The Eusebians: The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the "Arian Controversy.".(Book review)

doi:10.1017/S0009640709000560

The Eusebians: The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the "Arian Controversy." By David M. Gwynn.

Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. xv + 286 pp. $85.00 cloth.

The Council of Nicaea has been a traditional watershed for ecclesiastical history, if not Christian identity itself, but for the past twenty-five years "the Arian controversy" has been in the grip of revisionism, according to which many theological conflicts happened but most of them had little to do with the historical Arius. As a further revision, David Gwyrm's contribution is to expose the historiographical pitfalls of the traditional binary opposition of Nicene and Arian theologies by examining the polemical construction of a political and theological party called "the Eusebians" by Athanasius. To trace this construction he first gives a thorough and critical overview of the chronology of the polemical works of Athanasius. The second part is a summary of the construction of a "party" labeled "the Eusebians" and its association with "Arian theology." The final section of the book is a historical examination of the evidence concerning the theologies of Arius and others associated together to show the construction of "Athanasian Arianism" as a polemical tool to discredit all opponents to the bishop of Alexandria. He concludes that "the Eusebians" were not an actual party engaged in subversive activity against Athanasius nor were they "Arian" as traditionally defined. In all three sections Gwynn reviews much current scholarship surrounding these familiar texts and figures, which makes his book an important resource for Athanasius and the fourth century.

The analysis of polemical rhetoric has become an important, if difficult, part of historical revision. Although most scholars now would no longer use the term "Arian" or use Athanasius without suspicion except in a dogmatic context, Gwynn's detailed presentation of the creation of "the Eusebians" is very helpful, if the conclusions are necessarily limited. Acknowledging Athanasius's construction of a heretical party ultimately cannot negate that a number of bishops were in fact allies against him, though it does refine our perception of a "party." Acknowledging Athanasius's exaggeration of certain ...