The Eusebians: The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the Arian Controversy' (Oxford Theological Monographs)

295 Pages·2007·1.93 MB·English

by  David M. Gwynn

OXFORD THEOLOGICAL MONOGRAPHS
Editorial Committee
M. McC. ADAMS M. J. EDWARDS
P. M. JOYCE D. N. J. MACCULLOCH
O. M. T. O’DONOVAN C. C. ROWLAND
OXFORDTHEOLOGICALMONOGRAPHS
FAITH,REASON,ANDREVELATIONINTHETHOUGHTOF
THEODOREBEZA
JeffreyMallinson(2003)
RICHARDHOOKERANDREFORMEDTHEOLOGY
AStudyofReason,Will,andGrace
NigelVoak(2003)
THECOUNTESSOFHUNTINGDON’SCONNEXION
AlanHarding(2003)
THEAPPROPRIATIONOFDIVINELIFEINCYRILOFALEXANDRIA
DanielA.Keating(2004)
THEMACARIANLEGACY
ThePlaceofMacarius-SymeonintheEasternChristianTradition
MarcusPlested(2004)
PSALMODYANDPRAYERINTHEWRITINGSOF
EVAGRIUSPONTICUS
LukeDysinger,OSB(2005)
ORIGENONTHESONGOFSONGSASTHESPIRITOFSCRIPTURE
TheBridegroom’sPerfectMarriage-Song
J.ChristopherKing(2005)
ANINTERPRETATIONOFHANSURSVONBALTHASAR
EschatologyasCommunion
NicholasJ.Healy(2005)
DURANDUSOFSTPOURC¸AIN
ADominicanTheologianintheShadowofAquinas
IsabelIribarren(2005)
THETROUBLESOFTEMPLELESSJUDAH
JillMiddlemas(2005)
TIMEANDETERNITYINMID-THIRTEENTH-CENTURYTHOUGHT
RoryFox(2006)
THESPECIFICATIONOFHUMANACTIONSINSTTHOMAS
AQUINAS
JosephPilsner(2006)
THEWORLDVIEWOFPERSONALISM
OriginsandEarlyDevelopment
JanOlofBengtsson(2006)
The Eusebians
The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and
the Construction of the ‘Arian Controversy’
DAVID M. GWYNN
1
3
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxfordox26dp
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship,
andeducationbypublishingworldwidein
OxfordNewYork
AucklandCapeTownDaresSalaamHongKongKarachi
KualaLumpurMadridMelbourneMexicoCityNairobi
NewDelhiShanghaiTaipeiToronto
Withofficesin
ArgentinaAustriaBrazilChileCzechRepublicFranceGreece
GuatemalaHungaryItalyJapanPolandPortugalSingapore
SouthKoreaSwitzerlandThailandTurkeyUkraineVietnam
OxfordisaregisteredtrademarkofOxfordUniversityPress
intheUKandincertainothercountries
PublishedintheUnitedStates
byOxfordUniversityPressInc.,NewYork
(cid:1)DavidM.Gwynn2007
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
DatabaserightOxfordUniversityPress(maker)
Firstpublished2007
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,
storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,
withoutthepriorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,
orasexpresslypermittedbylaw,orundertermsagreedwiththeappropriate
reprographicsrightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproduction
outsidethescopeoftheaboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,
OxfordUniversityPress,attheaddressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisbookinanyotherbindingorcover
andyoumustimposethesameconditiononanyacquirer
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Gwynn,DavidM.(DavidMorton),1975–
TheEusebians:thepolemicofAthanasiusofAlexandriaandthe
constructionoftheAriancontroversy/DavidM.Gwynn.
p. cm.—(Oxfordtheologicalmonographs)
ISBN–13:978–0–19–920555–4(alk.paper)
ISBN–10:0–19–920555–8(alk.paper)
1. Athanasius,Saint,PatriarchofAlexandria,d.373. 2. Arianism. 3. Theology,
Doctrinal—History—Earlychurch,ca.30–600. 4. Eusebius,ofCaesarea,Bishopof
Caesarea,ca.260–ca.340. I.Title.
BR65.A446G892006
273’.4—dc22
2006027695
Typesetby
SPIPublisherServices,Pondicherry,India
PrintedinGreatBritain
onacid-freepaperby
BiddlesLtd.,King’sLynn,Norfolk
ISBN0–19–920555–8 978–0–19–920555–4
13579108642
InmemoryofNormanJamesEdmonstoneAustin
Teacher,Inspiration,andFriend
This page intentionally left blank
Preface
This monograph derives directly from my Oxford doctoral thesis,
submitted in 2003 and entitled ‘Hoi peri Eusebion: The Polemic of
AthanasiusofAlexandriaandtheearly‘‘ArianControversy’’’. Ihave
updated the bibliography and certain sections of my argument,
particularly to allow for the recent important works of Lewis Ayres
and John Behr, and I have incorporated various modifications
recommendedbyexaminersandreviewers.
Thepresentworkisnotintendedtobeageneralstudyofthecareer
ofAthanasiusorofthecontroversiesthatdividedthefourth-century
Church. My aim is more specific, to present a systematic literary,
historical, and theological re-evaluation of the polemical writings
of Athanasius and their influence upon modern interpretations of
theso-called‘ArianControversy’.Theparticularfocusofthisstudyis
theoriginsandevolutionofAthanasius’presentationofthosewhom
he regarded as ‘heretics’ as a single ‘Arian party’, hoi peri Eusebion
(‘the ones around Eusebius’ or the ‘Eusebians’). These are the men,
named after their alleged leader Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia,
whom Athanasius held responsible for his own condemnation at
the Council of Tyre in 335, and whom from that date onwards he
accused of manipulating episcopal and imperial politics in order to
persecute the ‘orthodox’ and to impose their ‘heresy’ upon the
Church. My examination of Athanasius’ polemic and of what little
external evidence survives against which that polemic can be com-
pared reveals that the ‘Eusebians’ who play so prominent a role in
modern scholarly accounts of the ‘Arian Controversy’ were in fact
neither a ‘party’ nor ‘Arian’. Athanasius’ image of a fourth-century
Churchpolarizedbetweenhisown‘orthodoxy’andthe‘Arianism’of
the‘Eusebians’isapolemicalconstruct,andthedistortionsinherent
within that construct must be recognized if we are to fully under-
standthefourth-centuryChurch.
My hope is that my conclusions will contribute to the ongoing
reinterpretationoftheeventsandparticipantsofthefourth-century
controversies.Inthatprocessofreinterpretation,wemustdojustice
viii Preface
tothecontributionofthosewhomAthanasiusandlatergenerations
wouldcometocondemnas‘Arian’andalsodojusticetoAthanasius
himself.Itisinevitablethatastudyfocusedalmostexclusivelyupon
Athanasius’ polemical writings will offer only a partial reflection of
the true theological and ecclesiastical importance of the bishop of
AlexandriawithinChristiantradition.ButIcontinuetobelievethat
it is only if we see past the polemical and distorted construction of
the‘ArianControversy’,createdprimarilybyAthanasiushimself,that
we can fully appreciate Athanasius’ own achievement in the emer-
gence of Christian ‘orthodoxy’ in the crucial formative period in
whichhelived.
Iam deeply gratefulto all those without whose assistance Icould
never have completed my original thesis nor brought this mono-
graph to the point of publication. My supervisor Dr Mark Edwards
(Christ Church) has continued to offer his support and advice,and
hiscommentshaveconsistentlyforcedmetoextendmyresearchand
tocorrectandstrengthenmyconclusions.ProfessorAverilCameron
(KebleCollege)assistedmyfirstarrivaltoOxford,andhaseversince
been outstandingly generous with her encouragement and critical
suggestions.Atanearlystagein myresearch,Iwasextremely fortu-
natethattheReverendProfessorChristopherSteadagreedtoreada
preliminaryversionofmyargument,andIwouldonceagainliketo
expressmythanksforhistimeandhisvaluablesuggestions.Profes-
sor Maurice Wiles and Archbishop Rowan Williams were extremely
acuteandhelpfuldoctoralexaminers,andReverendProfessorStuart
Hall read through my original manuscript and made a number of
important comments and corrections. The responsibility for any
remainingerrorsis,needlesstosay,entirely myown.
For his supervision of my first struggles with the fourth-century
Churchandforhiscontinuingencouragementsince,Iwouldfurther
like to thank Dr Paul McKechnie of Auckland University, and like-
wise all the other scholars who supported my initial studies in New
Zealand, particularly Dr Tom Stevenson (also in Auckland) and Dr
Stuart Lawrence (of Massey University, Palmerston North). In my
years in Oxford I have received guidance and assistance from many
individuals,amongwhomImustthankProfessorElizabethJeffreys,
Dr James Howard-Johnston, Dr Bryan Ward-Perkins, Dr Peter
Heather, and Dr Roger Tomlin. The colleagues and friends who
Preface ix
haveheardandcommentedontheargumentsthatIpresenthereare
too numerous to record in full, but my thanks again to you all,
particularlyAlanDearn,JamesGeorge,ScottJohnson,SusanneBan-
gert, Judith Gilliland, Eleni Lianta, Anthi Papagiannaki, and Teresa
Shawcross. I must also express my gratitude both to Keble College,
where I wrote my original thesis, and to Christ Church, whose
generosity in granting me a Junior Research Fellowship allowed me
the opportunity to adapt that thesis into monograph form. And of
course I am grateful to Oxford University Press for accepting this
monographforpublication,andabovealltomyeditorLucyQureshi,
whose enthusiasm and patience throughout this long process have
beenequallyappreciated.
I trust that my family already know how deeply I appreciate all
their love and support. In particular, to my parents Margaret and
Robin,andtoJennyandSteve,thankyou.
I have deliberately omitted one name from these acknowledge-
ments thus far. The late Professor Norman Austin was my first
supervisor at Massey University, and it was he who drew me into
the classical and late antique worlds and who opened up to me the
delights for both learning and teaching that those centuries offered.
IcanneverrepayeverythingthatIowetoNormanandtheexample
thathesetme,butitistohimthatthismonographisdedicated.
DavidM.Gwynn
ChristChurch,Oxford
Summer2006