Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:36:51.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Arius and Arianism

The Origins of the Alexandrian Controversy

from Part I - Contexts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2020

Young Richard Kim
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Chicago
Get access

Summary

The bitter division in Alexandria that led to the Council of Nicaea began as a theological dispute between Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, and a significant number of his clergy, including a presbyter Arius, and quickly overflowed into a feud among eastern bishops. “Arianism” was assumed by scholars and theologians to be a coherent set of heretical teachings embraced by a succession of followers. Historians have now identified sets of alliances rather than genealogies as well as the polemical construction of “Arianism” by Athanasius and Marcellus. This separation of Arius from later “Arianism,” together with the continuing lack of consensus with regard to theological or philosophical genealogies as the source of his thought, encourages another look at the particular social and religious context of the initial local controversy. The central issues of monotheism, apophatic theology, incarnation, and changeability in fact map over traditional Christian apologetic theology and the literary and ecclesiastical legacies of the Great Persecution. Arius’s insistence on divine monotheism and transcendence together with his defense of a “living image” may echo the contemporary arguments with Celsus and Porphyry in Eusebius and Athanasius as well as a refutation of polytheism.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Select References

Anatolios, Khaled. 2011. Retrieving Nicaea: The Development and Meaning of Trinitarian Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.Google Scholar
Ayres, Lewis. 2004. Nicaea and its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth Century Trinitarian Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Behr, John. 2004. The Nicene Faith, Formation of Christian Theology 2. Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press.Google Scholar
DelCogliano, Mark. 2006. “Eusebian Theologies of the Son as the Image of God before 341.” JECS 14(4): 458–84.Google Scholar
DelCogliano, Mark. 2015. “Asterius in Athanasius’ Catalogue of Arian Views.” JTS, n.s., 66(2): 625–50.Google Scholar
DelCogliano, Mark. 2018. “How Did Arius Learn from Asterius? On the Relationship between the Thalia and the Syntagmation.” JEH 69(3): 477–92.Google Scholar
Galvão-Sobrinho, Carlos R. 2013. Doctrine and Power: Theological Controversy and Christian Leadership in the Later Roman Empire. Transformation of the Classical World 51. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Gregg, Robert C., and Groh, Dennis. 1981. Early Arianism: A View of Salvation. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.Google Scholar
Gwynn, David M. 2007. The Eusebians: The Polemic of Athanasius and the Construction of the Arian Controversy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hanson, R. P. C. 1988. The Search for the Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318–381. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.Google Scholar
Löhr, Winrich. 2006a. “Arius Reconsidered (Part 1).” ZAC 9(3): 524–60.Google Scholar
Löhr, Winrich. 2006b. “Arius Reconsidered (Part 2).” ZAC 10(1): 121–57.Google Scholar
Lorenz, Rudolf. 1979. Arius judaizans? Untersuchungen zur dogmengeschichtlichen Einordnung des Arius. Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte 31. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Parvis, Sara. 2006. Marcellus of Ancyra and the Lost Years of the Arian Controversy 325–345. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Rowan D. 1987. Arius: Heresy and Tradition. London: Darton, Longman and Todd. Rev. ed. 2001. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×