Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire

by Timothy D. Barnes

As the high-ranking Bishop of Alexandria from 328 to 373, Athanasius came into conflict with no fewer than four Roman emperors--Constantine himself, his son Constantius, Julian the Apostate, and the "Arian" Valens. In this new reconstruction of Athanasius's career, Timothy D. Barnes analyzes the nature and extent of the Bishop's power, especially as it intersected with the policies of these emperors. Repeatedly condemned and deposed by church councils, the Bishop persistently resurfaced as a player to contend with in ecclesiastic and imperial politics. Barnes's work reveals that Athanasius's writings, though a significant source for this period, are riddled with deliberate misinterpretations, which historians through the ages have uncritically accepted. Untangling longstanding misconceptions, Barnes reveals the Bishop's true role in the struggles within Christianity, and in the relations between the Roman emperor and the Church at a critical juncture.

364 pages, Hardcover

First published June 1, 1993

Reviews

[Brian Griffith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Barnes gives a well-researched discussion on the rise of state-enforced orthodoxy in newly Christianized Rome, with a focus on the competition for religious authority in Egypt. The first great church councils gave superior clerics legal authority over subordinates, but giving superiors more power over subordinates didn’t ensure harmony, either in the church or state. Instead, the structure of “one see, one bishop” ensured a winner-take-all rivalry among candidates for church
office.

In Egypt, the Roman empire-loyalist Athanasius secured appointment as archbishop, against the protests of native Coptic leaders. Each side accused the other of corruption, intimidation, and
heresy. Even Constantine suspected the rebels’ claims had justice. But to support mutiny against office holders would undermine the whole structure of authority. And Athanasius claimed the survival of Christian orthodoxy depended on his victory over heretical insubordinates. As St.
Jerome ridiculed Athanasius’ critics,

"We read in Isaiah, A fool will speak folly [Isaiah 9:17]. I hear that a certain person has broken out into so great madness as to place deacons before presbyters, that is, bishops. [In that case,] . . . what happens to the server of tables and widows that he sets himself up so arrogantly over those whose prayers the body and blood of Christ are made? Do you ask for authority? Listen to the proof . . . That afterwards one was chosen to preside over the rest; this was done as a remedy for schism, and to prevent one individual from rending the Church of Christ by drawing it to himself."

This was a powerful argument and hard to discredit. But by 366, street battles over who should be greatest as archbishop of Rome left hundreds of people dead. Ammianus Marcellinus explained that the Roman see had grown so wealthy, that contenders would use any means to seize it. Such Christians seemed to take Jesus’ words about masters lording it over their subjects as a statement of God’s will.

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Barnes never disappoints. Thorough analysis and sharp arguments once again mark this discussion of Athanasius of Alexandria against the background of ecclesiastical and imperial politics between approximately 324-361 C.E. Also recommended: 'Constantine and Eusebius' (Harvard, 1981).

For those who 'don't like history', this probably isn't for you. However, the time period itself makes for some of the most dramatic reading: sex, violence, betrayal, politics ... it's all there. I'm not saying it's morally pleasant or entertaining; just extremely difficult to put down. This period in history could be a 'game of [imperial and episcopal] thrones'.

Step 1: Go here: https://www.ccel.org/fathers.html.
Step 2: Scroll to the bottom where it says 'Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II'.
Step 3: Read Vols. II-IV.

[Mandimby Ranaivoarisoa · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is hard to have a low opinion of this book even when you disagree with its author. The fact that it took Barnes about ten years to write the book probably made it even better. The amount of material included in here is tremendous. The book is worth the price just for the 11 appendices.
Barnes' presentation of the figure of Athanasius is one which goes against the traditional hagiography–certainly not in a positive light. Barnes' not so unbiased historiography tells a story in which the hero is the bad guy.

[Lee Irons · Rating 3 out of 5]

Timothy Barnes is a Classics professor and is widely recognized as an expert on the fourth century. He also wrote Constantine and Eusebius, and both books are highly regarded by scholars in this field – the Christian church in the context of the Later Roman Empire. This is an important book on Athanasius, but it is not the book I expected. If you are looking for a hagiography of the great Athanasius as the defender of orthodoxy against the Arians, you won’t find it here. This book gives only passing attention to what it was about Arius and Arian Christology that so exercised Athanasius. The great theological writings and insights of Athanasius are barely discussed.

Instead, this book is about the conflicts that Athanasius had with four Roman emperors, but especially with Constantine’s son, Constantius. It was these conflicts that caused Athanasius to be exiled no less than five different times. As part of his examination of these conflicts, Barnes also engages in some original historical work leading to a new reconstruction of the chronology of Athanasius’ career – that is what makes this book very important for church historians. But Barnes’s dislike for Athanasius as a person shines through. At certain points it felt like I was reading a hit-piece.

As long as you know what you’re getting, this book is essential reading for historians of Athanasius and this whole turbulent and distressing period of church history between the Council of Nicaea and the Council of Constantinople. Things were pretty messy during this time – mainly because the emperors meddled directly in the affairs of the church. Some of them were Arian or sympathetic with Arianism, and one was a pagan (Julian the Apostate). Yet in spite of it all, God used flawed men and institutions to preserve the truth of the gospel.

Appendix 10, “Creeds and Councils, 337–361,” provides a useful list of the 15 councils or synods convened during the reign of Constantius. The creeds produced by these gatherings of Arian, semi-Arian, and politically-expedient (e.g., unwilling to get exiled by Constantius) bishops were either anti-Nicene in their theology or were failed attempts at compromise. When the dust settled after the Council of Constantinople in 381, all these sub-orthodox creeds were consigned to the dustbin of history. If you want to delve into the labyrinth of fourth century councils, this website is a good resource.

[Joel Zartman]

Quite curious.