An Alternative Theory of the History of Antiquity
The Council of Nicaea
Web Publication by Mountain Man Graphics, Australia

• Introduction and Editorial comments

• Constantine's Summons to the attendees of Nicaea

• The WORDS of ARIUS as historical and political commentary

• Constantine's Decree 325 CE following Nicaea, about Arius and Porphyry

• Constantine's particularly nasty Dear Arius Where Are You? Letter of c.333 CE

• Research notes and references concerning "THALLIA" - "The Songs of Arius"

The Council of Nicaea

Introduction

It is presented elsewhere that the rule of Constantine was that of a dictator. Under his regime the ancient pagan religions were robbed of their wealth, gold and lands. And the eastern Roman empire in the early fourth century was very wealthy. When this eastern Roman empire became subject to the rule of Constantine's military strength, Constantine summoned attendees to the council of Nicaea.

The precedence for the burning or written opinions and other writings was established in 325 CE at the Council of Nicaea, by the the supreme imperial mafia thug Constantine, who had called the meeting, not just on account of the words of Arius, but in order to celebrate a number of things:

(1) SUPREMACY:

Constantine has only just been victorius in his military conquest of the Eastern Roman empire. He had been consolidating his rule of the western empire for 20 years, and now he had acquired the entire empire. The Eastern empire was particularly rich, and prosperous, and all its citizens would now pay tax and tribute directly to him.

(2) LONG SERVICE:

Twenty years at the top of the heap. It had been a hard road, but Constantine had miraculously never lost a single battle. The lavish Vicennalia party was tacked on to the end of the Nicaean Council, for those "whom he had reconciled" (most likely via signatories against Arius), and went for months. Really, would anyone side with Arius? Well, we know that there were a few very brave souls who did, and that they were all banished. So what, the important thing was that Constantine had the majority.

(3) The WORDS of Arius:

For the last seven years (317-324) Arius had been vocal in the East, speaking out in opposition to the fabrication of the galilaeans. Constantine had sent copies of a great deal of his new literature into the eastern empire, particularly the rich city of Alexandria. But word had it that it was being thrown out onto the rubbish tips of Oxyrynchus, and that it was being trashed by the words of Arius.

Now that Constantine was the supreme emperor of the eastern empire, it was just the time to haul Arius out to a special meeting, and see whether or not he changed his tune when the heat was turned up, and he was face to face with the supreme inperial mafia thug. A number of the sources mentioned, cite that Constantine called the Council of Nicaea, on account of the words of Arius.

(4) NEW ROMAN RELIGION:

Constantine had invented a new Roman religion that was in his eyes the type of social reform that the empire needed at this time. The ancient ascetic cults of the healing god Asclepius, for example, had seemed stultified and crumbling for a while. The oracles had fallen silent. What use was the ancient ascetic authority to a warlord who viewed the gold and treasures of the ancient temples as object of brigandry? He planned to implement this new Roman religion at the Council of Nicaea. He would deal with Arius' opposition, and implement the new religion by means of the absolute power which he wielded. He considered himself not an emperor, but the King of the empire, and wrote to his prospective Nicaean attendees, requesting their presence.

What we know of the Council of Nicaea is derived from a small number of sources. The histories of Philostorgius (fragments via Photius), Rufinius of Aqueila, Socrates Scholasticus, Hermias Sozomen and Theodoret of Cyrus survive. The histories of Hesychius of Jerusalem, Timeotheus of Betrytus, Sabinas of Heraclea and Philippes Sidetes (Philip of Side) are presumed lost.

In his text Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine, written at the death of that emperor in 337 CE, Eusebius Pamphilus of Ceasarea provides some further information about the council proceedings at Nicaea, and also about his lack of integrity as an historian.

It is appropriate to mention at this time that entire historiography of "tribe of christians", for the entire prenicene epoch had been prepared by one man, Eusebius. Noone presumed to go back over this ground which was held by right of conquest by the father of the history of "tribe of christians".

Eusebian chronology, as outlined in his Historia Ecclesiastica covered the period from antiquity, up until the time of the Arian controversy, circa 317 CE. The chronologist was on stand-by until the Council of Nicaea. On the other hand, no less that nine other christian ecclesiastical historians attempt to follow his lead, and continue christian historiography with effect from either the Arian controversy, or the Council of Nicaea.

Constantine had planned for this day for the last decade. He had prepared in this time, The Fabrication of the Galilaeans, and it was ready to be implemented in realtime. The council of Nicaea was the focal point of Constantine's supreme imperial ambitions, and the events that transpired at that council changed the way the planet was to think about religion.

When J. M. Roberts wrote "I do not believe that there were, at the Council of Nice, three persons present who believed in the truth of what was set down.", it is likely that he was excluding the only two people who needed to know that this Fabrication of the Galilaeans was a fiction: Constantine and Eusebius. The secret could have died with them, but it is unlikely.

We are told, in fact, that the Constantinian summons was in writing. He was already quite renown as a man involved with literature. History has hitherto not yet revealed just how much involved.

Here is the Letter of Constantine. Firstly it should be noted that it mentions no bishops of the east. All the bishops mentioned in the letter, are those who have been cooped up in the western empire with Constantine for the last 10 years, working very hard and probably involved with putting together the fabrication of the galilaeans.

How would you react to receiving this letter from the supreme imperial mafia thug, and war-lord, who had just recently taken over the running of the empire, and thus your local business?

"That there is nothing more 
honourable in my sight 
than the fear of God, 
I believe is manifest to every man.
 
Now, because the Synod of Bishops at Ancyra, of Galatia, 
consented at first that it should be, it now seems on many 
accounts that it would be well for a Synod to assemble at Nicea, 
a city of Bithynia, both because the Bishops of Italy 
and the rest of the countries of Europe are coming, 
and also because of the excellent temperature of the air, 
and also because I shall be present as a spectator 
and participator of what is done. 

Wherefore I signify to you, my beloved brethren, 
that I earnestly wish all of you to assemble 
at this city which is named, that is at Nicea. 

Let every one of you therefore, considering that which is best, 
as I before said, be diligent without any delay speedily to come, 
that he may be present in his own person as a spectator of what is done. 
God keep you, my beloved brethren." 

-- B. H. Cowper’s, Syriac Miscellanies, The Council Of Nicea.
Extracts From The Codex Syriacus 38
The Imperial Library, Paris, p.249

Arianism was originally not an "ism". Not to be confused whatsoever with the term Aryanism, the term Arianism does not originate with a philosophy, but with a man called Arius. He was purported to be a wise man, and clever in disputation. Quite possibly, he was a neopythagorean priest (See later reference to his being called a "Porphyrian").

The "Arian Controversy" is today little understood, except by way of vague reference to issues of theology, because the words of Arius are by tradition to be interpretted in a theological context.

When considering the Eusebian fiction postulate, we may entertain the notion that the words of Arius may be interpretted in a simple an straightforward historical context. That in fact, Arius was objecting to the implementation of a fictitious history that was to be associated with Constantine's new (Roman) god, Jesus.

What were the words of Arius?

• There was time when He was not.

  [Ed: He did not exist before Constantine.]

• Before He was born He was not.

  [Ed: He is a fabrication.]

• He was made out of nothing existing.

  [Ed: He is a fiction.]

• He is/was from another subsistence/substance.

  [Ed: He is fictitious.]

• He is subject to alteration or change.

  [Ed: He is fictitious, as are his gospels.]

These are the words of Arius, which the attendees at the Council of Nicaea were asked to vote upon. Arius and the few who sided with whatever these words implied, were banished. Arius was probably poisoned within 5 years. (See Sir Isaac Newton's notes on the actions of Athanasius).

Notably, all but Arius and these few signed on Constantine's dotted line, and probably became bishops of Constantine's new and strange Roman religion overnight. They felt it better to side with the new warlord and military supremacist, seeing as though he had gone to all this trouble of assembling an army of literature and documentation in support of the new god.

Perhaps Arius could not afford to speak his mind in the same fashion that the Emperor Julian, 38 years later could do. At that time, in 362CE, it was the very first available opportunity for a voice in opposition to the new christian regime (of Constantine's) to physically speak out. Julian owned that voice. What did he say? He said it was a FICTION. Perhaps Arius decided to try and keep his head. Perhaps Arius was somewhat like Secundus the Philosopher.

It should be clearly noted in this letter that:

(1) Porphyry "found the reward which befitted him"
(2) The writings of Porphyry were "righteously destroyed"
(3) "The writings of Arius .. shall be delivered to be burned with fire"
(4) "The penalty for secreting Arius' writings shall be death"
(5) "The capital punishment [is to be] by beheading without delay"

It was the ultimatum of a supreme imperial mafia thug dictator,
known to historians circa 325 CE as "a brigand";
and to become known in future years as "a ward irresponsible for his own actions".

Here is the Letter of King Con.

Constantine the King
to the Bishops and nations everywhere.

Inasmuch as Arius imitates the evil and the wicked, 
it is right that, like them, he should be rebuked and rejected. 

As therefore Porphyry, 
who was an enemy of the fear of God, 
and wrote wicked and unlawful writings 
against the religion of Christians, 
found the reward which befitted him, 
that he might be a reproach to all generations after, 
because he fully and insatiably used base fame; 
so that on this account his writings 
were righteously destroyed; 

thus also now it seems good that Arius 
and the holders of his opinion 
should all be called Porphyrians, 
that he may be named by the name 
of those whose evil ways he imitates: 

And not only this, but also 
that all the writings of Arius, 
wherever they be found, 
shall be delivered to be burned with fire, 
in order that not only 
his wicked and evil doctrine may be destroyed, 
but also that the memory of himself 
and of his doctrine may be blotted out, 
that there may not by any means 
remain to him remembrance in the world. 

Now this also I ordain, 
that if any one shall be found secreting 
any writing composed by Arius, 
and shall not forthwith deliver up 
and burn it with fire, 
his punishment shall be death; 
for as soon as he is caught in this 
he shall suffer capital punishment 
by beheading without delay.
 

(Preserved in Socrates Scholasticus’ Ecclesiastical History 1:9. 
A translation of a Syriac translation of this, written in 501, 
is in B. H. Cowper’s, Syriac Miscellanies, 
Extracts From The Syriac Ms. No. 14528 
In The British Museum, Lond. 1861, p. 6–7)

Unsorted Research Notes

The Early Church, from Ignatius to Augustine  by  George Hodges 

    They found the doctrines of Arius novel and objectionable. 
    It is said that when some of the songs of Arius were recited 
    to the council, the bishops clapped their hands over their ears, 
    and shut their eyes. 
 
    Eusebius of Nicomedia presented a creed setting forth 
    the Arian ideas, and it was torn in pieces. 
    Arius appeared to have few friends.



The Church of the First Three Centuries: Or, Notices of the Lives and ... By Alvan Lamson


THALIA - work of Arius mentioned by Athasius


      "he calls it a poem - a light and effeminate poem
       after the manner of the Egyptian Sotades".

Appears to be described as a sort of pleasant,
jesting performance - a piece of profane buffoonery.


      "Difficult to say what Athanasius means by all this"
 
He gives several extracts:




EPITOME OF BOOK II. 
CHAP. II.—PHILOSTORGIUS

   He says that Arius, 
   after his secession from the church, 
   composed several songs to be sung by sailors, 
   and by millers,** and by travellers along the high road, 
   and others of the same kind, 
   which he adapted to certain tunes, as he
   thought suitable in each separate case, 
   and thus by degrees seduced the minds of the unlearned 
   by the attractiveness of his songs 
   to the adoption of his own impiety.

   ** asmata e0pimu&lia. Philostorgius here makes no mention 
      of the song known in the "Thalia," from which Athanasius 
      distinguishes these popular songs in his books concerning 
      the Decrees of the Council of Nicaea. 




Athanasius, Arius' opponent, gives the following
purported quotations and/or paraphrases of 
Arius' songs in 


   Contra Arianos and De Synodis 


   God was not eternally a father .
   There was when God was all alone 
   and was not yet a father. 
   only later did he become a father. 

   The Son did not always exist. 
   Everything created is out of nothing 
   all existing creatures 
   all things that are made 
   so the Word of God himself 
   came into existence out of nothing. 

   There was when he did not exist 
   before he was brought into being 
   he did not exist. 
   He too had a beginning 
   to his created existence.  




A History of the Christian Church: From the Earliest Times to A.d. 461  By F. J. Foakes-Jackson


Arius offered a popular solution 
of a doctrine which had remained impenetrable 
even to the minds of Clement and Origen.


THE SYSTEM OF ARIUS:

  1) Starting fron the essentially pagan conception of God
     as a Being absolutely apart from His creation, Arius
     could not conceive of a mediator other than a created
     being, and found that between the Father and the Son
     there was the impassable gulf which according to his
     theory must separate the unbegotten, or uncreated,
     from that which is begotten or created. The Father
     was therefore essentially isolated from the Son.

  2) The creation of the Son as a second God Arius
     proceeds to explain by the logic ... and urged 
     that He must be a finite Being.

  3) Therefore the Son had no existence before He was begotten.
     Although He was created before the universe and before all time,
     there was 'once' - Arius avoided the use of the word 'time' - 
     when He was not.

  4) Assuming that the Son was a creature, and could not therefore
     be of the same substance of the uncreated God, Arius proceeds
     to declare that He was made out of nothing.

  5) and he argues that the Son, being of a different essence
     to the Father, can only be called God in a lower and improprer sense.

  6) As a creature, this pre-existent Christ was liable to change,
     and even capable of sin; nothing, as a matter of fact, keeping
     Him sinless but His own virtue. [1]

     [1] Harnack Hist Dogma, iV


The CHRISTIAN-SEEKING COMMENTATOR then goes on to say ...

What appears to us most repulsive in the scheme of Arius
was in the fourth century a great attraction.
To our minds there is something almost revolting
in the way in which rius thus coldly applies a shallow system
of reasoning to the explanation of so profound a mystery
as the relation of the Supreme Being to the Redeemer.

We see no attractiveness in the theory which keeps God and man
for ever apart, and we are unable to realise the idea of Christ
who is neither God nor true man.




WESLEY

Thalia

Thalia literally means "abundance," "good cheer," or "banquet". 
This work was written in verse, in order to aid memorization 
and popular distribution of Arius's ideas. 

Fragments of this work survive in two writings of  his opponent Athanasius. 
The first is in a report of Arius' teaching in Orations Against the Arians., 1.5-6. 
This paraphrase has negative comments interspersed, so it is difficult 
to decide what are Arius's words and what are comments of Athanasius (Williams 99).

The second is a more direct quotation in On the Councils of Arminum and Seleucia, 15.  
Someone other than Athanasius, perhaps even someone sympathetic to Arius, 
may have compiled the quotations (Hanson 10-15, esp. 12).  
We used this quotation as the basis of our translation.


The following is a translation from On the Councils of Arminum and Seleucia 15



…And so God Himself, as he really is, is inexpressible to all. 
He alone has no equal, no one similar (homoios), and no one of the same glory. 
We call him unbegotten, in contrast to him who by nature is begotten. 
We praise him as without beginning in contrast to him who has a beginning. 
We worship him as timeless, in contrast to him who in time has come to exist. 

He who is without beginning made the Son a beginning of created things. 
He produced him as a son for himself by begetting him. 
He [the son] has none of the distinct characteristics of God’s own being (kat’ hypostasis) 
For he is not equal to, nor is he of the same being (homoousios) as him. 

God is wise, for he himself is the teacher of Wisdom - 
Sufficient proof that God is invisible to all: 
He is is invisible both to things which were made through the Son, and also to the Son himself. 

I will say specifically how the invisible is seen by the Son: 
by that power by which God is able to see, each according to his own measure, 
the Son can bear to see the Father, as is determined

So there is a Triad, not in equal glories. 
Their beings (hypostaseis) are not mixed together among themselves. 
As far as their glories, one infinitely more glorious than the other. 
The Father in his essence (ousia) is a foreigner to the Son, 
because he exists without beginning. 

Understand that the Monad [eternally] was; 
but the Dyad was not before it came into existence. 
It immediately follows that, although the Son did not exist, the Father was still God. 
Hence the Son, not being [eternal] came into existence by the Father’s will, 
He is the Only-begotten God, and this one is alien from [all] others

[Williams suggests a section on the Holy Spirit may have been omitted here (p. 310).]

Wisdom came to be Wisdom by the will of the Wise God. 
Hence he is conceived in innumerable aspects. He is Spirit, 
Power, Wisdom, God’s glory, Truth, Image, and Word. 
Understand that he is also conceived of as Radiance and Light. 
The one who is superior is able to beget one equal to the Son, 
But not someone more important, or superior, or greater. 
At God’s will the Son has the greatness and qualities that he has.
His existence from when and from whom and from then -- are all from God. 
He, though strong God, praises in part (ek merous) his superior . 

In brief, God is inexpressible to the Son. 
For he is in himself what he is, that is, indescribable, 
So that the son does not comprehend any of these things 
or have the understanding to explain them. 
For it is impossible for him to fathom the Father, who is by himself. 
For the Son himself does not even know his own essence (ousia), 
For being Son, his existence is most certainly at the will of the Father. 

What reasoning allows, that he who is from the Father 
should comprehend and know his own parent? 
For clearly that which has a beginning is not able to conceive of or grasp 
the existence of that which has no beginning.

A recent and thorough discussion of the text, meaning, and significance 
of  Thalia is found in Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 
Revised Edition, 98-116. Both the translation found there, as well 
as that found in Hanson.




ALSO

******

Facts from Parvis, p. 39:

 

      Rufinus and Sozomen say there were 17 bishops 
      who originally supported Arius at Nicaea.

      Theodoret only says a "few" supported him at Nicaea, 
      and lists 6 men explicitly, 
      but also states there were others.

      Philostorgius lists 22 "Arian-minded" individuals 
      according to Nicetas

Index | Julian's GALILAEANS | Authors of Antiquity | Mountain Man Graphics