The Eusebians: The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the Arian Controversy' (Oxford Theological Monographs) PDF
Preview The Eusebians: The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the Arian Controversy' (Oxford Theological Monographs)
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
Description:The list of books you might like
