Over the next months, a working translation will appear hear which of the (still unpublished) Manuscript by Hans-Georg Opitz of the introduction to his first volume of the
Urkunden zum Arianischen Streit (Athanasius critical works, de Gruyter), an introduction that was never printed (except the small excerpt which appeared in the ZNW 33 [1934]: 131-59).
Unfortunately, one manuscript page (dealing with Eusebius of Caesarea Against Marcion) is missing, but there is a chance that I will find it again in the Athanasius archive. Although the editorial team was made aware of the existence of Opitz' manuscript, one can see from the last fascicles of the Athanasius works that the team does neither make use, nor even mention the existence of it, which is especially surprising as in vol. III, part I/3 a full length discussion of the chronology of the events of the Arian debate to the year 328 is given without any mention of Opitz' manuscript. Instead, it is stated that Opitz' death in WWII had prevented the publication of his introduction, which is, of course, correct, yet, nevertheless, the scholarly world has yet to see the full length arguments of the editor of the first volume of the Urkunden, why he opted for these documents, and also why he put them in the order in which they came.
The intention here is to give a mere literal working translation of Opitz' introduction with his notes - an edition of his text with notes that also engage with the present state of the discussion of the chronology of the beginnings of Arianism will follow in print.
Hans-Georg Opitz, The Arian Debate up
to the Year 328: Texts and Studies
translated by Markus Vinzent
(work in progress)
Because of the importance of the Arian debate every author
dealing with the history of the church of the fourth century wrote extensively
about the beginnings of this conflict with its huge impact. And yet, we are
disappointed by the scarce information when seeking an exhaustive explanation
for the reasons and the trigger of the dispute between the Alexandrian
presbyter Arius with his bishop Alexander. The modern scholar will discover
that he has at his hands hardly less source material than the authors of the past.
At least the ancient authors did not digest more material than what is left to
us from other sources. Indeed, there are a few events, we only need to mention
the Synod of Antioch of the year 325, where we are better informed then they
had been.
The present chapter deals with the reports about the
conflict by the church historians. In addition, we will add the occasional
notes which can be found in the literature of the fourth and fifth centuries.
Likewise, the notes of Athanasius who does not give us a comprehensive account
of the time before the year 328 will not need a special chapter. As later
authors have often borrowed their material from previous ones, we will offer
out assessment in chronological order.
Euseb’s Vita Constantini
In the second and third book of his Vita Constantini, Eusebius narrates the beginning of the conflict.
As it derives from the most important historian of its time, it calls for
special attention. Eusebius’ account is even more valuable as its author
himself was an enormously influential participant of the synods and had some
close relations to the court of the Emperor. Eusebius incorporates his report
about the most important events of his time into the frame of a panegyric to
the Emperor Constantine. The literary genre of an encomion on the Emperor, the
nature of the Vita, urged Eusebius to
describe the Arian conflict only insofar as the Emperor himself came to the
fore and directed the sequence of events. For this reason, the provision of
details is informative enough, but the reports are not as exhaustive and clear,
as Eusebius had been capable of giving from his intimate acquaintance with the
various events.
For
example, his narration begins only with Constantine getting involved with the
affair after his victory over Licinius (II 61). [[All of Egypt was filled with
the fights of bishops, pretending they discussed on dogmatic grounds]]. The
time when the conflict began is not given, although Eusebius is not of the
opinion that this struggle has come about in the East only after the victory
over Licinius.
The remark that the conflict started when the church lived in peace, can only
relate to the time before Licinius’ persecution.
The
conflict in Egypt, called a fight of bishops, was aggravated by the schism of
the Melitians. When Constantin received knowledge of conflicts that threatened
the unity of the church, he sent ‘a man who shone forth through his witnesses
for faith in previous times’ (II 63), provided with a letter to Alexander and
Arius of Alexandria. The envoy of the Emperor was the Spanish bishop Ossius of
Cordoba, as Socrates informs as, complementing Eusebius’ report.
[[Socrates also knows
about Ossius’ dogmatic position.
]] According to Athanasius,
a synod was held in Egypt
together with Ossius
to deal with the affair of
Colluthus. Eusebius adds (II 73) that the envoy of the Emperor had not only
delivered the letter, but also expressed the will of his envoyer in person,
hence he tried to negotiate with he parties. Ossius seems to have tried to
prevent in Alexandria, as later in Antioch, a schism. In III 4 Eusebius reports
of the broadening crisis. Even the statues of the Emperor have been destroyed
by the mob.
Presumably, the Colluthians were the perpetrators, because according to
Sozomenus, Athanasius reprimanded the Colluthian Ischyras for it.
III 5. In
addition to the Arian and Melitian upheavels, the question of Passah bothered
the Emperor, hence, he called a synod to gather in Nicaea.
III 7.
Bishops gathered coming from all countries of the East, although Eusebius must
mistakenly have believed that a bishop of Persia attended. The error must have
already been part of the old lists, or it has been introduced by Eusebius
himself, as Nicaea was unknown amongst the Persians during the entire fourth
century and only Maruta of Maipherkat asked the bishops at a synod of the year
410 to accept the canones of Nicaea.
We find a certain John
from the land of Persia in the Nicene subscriptions.
As the name
jIwavnnh" Persivdo" is
mentioned amongst the seats of the province of Mesopotamia,
Persiv" seems to be an also otherwise
known variant
for
Pevrrh or
Pershnhv
(so also the Coptic witness:
jIwavnnh" Persenh'"). John was the
bishop of the city of Perre in the Commagene. The Scyth, mentioned by Eusebius,
cannot be found in the lists.
On p. 80,19 a Spaniard,
hence Ossius, is mentioned. The bishop of the
basileuvousa
povli", Silvester is not introduced by name, who was to old to go
to Nicaea, was represented by two presbyters, known from the lists, namely Vita
and Vincentius.
In III 8
Eusebius gives ‘over 250’ as the number of the bishops gathered.
According to Eusthatius
of Antioch there were 270.
Constantine,
Julius of Rome,
Athanasius
and Hilary
give around 300
attendants. The number of 318
can be found first in
Liberius’
Letter to the Macedonians together with the
explanation of the number according to the slaves of Abraham, then also in
Hilary
and Athanasius.
250 – 300 seem to be the
right indications of the number of those who attended.
III 10
Eusebius, eventually, reports about the crucial session. Already prior to it,
negotiations must have taken place. The members of the synod were divided into
two parties, the leaders of which apparently were Eusebius of Nicomedia and
Alexander of Alexandria.
In the presence of the
Emperor, the synodal decrees were solemnly voted on. The session took place on
19
th June.
The chairman addressed
the Emperor (III 11). Eusebius simply calls him
oJ
tou' dexiou' tavgmato" prwteuvwn,
hence the spokesman was
the leader of the party that sat right to the Emperor. According to the index
of chapters of book III
he was bishop Eusebius,
and one can assume that it was Eusebius of Nicomedia who as the most eminent
bishop of the province Bithynia gave the speech. Sozomenus may have found the
name of Eusebius already in his copy of the
Vita,
but he sees in him the
Church historian.
This one, however, cannot
have been among the leaders of the synod, as he had to exculpate himself at the
synod.
The
tradition about the names of the chairman of the synod is inconsistent. Surely,
the synod was chaired by more than one person.
And it was Eusebius’ note
(II 13) which led to the many names in the tradition. About Ossius, Athanasius
says more generally
poivai ga;r ouj
kaqhghvsato sunovdou.
In most of the lists,
Ossius comes first. There are many reasons to believe that Ossius was involved
in the writing of the creed.
According to an
indication in the collection of Theodosius diaconus in the Cod. Ver. 60,
Alexander of Alexandria has been the chairman of the synod.
The name of Eustathius of
Antioch has been suggested only, since Athanasius has witnessed for his
orthodoxy
and Jerome for his fight against the Arians,
and is, then, found in
Theodoret and John of Antioch.
This legend originated as
a result of the reunification of the Eustathians with the dominant church.
Similarly, Facundus of
Hermiane
and the Syrians
call Eustathius the chairman of Nicaea. In addition, easter writers know
Sylvester of Rome as the leading person.
Naturally, he takes the
first place in western collections of the Nicene acts.
Against all these
uncertain reports, locally biased, one needs to follow the indications in
Eusebius and Athanasius. Ossius, as the senior chairman
and in continuous touch
with the Emperor led the sessions of the synod, having as support a number of
bishops. Members of this committee were surely Eustathius, Alexander of
Alexandria, Eusebius of Nicomedia, for certain also Marcellus of Ancyra
who played an important
role at the council. We do not know anything for sure about the Roman legates.
Perhaps, as indicated by their place on the lists, they were given an honorary
position.
III 12. The
speech of Constantine harmonizes with what he may have said in front of the
bishops, as we know from the letters.
Therefore, Batiffol is
not wrong in assuming the genuiness of the speech.
III 13. The
report breaks off after the narration of the negotiations in the presence of
the Emperor and the making of the decrees. Constantine supposedly said at the
closing of the synod that he had gained a second victory for the church. Then
follows:
kata; tou' th'" ejkklhsivai
ejcqrou' ejpinivkion eJorth;n tw'/ qew'/ sunetevlei. As the battle of
Hadrianople against Licinius took place on 3 July 324, Constantine will have
celebrated an anniversary of this victory with the bishops in Nicaea (?). The
celebrations in connection with the synod were without end; on 25 July, the
Emperor together with all the clerics held a spectacular diner for his
Vicennalia in his palace of Nicomedia,
displaying all the
Emperor’s pomp.
III 16-20 the letter about Easter has been included
which does not mention
the central topics of the negations of the synod. Here, the question needs to
be addressed, whether the acts of the council have been preserved. In III 14
we read:
ejkurou'to d j h[dh kai; ejn grafh' di j
uJposhmeiwvsew" eJkavstou ta; koinh' dedogmevna. This can only mean
that the creed and the canons had been signed. Athanasius mentions the decree
about Easter.
Eusebius’ remarks do not make it impossible that such a decree existed, even if
it is impossible to directly prove that other acts or protocols existed.
The decree about Pascha
is no longer extant, even if a piece of such a decree has been transmitted a
number of times,
but this text is only a report about the fact that decisions have been made
about the question of Easter, and apparently these lines are but a short
summary of Constantine’s
Letter.
According to III 21, at the close of the synod,
Constantine made a speech. III 23 regarding the second session of the council
will be dealt with at a different place.
Until now, the fragments of Marcellus of Ancyra’s book
against Asterius which Eusebius incorporated in his fourth book of his work
Against Marcellus have not been
exhausted as a source for the earliest history of the Arian debate.
Here, Eusebius reports
about Marcellus’ attacks against the orthodox authors (4,1). Next to Asterius,
against whom Marcellus specifically is writing, Marcellus deals with and
excerpts materials from the writings of Paulinus of Tyrus, Narcissus of
Neronias, Eusebius the Great, namely the Nicomedian,
and eventually Eusebius
of Caesarea to demonstrate their non-traditional, wrong teachings. It is
generally known that Marcellus
quotes from Eusebius of
Nicomedia’s
Letter to Paulinus of Tyrus. A comparison of Marcellus phrasing and the letter shows that
Marcell gives only a report of the source. Marcellus incorporates only
important catchwords into a phrase that is created by himself. Already the
addition
ta;" probola;"
dogmativzonte" (sc.
oiJ
patevre") is not part of Eusebius’ letter and would have been
totally rejected by the Nicomedean. To note this fact is important for
assessing Marcellus’ way of dealing with his opponents. In addition, Marcellus
quotes (4,4ff.) a piece of a letter by Eusebius of Caesarea to his community.
The section on p.
18,16-20. 22. 28-9 we meet in Urk. 23 (107,7-8. 12-3.; 108,9-10 Opitz). Here,
too, Marcellus only gives a report, although without altering the meaning.
These two pieces, however, point to the pre-Nicene period of the Arian debate.
Marcellus assembles witnesses of written statements of bishops that sympathized
with Arius’ party. This harmonizes well with his aim, to target the entire
group of bishops who are friends with Arius by attacking Asterius. From this
follows without doubt, how to qualify the fragments of the letters of Paulinus
of Tyrus, Narcissus of Neronias and Eusebius of Caesarea which we find in
Marcellus’ fragments together with the sentences of the letters from both
Eusebii.
First,
Marcell quotes a piece of a letter of Paulinus of Tyrus, initiated by a remark
of Asterius.
Apparently it is a statement of the bishop of Tyrus to which he was pushed by
Eusebius of Nicomedia and his letter,
because Asterius speaks
about the letter of Paulinus in connection with his report about Eusebius’
letter. And he quotes from the letter of Paulinus.
In his letter, Paulinus
quoted a sentence of Origen,
De
principiis to support his view (p. 21,13). For Marcellus, the reference of
Origen is the reason that he deals with the great Alexandrian. The quote fro
Origen’s
Commentary on Genesis,
however which Marcellus discusses
can hardly have been part
of Paulinus’ letter. In a later passage in chapter 4,49 and 4,51
Marcellus comes back to
Paulinus and quotes a sentence by him which will have derived from his letter.
If one takes into account the place of Paulinus’ text in Marcellus’ fragments
and the mentioning of the Alexandrian Origen, the conclusion does not seem to
be wrong that the fragments have been taken from Paulinus’ letter to Alexander
of Alexandria. In addition, these fragments are amongst the most important
sources, as in these Paulinus is the first, as far as we know, who refers to
Origen as a witness in the pre-Nicene period of the dispute. The one who refers
to Origen, however, will hardly and without restrictions call Christ a
ktivsma, as Marcellus wants to make his
readers believe.
How an Origenist interprets
Prov.
8:22 that lead to the term
ktivsma, can
be seen from Eusebius in
De eccl. theol.
III 2. [[Marcellus of Ancyra also complaints in one of his fragments of his
antieusebian work that Eusebius has called Christ a creature.]] In the fragment
from chapter 4,38
he complaints that
bishops had also adopted teachings that are missing any support from Scripture.
As supporting evidence he quotes from a letter [one page = p. LXII missing]
Here, it
becomes clear why Eusebius deals so extensively with Marcellus’ attack against
Paulinus of Tyrus, Narcissus and against himself. Marcellus has hit the post
painful experience in Eusebius’ life, his condemnation through the synod of Antioch.
That Marcellus hints at this event is without doubt, as here as well as in
Antioch, Eusebius and Narcissus were the two people who were charged.
Now,
Eusebius reports about Marcellus making mention of a homily which he, Eusebius,
held in Laodicea, on the basis of which Marcellus adds broad accusations
against the hardnosed Palestinian. Eusebius’ does not appreciate him being
mentioned, he calls the report a chatter which Marcellus has got by hearsay.
The aggressive narration of Marcellus and the hardly restrained anger of
Eusebius leave the historical events in the dark. But perhaps one can interpret
the sayings of the two by concluding that Eusebius remained on his position
which he held in Antioch and even made it public in a homily at the see of the
third person who had been accused, Theodot of Laodicea.
In
addition, Marcellus reports that Eusebius had charged Marcellus of false belief
and expounded his own wrong teaching from the pulpit when, on a journey, he
paid a visit to Ancyra. It is hardly possible that Marcellus had received this
information merely by hearsay, as Eusebius claims.
Marcellus was bishop of
this place. If these events which Marcellus had mentioned so far, took place
before Nicaea, Eusebius’ stay will have taken place on his way home from
Nicaea. Paulinus of Tyrus, too, was present,
because Marcellus’ note
that Paulinus called Christ a creature on his journey through Ancyra has to be
linked to that about Eusebius.
Eventually,
Marcellus adds a number of phrases from a letter of Eusebius of Cesarea. For
the first time, he quotes from this letter,
in order to show that
Narcissus in his letter rendered Eusebius correctly.
Eusebius in his defense
uses these quotes alternating with those of Narcissus’ letter. Therefore, they
have to be attributed to the same letter. They are the following passages 4,40.41
(p. 26,4-21); 4,50 (p. 28,18-9); 4,51-2 (p. 28,22-30); 4,57 (29,19-24). Now, as
the quotes 4,50.51.52 (p. 28,18-30) literally in Urk. 3,1 (p. 15,7) and 3,3 (p.
16b,2f.), they all belong to the letter of Eusebius to Ephrantion, although it
it is not clear, how exactly to relate those sentences. The fragments 4,40.41
and 4,57 will be described below and attached as par. 4 and 5.
ZNW 33 (1934): 131-59.
Euseb’s Vita Constantini
