Was Arius of Alexandria a pagan?

[ABuddhist]

(2) Why does Philip of Side depict the Nicene Council as a confrontation between the philosophers and the bishops with Arius classed - not with the bishops - but with the philosophers?

Maybe this was an anti-Arian polemical strategy which you have taken literally. I mean, people say various crazy and false things about modern religious leaders - such as claims by radical traditionalist Catholics that the Catholic pope is not a Roman Catholic.

[Leucius Charinus]

(2) Why does Philip of Side depict the Nicene Council as a confrontation between the philosophers and the bishops with Arius classed - not with the bishops - but with the philosophers?

Maybe this was an anti-Arian polemical strategy which you have taken literally.

There's no doubt that this stuff was anti-Arian polemic written by the orthodoxy. In this case in the 5th century if this was written by Philip of Side. Without exception the orthodox were pumping out anti-Arian polemic from c.325 CE. Constantine wanted to kill Arius, and anyone preserving the books Arius had written. Constantine pronounced "damnatio memoriae" on Arius. That's heavy. Athanasius calls Arius the "harbinger of the anti-Christ".

The question here is that the source is not following the Eusebian account of the Nicene Council.

Fr. 5.6
[Supporters of Arius at the Council of Nicaea]
Anonymous Ecclesiastical History 2.12.8-10 [p. 47, lines 5-19 Hansen][160]

(8) When these things were expressed by them—or rather, through them, by the Holy Spirit—those who endorsed Arius' impiety were wearing themselves out with murmuring (these were the circles of Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea, whom I have already pointed out earlier), and yet they were looking with favor on the "hirelings" of Arius, certain philosophers who were indeed very good with words; Arius had hired them as supporters of his own wickedness, and arrived with them at that holy and ecumenical council. (9) For there were present very many philosophers; and having put their hopes in them, as I have said just now, the enemies of the truth were reasonably caught, along with the one who actually taught them their blasphemy. The Holy Scripture was fulfilled in him and in them, which says, "Cursed is everyone who has his hope in a mortal man, and whose heart has departed from the Lord."[161] (10) For truly, the blasphemous heart of the fighter against God, Arius, and of those who shared in his impiety, departed from the Lord—they dared to say that the Son of God, the creator of the universe and the craftsman of both visible and invisible created natures, is something created and something made.

According to the translation provided above, Arius attended the council of Nicaea in the company of a large number of non Christian philosophers, who basically argued his case for him. The importance of these new facts cannot be underestimated. Arnaldo Momigliano mentions this:

"Eusebius' History of the Church ideally reflected the moment in which the Church had emerged victorious under Constantine - a separate body within the Roman Empire. With all his gifts Eusebius could not shape his historiography in such a way as to envisage situations in which it would be impossible to separate what belonged to Caesar from what belonged to Christ." ......... There was a very real duality in Eusebius' notion of eccesiastical history: "on the one hand ecclesiastical history was the history of the Christian nation now emerging as the ruling class of the Roman Empire. On the other hand it was the history of a divine institution not contaminated by political problems." ......... "How to deal with this divine institution's very earthly relations with other institutions in terms of power, violence and even territorial claims? ......... "How would the continuators of Eusebius deal with the politics of the emperors, the plotical intrigues of the bishops?" ......... "If we had the Christian History which the priest Philip of Side wrote about 430, we would know more about the significance of the predominance of the Eusebian model. It is evident that Philip of Side tried to go his own way and to avoid imitating Eusebius..."

(p.141/142) The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography, Arnaldo Momigliano, (1961-62)

The Eusebian model presents to the public at large a Nicene Council that may be described as a "Tea Party with gifts for the Christian Bishops" and "Constantine's Long Service Party" rolled into one. It declares that, although they had to walk through a wall of drawn swords into the recesses of the council, all these Christian Bishops (but a few) signed their harmonious acceptance of an oath to their leader Constantine. The Eusebian model does not admit into it an Arius of Alexandria who surrounded himself with "very many" philosophers ... some of which "were indeed very good with words"..

I mean, people say various crazy and false things about modern religious leaders - such as claims by radical traditionalist Catholics that the Catholic pope is not a Roman Catholic.

Arius was a heretic. His memory in the world was to be blotted out. And behold, it was.

"Arianism has often been regarded as the archetypal Christian deviation, something aimed at the very heart of the Christian confession…. Arius himself came more and more to be regarded as a kind of Antichrist among heretics, a man whose superficial austerity and spirituality cloaked a diabolical malice, a desperate enmity to revealed faith. The portrait is already taking place in Epiphanius’ work, well before the end of the fourth century. By the early medieval period, we find him represented alongside Judas in ecclesiastical art. (The account of this death in fourth and fifth century writers is already clearly modeled on that of Judas in the Acts of the Apostles.) No other heretic has been through so thoroughgoing a process of ‘demonization’".

Rowan Williams, "Arius: Heresy & Tradition"

[Leucius Charinus]

(4) Why did Arius wear the garb of a philosopher and have the care of 70 women?

Does the following 4th century portrait of Arius drawn by Epiphanius describe Arius the Platonic Theologian, or Arius the Christian Presbyter?

"He was very tall in stature [28], with downcast countenance [29], counterfeited like a guileful serpent, and well able to deceive any unsuspecting heart through its cleverly designed appearance. For he was always garbed in a short cloak (hemiphorion) and sleeveless tunic (kolobion); he spoke gently, and people found him persuasive and flattering."

Epiphanius' portrait of Arius, (p.32). Arius: Heresy and Tradition.

Rowan Williams then notes: The sleeveless tunic is reminiscent of the "exomis" worn by both the philosophers and ascetics: Philo [30] mentions that the contemplative Therapeutae of his day were dressed thus. Arius' costume would have identified him easily as a teacher of the way of salvation - a guru, we might almost say... Epiphanius also notes [31] that he had the care of seventy women living a life of ascetic seclusion, presumably attached to his church.

[Footnotes]
[27] Haer 69.3, 154.12-16,
[28] Or possibly "advanced in years",
[29] Or possibly "with a stooping figure",
[30] Vita Cont. 38,
[31] Haer 69.3.154.17ff

Did any other Christian presbyters have the care of seventy women living a life of ascetic seclusion, presumably attached to his church?

Did any other Christian presbyters wear the garb of the philosophers and ascetics?

Perhaps Arius was a pagan philosopher and the Christians made a mistake?

[andrewcriddle]

(2) Why does Philip of Side depict the Nicene Council as a confrontation between the philosophers and the bishops with Arius classed - not with the bishops - but with the philosophers?

Maybe this was an anti-Arian polemical strategy which you have taken literally. I mean, people say various crazy and false things about modern religious leaders - such as claims by radical traditionalist Catholics that the Catholic pope is not a Roman Catholic.

Arius was not a Bishop, he was a philosophically trained presbyter (priest). One of the underlying issues of the Nicene controversy is the relative authority of Bishops (not necessarily particularly intellectual) and intellectually sophisticated presbyters.

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

Arius might have been Pope though. He sat on the throne of St Mark in Alexandria. Who knows what he meant to a sub-culture in Alexandria.

[John T]

Arius was not a Bishop, he was a philosophically trained presbyter (priest). One of the underlying issues of the Nicene controversy is the relative authority of Bishops (not necessarily particularly intellectual) and intellectually sophisticated presbyters.

Andrew Criddle

Agreed.

"There were unconfirmed reports that Arius had been a candidate for metropolitan bishop when Achillas died, but in any case, the Egyptian bishops elected Alexander to succeed Achillas. Shortly after his election, Alexander put Arius in charge of the Baucalis Church."...pg. 52 When Jesus became God.

Since Arius was not allowed to speak at the Council of Nicaea, that would suggest he was not a bishop at the time.

[perseusomega9]

Did any other Christian presbyters have the care of seventy women living a life of ascetic seclusion, presumably attached to his church?

Yes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syneisaktism

[andrewcriddle]

Arius was not a Bishop, he was a philosophically trained presbyter (priest). One of the underlying issues of the Nicene controversy is the relative authority of Bishops (not necessarily particularly intellectual) and intellectually sophisticated presbyters.

Andrew Criddle

Agreed.

"There were unconfirmed reports that Arius had been a candidate for metropolitan bishop when Achillas died, but in any case, the Egyptian bishops elected Alexander to succeed Achillas. Shortly after his election, Alexander put Arius in charge of the Baucalis Church."...pg. 52 When Jesus became God.

Since Arius was not allowed to speak at the Council of Nicaea, that would suggest he was not a bishop at the time.

Arius was never a bishop see Arian Controversy

The bishops of the east deny being Arians, issuing the famous statement, "How, being bishops, should we follow a priest?" (The priest that they refer to is, of course, Arius.)

Andrew Criddle

[John T]

Arius was never a bishop see Arian Controversy

The bishops of the east deny being Arians, issuing the famous statement, "How, being bishops, should we follow a priest?" (The priest that they refer to is, of course, Arius.)

Andrew Criddle

I can't completely rule it out because there is a claim that Melitus did ordain a priest name Arius. Rise of Christianity, pg. 493
However, I think it was a different Arius. If Arius was indeed a bishop he would have the right to personally address the council.
It is highly unlikely that Arius was a bishop, but a pagan, no way!

[Leucius Charinus]

Arius might have been Pope though. He sat on the throne of St Mark in Alexandria.

Surely this is the stuff of legends and church dogma?

"Nearly everything that is recorded about the early history of Alexandrian Christianity lies in the Church History of Eusebius. Many Alexandrian theological writings are preserved, but as might be expected they cast little light on historical events. Now the basic difficulty with Eusebius' work is that it has to be classified as "official history." It therefore contains a judicious mixture of authentic record with a good deal of suppression of fact and occasional outright lies. He wrote it in defense of himself and his friends and their outlook toward the nascent imperial church establishment under God's messenger Constantine."

Early Alexandrian Christianity, Robert M. Grant
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/Early ... 0Grant.htm

Who knows what he meant to a sub-culture in Alexandria.

According to Constantine's letter to Arius c.333 CE, Constantine says about Arius:

He said "Either let us hold that, of which already we have been made possessors, or let it be done, just as we ourselves desire."

He asked to celebrate services to God in Alexandria

He asked to celebrate the lawful and indispensable services to God in Alexandria

He claimed the masses acted with him.
He said "We have the masses."

He never admitted where in the world he was

He claimed all the Libyan populace was supporting him

He was a source of aid for people

He had august consuls

He hastened to disturb the whole world by his impieties.

He claimed there were a multitude of persons wandering about him

https://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-34/

These statements IMO indicate that Arius claimed to speak for the masses. The masses at that time are predominantly pagan with at least a 90-95% demographic. Also the statements indicate that Arius was asking Constantine to allow him (and the pagan masses) "to celebrate the lawful and indispensable services to God in Alexandria."

Some scholars consider that Constantine enacted a prohibition of pagan sacrifice in the eastern provinces. This was making it difficult for the operation of the usual temple practices, the pagan priesthoods had become dispossessed of their temples. Such a political context in Alexandria explain Arius's requests, if Arius was the focus of a pagan resistance at that specific epoch 325-336 CE.

It is evident that Constantine destroyed a number of the larger and most ancient pagan temples in the east - particularly those of Asclepius and Apollo. In some cases the chief priests were executed. Ammianus tells us (BOOK XVII) that Constantine ripped the sole remaining (and largest) obelisk from its foundations at Karnack. He was obviously bent on the destruction and hostile takeover of the pagan religious industry and culture, This would make room for the Nicene Church industry and set a foundation for its eventual monopoly several generations later.

It is reasonable to expect there to have been (pagan) resistance to this agenda of destruction and prohibition. From the above letter Constantine presents Arius as a focus. It would be easy for the Christian victors to tell a big lie about Arius, And to keep repeating it. The pronouncement of "damnatio memoriae" on his name, and books, and memory in the world assisted rubbing out Arius' political, cultural and religious affiliations.