l’Eglise, 58. A. Robertson also assumes a shorter chronology in the introduction to his translation of the works of Athanasius, cf. Robertson, St. Athanasius, XVI note 1: In 321 an Egyptian synod condemned Arius; Arius leaves Alexandria for Palestine and Nicomedia; a Bithynian synod and Eusebius of Nicomedia speak out in favor of Arius, Alexander sends Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b; schism of Colluthus, letter from Alexander to his namesake (Dok. 17 = Urk. 14); intervention of Constantine.
- Valesius, Notae, 1529 f.
- Schwartz, Dokumente, 165; On pp. 162-165, Schwartz explains in detail the various lists or counts of the Arians: Epiph., Pan. 69.3; Soz., H.E. 1.15.7; Dok. 2.1 = Urk. 4a; Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b; Dok. 1 = Urk. 6; Dok. 17 = Urk. 14; Dok. 18 = Urk. 16.
- Rogala, “ Anfänge.” Rogala’s work is entirely an examination of the theses of O. Seeck (see below).
- Hugger, “Briefe des Alexanders von Alexandrien.”
- Snellman, “Der Anfang des arianischen Streits,” 71-75.
- Seeck, “Urkundenfälschungen”, 432-433.
- Seeck, Geschichte des Nicänischen Konzils, 13-19, 340-344. He retracted his assumption in this essay that Licinius had invited people to a synod in Nicaea (p. 340 f.) in his later contribution (p. 433). His thesis that the information that Sozomen provides in his report on the beginnings of the Arian dispute came from a report by Ossius to Constantine after his visit to Alexandria (pp. 325-327) was soon refuted by Batiffol (see above), who identified Sabinus as the source. Perhaps there is no need to bother with Sabinus at this point, since Sozomen could also have known the collections of texts and letters that were compiled in the course of the beginnings of this dispute (cf. Socr., H.E. 1.6,41). Seeck’s view that Dok. 2.1 = Urk. 4a, the so-called Depositio Arii, was a forgery of Athanasius (p. 50 f.), has also not found acceptance: Rogala, “Beginnings”, 28-37.
- Snellman, “Der Anfang des arianischen Streits”, 98-115.
- Rogala, “Anfänge”, 37-74.
- Loeschcke, “Chronologie der antiarianischen Schreiben”.
- Bardy, “Saint Alexandre d’Alexandria”; vgl. auch Bardy, Saint Lucien et son ecole.
- Opitz, “Zeitfolge”, 150, n.88.
- Bardy, Histoire de l’Eglise, 76, n.3.
- Telfer, “Arian Controversy;” see already Telfer, “Arius Takes Refuge.”
- Telfer, “Arius Takes Refuge”, 131.
- Telfer, “Sozomen 1.15”.
- Baynes, “Sozomen”.
- Schneemelcher, “Chronologie arianischer Streit”.
- Boularand, L’hérésie d’Arius, 21-37.
- Kopecek, History of Neo-Arianism, 3-48.
- Kopecek, History of Neo-Arianism, 4, n.2.
- Kopecek, History of Neo-Arianism, 10, n.1.
- Kannengiesser, “Holy Scripture and Hellenistic Hermeneutics”.
- Kannengiesser, “Holy Scripture and Hellenistic Hermeneutics”, 9.
- Kopecek, “Response”, 51.
- Stead, “Response”, 73.
- Stead, “Arius”, 24.
- Stead, “Athanasius’ Earliest Written Work”. This is an older idea, as Stead himself reports, suggested by: Newman, Historical Tracts of St. Athanasius, 297; Möhler, “Athanasius der Große”; Robertson, St. Athanasius, 68. These older authors also pointed out stylistic and argumentative differences, as Stead now describes in more detail.
- Stead, “Athanasius’ Earliest Written Work”, 91, n.23.
- Abramowski, “Dritte Ariannerrede” 408, n.36.
- Williams, Arius.
- Cf. the tabular overview, Williams, Arius, 58 f.
- Barnes, Emperor and Bishops, 54-56; Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 212-214.
- Boularand, L’hérésie d’Arius, 24.
- Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 292, n.12.
- With this reference, G. Bardy (see n. 25 above) dated Dok. 2.2 = Urk. 4b before Dok. 17 = Urk. 14.
- Böhm, Christologie des Arius.
- Loose, Chronologie arianischer Streit; in agreement with Böhm, “Jüngere Arius-Forschung”, 114—116; Pietri/Markschies, Theologische Diskussion zur Zeit Konstantins, 296; Lorenz, Das vierte Jahrhundert, C126-128.
- Williams, Arius, 252-255.
- Lohr, “Arius Reconsidered I”; Lohr, “Arius Reconsidered II”.
- Lohr, “Arius Reconsidered I”, 543 f.
- Lohr, “Arius Reconsidered I”, 544 f.
- Lohr, “Arius Reconsidered I”, 548.
- Lohr, “Arius Reconsidered I” 550.
- Lohr, “Arius Reconsidered I”, 553 f.
- Lohr, “Arius Reconsidered I”, 556 f.
- Snellman, Der Anfang des arianischen Streits, 80 f.
- So does Lohr, “Arius Reconsidered I”, 558 f.
- It is precisely this reference that Williams rejects (Arius, 51)
- Kannengießer, “Arius composa-t-il la Thalie.”
- Lorenz, “Arius judaizans?”.
- Similarly, Lohr, “Arius Reconsidered I”, 556 f.
- This is what Lohr observed, “Arius Reconsidered I”, 547 f.
- Similarly, Lohr, “Arius Reconsidered I”, 553.
- See also the overview of Rogala, Anfänge, 20-28.
- Pietri/Markschies, “Theologische Diskussion zur Zeit Konstantins”, 291, n.81.
- Skarsaune, “Neglected Detail”, 46 f.
- The order of the following letters remains imprecise because some things happen at the same time and many other corresponding letters certainly existed. It remains unclear where Arius actually traveled personally.
- The fragment from Eusebius of Nicomedia, Dok. 23 = Urk. 21, may also belong in this context. Even though this statement was quoted at the Synod of Nicaea in 325, it may still have come from a previously written letter.
- Schwartz, “Dokumente”, 134–155.
- Nau, “Litterature canonique” (Cod. Vat. Borg. syr. 148); Chadwick, “Ossius of Cordova” (Cod. Mingana syr. 8). Cod. Mingana syr. 8 confirmed the long-standing conjecture by A.I. Brilliantov (1911) that the name in the first signature must be Ossius, not Eusebius.
- Abramowski, “Synode von Antiochien”.
- Harnack, “Die angebliche Synode”, 477–491; subsequently Schwartz, “Antiochenisches Synodalschreiben”; and Harnack again, “Die angebliche Synode”, 401–425; furthermore, arguing for an Antiochene synod, Seeberg, “Die Synode von Antiochien”. On this discussion, cf. the summary by Cross, “The Council of Antioch”.
- Urbina, “Nizäa und Konstantinopel”, 29, 45 f.; Holland, “Die Synode von Antiochien”; contra: Pollard, “Eusebius of Caesarea”; Abramowski, “Synode von Antiochien”; cf. also Nyman, “The Synod of Antioch”.
- Holland, “Die Synode von Antiochien”, 170.
- Strutwolf, “Trinitätstheologie und Christologie”.
- Strutwolf, „Trinitätstheologie und Christologie“, 39 f.
- Strutwolf, “Trinitätstheologie und Christologie”, 36.
- The historical note following this document (cf. Schwartz, “Dokumente”, 143) also speaks of theological and disciplinary matters.
- It should further be noted that, as a result, Strutwolf also re-evaluates the role of Eusebius of Caesarea at the Council of Nicaea (AD 325); according to Strutwolf, Eusebius was not only the most important bishop at the council, but his confession also formed the basis for the Nicene Creed (Strutwolf, “Trinitätstheologie und Christologie”, 44–61).
- Opitz, AW 3.1.2, 76. Opitz does not provide any more precise background for this chronological classification; Opitz’s time sequence only covers the years up to 328.
- Hanson, Search for the Christian Doctrine, 264 f.; Böhm, Christologie des Arius, 49f.; Arnold, “Early Episcopal Career,” 118-124.161; Lorenz, 4. Jahrhundert, 138 f, 142 f.; Williams, Arius, 74-81; Simonetti, Crisi ariana, 99-134; Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy, 100—103.
- Schwartz, Von Nicaea, 200-260.
- Schwartz, Von Nicaea, 202; vgl. Hübner, Praefectus Aegypti, 109.
No Responses yet
