Arian banquet verses and Arius's letters

[Longfellow]

There are letters to two bishops and one to a Roman emperor, allegedly written early in the fourth century CE by a Presbyter named Arius. There were some verses of poetry or songs circulating at the same time, called "the banquet," also allegedly written by Arius. In the incriminating interpretations passed down through the centuries, there are glaring contradictions between the verses and the letters, and within the letters themselves including at least once in the very same sentence. In this post I will be discussing only the letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia.

In that letter, written by Arius to defend himself against allegations, some Greek words and phrases had more than one meaning in common use. Some possible meanings are incriminating, and some are not. Choosing the incriminating meanings handed down to us makes the letter self-contradictory and self-incriminating. However, the range of common meanings of the Greek words and phrases allows the letter to be read in a way that is internally consistent, even if that reading still contradicts the banquet verses. Here is one example of how the letter to Eusebius can be understood without internal contradictions, within the range of common meanings of the Greek words and phrases:

The Son is and always has been begotten by God, who is unbegotten. Apart from that the Son is everything that God is. However, some people have been teaching false meanings of the word "begotten," claiming that it means:
- that the Son was begotten in a human way
- that the Son was created in the way that the world was created
- that the Son is an eructation of God
- that the Son is a production of God
- that the Son is unbegotten
- that before the Son was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was the unbegotten God or part of the unbegotten God

Arius denounces all those teachings, and says that there was no "before" in which the Son could have been anything else but unbegotten and otherwise everything that God is.

 

[Thomas]

Arius denounces all those teachings ...

As did his opponents. These were not part of the dispute.

... and says that there was no "before" in which the Son could have been anything else but unbegotten and otherwise everything that God is.

No, that's not correct.

Please reread his Letter to Eusebius, paragraph 4:
"Before he was begotten, or created, or defined, or established, he did not exist."
There were Christian authorities – notably Origen – who taught that the Father's begetting of the Son is an eternal act, something ity seems Arius could not get his head around.

In fact Arius got irate becauase his bishop was preaching that:
"Thus he drives us out of every city like godless men, since we will not agree with his public statements: that there was “always a God, always a Son;” “as soon as the Father, so soon the Son [existed];” “with the Father co-exists the Son unbegotten, ever-begotten, begotten without begetting;” “God neither precedes the Son in aspect or in a moment of time;” “always a God, always a Son, the Son being from God himself.”

The texts italicised are in line with Origen's theology – and in the 4th century Origen was regarded as the foremost theologian of his day (the recriminations came later). So the bishop was preaching an acceptable theological position.

"with the Father co-exists the Son unbegotten, ever-begotten, begotten without begetting" this statement, taken at face value, is contradiction. As we know Arius was not the most profound nor insightful theologian, it could be a misreading. I can't see how Alexander can preach the son both begotten and unbegotten without confusing his audience?

Furthermore, between paragraph 3 and paragraph 4, Arius declares:
"Before he was begotten, or created, or defined, or established, he did not exist... " Whereas Alexander was preaching he is ever-begotten.
"We are persecuted because of that and for saying he came from non-being." whereas the Church position was that the Son is from the Father.
"But we said this since he is not a portion of God nor of anything in existence." whereas the Church position is that the Son is God.

 

[Thomas]

Just to clarify, the Thalia, which is an undisputed work, is a statement of his theological position.

The letters make reference to his theology. If you want to understand his theology, the Thalia is the place to go.

 

[Thomas]

A lukewarm defence of Arius:

The Thalia is considered Arius' primary theological work and the most significant surviving first-hand evidence of his beliefs, despite being preserved only in fragments.

It was written sometime in 323, some five years after the conflict began, and while in exile from Alexandria.

Written in poetic verse, Arius made his teachings accessible to a wide lay audience. This is key to understanding Arius' role in the broader context. In rhythmic verse and prose, it made his core Arian claims, such as "there was a time when the Son was not" – easy rendered as a lyrical ditty that workers could sing while at their labours. Arius' parish was the docks in Alexandria, and songs are a universal method of enabling groups of people to keep time in a collective task. One scholar referred to them as 4th century jingles.

Arius' genius was in setting complex theological ideas in simple and memorable language. The tragedy was, his ideas were wrong.

Although Thalia is late, we can assume the method was deployed well before the dispute itself. Apparently set to popular melodies, they were sung by sailors and dock-workers, grocers and millers, shop-keepers and street-sellers, and even schoolchildren in Alexandria, a major port city, so the songs traveled along trade routes throughout the eastern Mediterranean.

Deliughtful as this was, when the dispute broke out, it was not, as such disputes were, particular only to the rarified airs of academia, but suddenly this was the stuff of every-day conversation. Athanasius actually complained that Arians would "catch young men at the marketplaces" and quiz them on Arius's verses. You couldn't buy a loaf of bread or pound of potatoes without being engaged in theological dispute. Bishops and theologians were not used to seeing Christological questions become street gossip, and were horrified to hear that Mrs Somebody's son was in a fight with that butcher's boy over the eternity of the Son ... I exaggerate, but the point was the idea of complex theological concepts, as yet still fluid and unsettled, becoming topics discussed on street corners, horrified those charged with pastoral care.

And, as ever, things became heated, and Alexandria saw mobs chanting these ditties like a battle-cry, and rival mobs chanting the opposite, and then some muppet picks up a stone ...

The result, as the sources put it, was that within a few years "the controversy was tearing the eastern Mediterranean apart" – even after Nicaea (325) when Constantine ordered Arius' books be burned (always the draconian solution, and rarely observed). The songs had become too embedded to vanish overnight.

 

[Longfellow]

In my reading of Arius's letter to Alexander, and his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, they are focused on two things:
1. The eternal distinction between the Father and the Son: The Son is begotten, the Father is not. Apart from that, the Son is and always has been everything that the Father is.
2. False teachings about the meaning of "begotten."

 

[Thomas]

In my reading of Arius's letter to Alexander, and his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, they are focused on two things:

No, that's not it.

You seem to have gone to some lengths to get to what Arius was saying; had you done the same with regard to the theology of the day, you would not have missed what the actual focus of the points in contention.

1. The eternal distinction between the Father and the Son: The Son is begotten, the Father is not. Apart from that, the Son is and always has been everything that the Father is.

No-one disputed that. In fact, any blurring of that distinction – Modalism in any form – had been declared a heresy a 100 years before Arius.

2. False teachings about the meaning of "begotten."

No-one disputed that the Son was begotten or that the Father was unbegotten. Nor did anyone invent a new, or offer a false, definition of 'begotten'.

The actual points under dispute are two:
1: ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν ὁ Υἱός / οὐκ ἦν ὁ Υἱὸς πρὶν γεννηθῇ
There was when the Son was not / The Son was not before he was begotten.
(Thalia 80)


2: Οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός· ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ὑπέστηκαὶ αὐτός
He is not from the Father, but He, as others, has come into subsistence out of nothing.

 

[Longfellow]

No, that's not it.

You seem to have gone to some lengths to get to what Arius was saying; had you done the same with regard to the theology of the day, you would not have missed what the actual focus of the points in contention.


No-one disputed that. In fact, any blurring of that distinction – Modalism in any form – had been declared a heresy a 100 years before Arius.


No-one disputed that the Son was begotten or that the Father was unbegotten. Nor did anyone invent a new, or offer a false, definition of 'begotten'.

The actual points under dispute are two:
1: ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν ὁ Υἱός / οὐκ ἦν ὁ Υἱὸς πρὶν γεννηθῇ
There was when the Son was not / The Son was not before he was begotten.
(Thalia 80)


2: Οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός· ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ὑπέστηκαὶ αὐτός
He is not from the Father, but He, as others, has come into subsistence out of nothing.

The translations that have been handed down from the church make the letters self-contradictory and self incriminating, which is bizarre if he’s trying to defend himself, and nothing requires them to be translated that way.

 

[Longfellow]

I've been thinking about why this matters to me. One reason is because I see what looks to me like a false, malicious and damaging story about Arius, some other presbyters, and some bishops as evil anti-Nicene villains, with Alexander and Athanasius as Nicene heroes, defending the true beliefs of Christianity against their attack. Besides the injustice to the homoiousians that I see in that, I disagree with thinking of the Nicene Creed as *the* true beliefs of Christianity. I think that the only thing that made it the "true beliefs of Christianity" was emperors exiling people sometimes when they were accused of opposing it.

I think that the story of Jesus is about learning to live the way he says to live, and not about one true belief system. I don't agree with thinking that there is any one way of thinking and talking about God, the Father, his Son and his spirit that is the only truth, and indiscriminately rejecting and denouncing all others. Every way of thinking and talking about them is false or misleading in some way, and different ways are better for different people and for different purposes. I think that the church has a responsibility to regulate what its teachers are teaching, but not to dictate how everyone in the church can think and talk about God, the Father, his Son and his Spirit.

 

[Longfellow]

I don't think that Arius rejected the Creed, or refused to sign anything. I think that the reason he was exiled was because he didn't change his views, which homoousians thought were contrary to their interpretation of the Creed.

 

[RJM]

I think that the church has a responsibility to regulate what its teachers are teaching, but not to dictate how everyone in the church can think and talk about God, the Father, his Son and his Spirit.

I think this is important.

The Church tells us what the church thinks. The church does not force us to think that. Merely to acknowledge the position of the church. The church does make changes, but they are slow and careful. It does not turn on a dime. It's not a 'sin' to think differently or to disagree with the position of the church on specific issues. IMO

There is ongoing heated debate within the church about the Latin mass, for instance.

EDIT: the problem might be with clergymen insisting on publicly teaching positions contrary to what the church teaches?

 

[RJM]

But this attitude may be fairly modern. There were times in the past when it was dangerous or fatal for anyone, even lay people, to publicly disagree with 'The Church'. Galleleo for example

 

[Thomas]

I've been thinking about why this matters to me.

I wonder too ... you're not a Christian, and don't identify as Christian ... so why does it matter?

One reason is because I see what looks to me ...

I have to say, from all the evidence, you come to an opinion and, when scholarship suggests otherwise, you simply ignore it. Furthermore, I'm still not convinced you actually get what the dispute was about.

... some other presbyters, and some bishops as evil anti-Nicene villains, with Alexander and Athanasius as Nicene heroes, defending the true beliefs of Christianity against their attack.

This is just a rehash of an old and out-dated critique. Scholarship has swept most of this away.

Besides the injustice to the homoiousians that I see in that, I disagree with thinking of the Nicene Creed as *the* true beliefs of Christianity. I think that the only thing that made it the "true beliefs of Christianity" was emperors exiling people sometimes when they were accused of opposing it.

You've got it the wrong way round.

Arius was a theological conservative who took umbrage at the preaching of his bishop, Alexander, whom he saw as introducing innovative and heretical ideas. Arius saw himself as the defender of an ancient and venerable Alexandrian theological tradition, his faith was *the* true, orthodox and apostolic faith.

Because Alexander was his bishop, he went over his head and appealed to Eusebius of Nicomedia, to raise other conservative traditional bishops to his support.

Arius' theology was not up to the task, so Eusebius, his patron and back-stage puppet-master, got a theological heavy-hitter, Asterius the Sophist of Cappadocia involved. Arius himself became something of a stalking horse in Eusebian play – after Nicaea he was very rapidly sidelined and the game moved on ...

I think that the story of Jesus is about learning to live the way he says to live, and not about one true belief system...

That seems to sum up the popular secular appeal of Jesus, but its somewhat misguided.

I don't agree with thinking that there is any one way of thinking and talking about God ...

Which is odd, because that's what Jesus argued about all the bloomin' time! With everybody!

... Every way of thinking and talking about them is false or misleading in some way ...

I would offer the more insightful view that generally, theologically-argued ways of thinking and talking offer workable analogies in the face of the transcendent, so not necessarily 'false' or 'misleading', but provisional and providential.

Of course some opinions, on the other hand, are just that.

 

[RJM]

I don't think that Arius rejected the Creed, or refused to sign anything.

@Thomas
The words of the Nicene creed seem to correspond with Arius' opinion that the Son was begotten of the Father before all ages.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father

Nicene Creed

Ibelieve in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only ...

www.usccb.org

What would be his problem with that wording?

 

[Longfellow]

I see what looks to me like a false, malicious and damaging story about Arius, some other presbyters, and some bishops as evil anti-Nicene villains, with Alexander and Athanasius as Nicene heroes, defending the true beliefs of Christianity against their attack.

This is just a rehash of an old and out-dated critique. Scholarship has swept most of this away.

Yes, I see that now.

 

[Longfellow]

I have to say, from all the evidence, you come to an opinion and, when scholarship suggests otherwise, you simply ignore it.

Then you're misreading the evidence. What I ignore is "most scholars think ..." as a reason for believing something.

I'm still not convinced you actually get what the dispute was about.

That's okay. I'm still not convinced that you do, either.

Arius was a theological conservative who took umbrage at the preaching of his bishop, Alexander, whom he saw as introducing innovative and heretical ideas.

That isn't how Constantine tells it.

Arius saw himself as the defender of an ancient and venerable Alexandrian theological tradition, his faith was *the* true, orthodox and apostolic faith.

Agreed. He, some other presbyters, and some bishops thought that Alexander was denying the distinction between the Father and the Son, but that might have been a misunderstanding.

Because Alexander was his bishop, he went over his head and appealed to Eusebius of Nicomedia, to raise other conservative traditional bishops to his support.

In my story, after he was deposed, he went looking for a new job, and got letters of recommendation to counteract Alexander's defamation campaign against him.

Arius' theology was not up to the task, so Eusebius, his patron and back-stage puppet-master

In my story, it's the other way around. Arius was just a pawn in Eusebius's game.

Arius himself became something of a stalking horse in Eusebian play

- and Alexandrian play.

– after Nicaea he was very rapidly sidelined and the game moved on ...

Agreed.

theologically-argued ways of thinking and talking offer workable analogies in the face of the transcendent, so not necessarily 'false' or 'misleading', but provisional and providential.

Agreed.

 

[Thomas]

What I ignore is "most scholars think ..." as a reason for believing something.

If you had sufficient reason for believing in something other than "what most scholars think", then OK, but as you appear not to ... ?

And as for the Thalia, I don't know why you think Arius didn't write it?

That's okay. I'm still not convinced that you do, either.

Why am I not surprised?

That isn't how Constantine tells it.

Evidence?

In my story, after he was deposed, he went looking for a new job, and got letters of recommendation to counteract Alexander's defamation campaign against him.

I'm dealing with facts, not fantasia.

 

[Longfellow]

Arius was a theological conservative who took umbrage at the preaching of his bishop, Alexander,

That isn't how Constantine tells it.

Evidence?

Constantine’s letter to Arius and Alexander.

And as for the Thalia, I don't know why you think Arius didn't write it?

1. I don’t see any reason to think that there was any such thing as a work written by Arius called “Thalia,” or that that Anathasius intended for anyone to think that there was.

2. It seems more likely to me that he never denied the co-eternity of the Son with the Father than thinking he was teaching the opposite of what he said in his letters.

3. He identified as a Lucianist, and I don’t think that Lucianists denied the co-eternity of the Son with the Father.

The disagreement at the council was not about co-eternity. For the homoiousians it was about the distinction between the persons. For the homooisians it was about the shared essence. They were talking past each other because they didn’t have the Cappadocian (non)definition of “hypostasis.”

 

[Thomas]

Constantine’s letter to Arius and Alexander.

No. You cannot adduce a theological position, or the substance of the argument, from that letter.

(Constantine's letter is all about keeping one's theological opinions to oneself, shaking hands and making up.)

1. I don’t see any reason to think that there was any such thing as a work written by Arius called “Thalia,” or that that Anathasius intended for anyone to think that there was.

Why not ... when all the evidence points to the existence of the work. If it didn't exist, what were the various sources, talking about?

If it didn't exist, when Athanasius argued that Arius copied certain phrases from Asterius, why didn't Atius, or Eusebius, or anyone else, just stand up and say, "You're making this up"?

2. It seems more likely to me that he never denied the co-eternity of the Son with the Father than thinking he was teaching the opposite of what he said in his letters.

He wasn't teaching the opposite of what he said in his letters, and in his letters he clearly states 'there was a time when the son was not' – have you actually read the letters?

Why did Arius refuse to sign the Nicene declaration?

3. He identified as a Lucianist, and I don’t think that Lucianists denied the co-eternity of the Son with the Father.

That one declares oneself 'a student of' does not mean one necessarily follows every point made. Lucian upholds a co-eternal position.

The disagreement at the council was not about co-eternity.

Co-eternity was the central issue at the council.

For the homoiousians it was about the distinction between the persons.

The distinction was whether they were co-eternal or not – co-eternal is synonymous with co-essential.

They were talking past each other because they didn’t have the Cappadocian (non)definition of “hypostasis.”

Didn't need it at this stage of the debate.

 

[Longfellow]

Co-eternity was the central issue at the council.

No one at the council was denying that the Son is eternal.

Why did Arius refuse to sign the Nicene declaration?

I don't see any reason to think that he was there, or than anyone invited him to sign anything.

 

[Longfellow]

Co-eternity was the central issue at the council.

The distinction was whether they were co-eternal or not – co-eternal is synonymous with co-essential.

Has the church, or have any scholars, ever denied anything that Eusebius of Caesaria wrote about what happened at the council?