The pseudo-Ashanasian disputatio contra arium. A confrontation with »Arian« theology in dialogue form
Annette von Stockhausen
Preliminary note
Already shortly after his death, perhaps even in his last years, Athanasius was praised by Alexandria as a "pillar of orthodoxy," as the symbol of Nicene orthodoxy, and as such, was also given priority over time. It is therefore not surprising that a considerable number of texts by other authors, at least some of which were suspected of representing heretical views, found refuge in the Corpus Athanasianum. Today, not least thanks to the Clavis Patrum Graecorum, we know of approximately 130 Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Old Church Slavonic and Arabic under the name of Athanasius, but probably all the texts not written by him, those in their time of origin ranging from the lifetime of Athanasius to the Middle Ages.2
Many of the Greek texts that are not considered authentic today were identified by Bemard de Montfaucon at the end of the 17th century as Pseudo-Athanasiana. For the greater part of these texts are the Edition Bemard de Montfaucons3 (or the 1857 published reprint by Jean-Paul Migne) and his introductory each Monita even to this day state of research. For the assertion of Montfaucon that a text transmitted under the name of Athanasius is unreal, has in most cases led to their being no longer used, translated, or examined, 4 because they contribute to our knowledge of Athanasius, his life, and his his theology obviously could not contribute.
However, it does not take into account that even pseudonymous writings can very well broaden our knowledge through authors whose works are generally handed down very poorly or which are otherwise no longer tangible in their works, as well as beyond the churches. and the history of theology in general. This applies equally to the pseudo-Athanasian writings, which have not yet been examined or whose original author can no longer be raised by an investigation.
In the following, this will be exemplarily demonstrated on such a pseudo-Athanasian text, the Disputatio contra Arium (CPG 2250).
Introduction to the text
In retrospect, the Synod of Nicaea was the event of the history of the churches in the Constantinian age: it was the first "ecumenical" synod6, and it was the first ever on the Roman Empire (and even above In addition, the accepted confession was formulated and, not least, the important liturgical question of the calculation of Easter was clarified.7
Were the resolutions of the synod in the narrower sense, i. the letter from the synod to the Church of Egypt, 8 the theological statement, the canons10 and the (signature) list of the participants11, were still written down12 so that was not the case for the negotiations themselves.13 In the absence of protocols, therefore, there were repeated However, Euseb's letter to his church14, which does not exist as an official document of the Synod but could perhaps best be used as an account of the conduct of the negotiations, offers a very idiosyncratic one Interpretation of the course of the negotiations and is not to be regarded as a kind of "protocol" of the negotiations, but is an apology of Eusebs for its approval of the theological explanation of the Synod.15 Similarly, the sections used again and again for the reconstruction of the course of the Synod are from the Athanasian Epistula ad Afros for one In any case, they do not provide any description of the negotiations at the Nicene Synod, but rather owe their existence to a subsequent interpretation of the Nicene by Athanasius.16
In summary, it can be stated that at the Synod of Nicaea, it appeared that no minutes had been drawn up by which the course of the discussions and negotiations could later be deduced. In view of the growing importance of the Synod of Nicaea in the course of the fourth century, 17 it is not surprising that there was a need to learn more about the negotiations and discussions between "Orthodox" and "Arians" at the Nizea Synod and that, therefore, legends soon arose about the course of the Synod, and about the disputations that had taken place on it.
(skip to p. 138)
The Disputatio contra Arium The transmission of the text
Since the Disputatio contra Arium33 has not yet been published in a critical edition, but also for reasons of content, for which the context of tradition is important, let us begin with some information on the tradition of the Disputation against Arium:
The Disputatio contra Arium has survived within the framework of the so-called x-collection, outside the context of the great Athanasius collections, in a few other, mostly late (collective) manuscripts, 34 in a Latin35 and (though not entirely) in an Armenian translation36. A short passage, the confession of Athanasius in Ch. 537, is still preserved as a singular piece in a Codex of the National Library of Paris.38
Beyond the direct tradition, even small traces of a secondary tradition of the Disputatio contra Arium can be found.39
The x-collection40 is an independent, well-defined compilation of writings of Athanasius, the distinguishing feature of which is that it precedes a table of contents and excerpts from a letter of Photius to his brother Tarasios on the writings of Athanasius, 41 and that they Moreover, in their composition (in contrast to the y-collection in particular, but also to the b-tradition) 42 is handed down very homogeneously.
It contains the following 21 Athanasian and pseudo-Athanasian texts: Oratio contra gentes (CPG 2090), Oratio de incarnatione verbi (CPG (2091), fDisputatio contra Arium (CPG 2250), Epistula ad episcopos Aegypti et Libya (CPG 2092), Orationes contra Arianos I-III (CPG 2093), the incarnatione et contra Arianos (CPG 2806), Epistula encyclica (CPG 2124), Epistulae ad serapionem / - // (CPG 2094), + Epistula catholica (CPG 2241), tRefutatio hypocriseos Meletii et Eusebii (CPG 2242), Epistula ad Epictetum (CPG 2095), tContra Apolinarem II-I (CPG 2231), In illud: quixixerit verbum in filium (CPG 2096), the Passione et cruce domini (CPG 2247), Epistula ad Marcellinum (CPG 2097), De virginitate (CPG 2248) and fTestimonia e scriptura (CPG 2240).
As can be seen in this list, the disputatio contra arium is not at the very beginning of the collection. But as it comes to stand in accordance with the writings of Contra gentes and De incarnatione (which does not deal with the Arian question), it functions as an introduction to the "anti-Arian" writings of Athanasius, which are summarized in this collection Dispntatio contra Arianos, in that it reproduces a discussion between Athanasius and Arius at the Synod of Nicaea itself, which binds the writings of Athanasius to be arranged thematically and chronologically according to the Synod of Nicaea, and illuminates the background of the dispute.
Now the compilation of the corpus of the Ar collection is due to the inclusion of the Photios letter at the earliest in the late 9th Century begin. However, the Photios letter itself may be a witness to an older and less extensive collection of anti-Ananic writings by Athanasius:
In the letter to Tarasios and cod. For in the library, Photios writes of a collection of works by Athanasius, the xoctci Apefoucu tengv ocutou SoYpdTcov 7revTssissXo <;.45 This "five-book against Arius and his doctrines" is usually applied to the epistula ad episcopos Aegypti et Libyae, the three Aryan speeches and the pseudo-Athanasian fourth Arianerrede, 46 because in the manuscripts of the y-collection47 the Epistula ad episcopos Aegypti et Libyae, the three Arianerreden and the pseudo-Ashanasian fourth Arianerrede as xcctoc Apctavwv Xöyoc; On the other hand, in the Ar collection, only the three real Aryan speeches are numbered consecutively, but the epistula ad episcopos Aegypti et Libyae is not included in this census.49
anyway.)