Apparently, the terms “Arian,” “Arianism,” and “Arian Controversy” were derived from the name of Arius, who was in charge of one of the churches in Alexandria, and whose dispute with his bishop Alexander began the Arian Controversy. This implies that Arius was a very important person. It implies that Arius’ theology continued during that entire period of the Arian Controversy, namely: > From AD 318, when Arius publicly criticized his bishop Alexander for > teaching ‘erroneous’ doctrines about the nature of Christ, > > Until AD 380, when the emperor outlawed all 'Arian denominations’ > through the Edict of Thessalonica . However, recent scholars on the Arian Controversy claim that Arius was neither the leader of ‘Arianism’ nor regarded by the 'Arians' as a significant theologian. For example: > “Arius … was never unequivocally a hero for the parties associated > with his name” (RW, 82). And, again, “Arius … was not an obvious hero > for the enemies of Nicaea.” (RW, 166) > > “It was not just ecclesiastical protocol which made the bishops at > Antioch in 341 declare … that they were not 'followers of Arius … They > meant exactly what they went on to say, that they had accepted Arius > as orthodox, but did not look on him as a factional leader, or ascribe > any individual authority to him.” (RW, 82) > > “Those who suspected or openly repudiated the decisions of Nicaea … > certainly (did not have) a loyalty to the teaching of Arius as an > individual theologian” (RW, 233). > > “The people of his day, whether they agreed with him or not, did not > regard him (Arius) as a particularly significant writer” (RH, xvii). > > “Arius’ own theology is of little importance in understanding the > major debates of the rest of the century.” (LA, 56-57) > > “Those who follow his theological tradition seldom or never quote > him.” (RH, xvii) And, again, “the heirs of his theological tradition > hardly ever quote him.” (RH, 6) > > “Arius evidently made converts to his views … but he left no school of > disciples.” (RW, 233) > > “Arius’ role in ‘Arianism’ was not that of the founder of a sect. It > was not his individual teaching that dominated the mid-century eastern > Church.” (RW, 165) > > “Arius was not accepted as leader of a new movement.” (RH, xvii-xviii) > > “Arius was only the spark that started the explosion. He himself was > of no great significance.” (RH, xvii-xviii) Authors ------- > RH = Bishop RPC Hanson The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God - > The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987 > > RW = Archbishop Rowan Williams Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987 > > LA = Lewis Ayres Nicaea and its legacy, 2004 Ayres is a Professor of > Catholic and Historical Theology So, if Arius was of no great significance in the fourth-century controversy, why is it called the ‘Arian’ Controversy?

Origen was arguably the most influential theologian of the first three centuries. In his 1981 book on the Arian Controversy, RPC Hanson wrote: > “Marcellus of Ancyra, in attacking Asterius and Narcissus of Neronias, > Eusebius of Caesarea and Paulinus of Tyre (certain leading Arians), > had accused them of being under the baleful influence of Origen” > (p61). > > “Epiphanius directly connects Origen with Arianism. He … declares that > the Arians and Anhomoians learnt from Origen” (p61). > > “Many scholars have regarded Arian ideas in a vague and wholesale way > as an inheritance from Origen's doctrine” (p62). Rowan Williams, in his 2001 book on Arius, also stated: > "From very early on, there were those who saw Origen as the ultimate > source of Arius' heresy" (RW, 131). Questions: 1. On what specific doctrines did Origen and Arius agree and on which doctrines did they not agree? 2. Considering these, may we describe Arius as an Originist?

What was the core issue in the Arian Controversy? ================================================= Whether the Son was God? ------------------------ It is often stated that it was about whether Jesus is God. But Lewis Ayres says that is not true. The so-called Arians also referred to Jesus as God and placed Him on the God side of the God-creation barrier. For example: > The creed of 357, which some regard as the high point of Arianism, > describes the Son as “God from God.” (Hanson, p. 345) > > “It is misleading to assume that these controversies were about ‘the > divinity of Christ’” (Ayres, p. 14) > > “A second approach that we need to reject treats the fourth-century > debates as focusing on the question of whether to place the Son on > either side of a clear God/creation boundary.” (Ayres, p. 4) Whether the Son was a lesser Being? ----------------------------------- One may counter and say, yes, the 'Arians' described Him as God but they also described Him as subordinate to the Father. That statement would be misleading because, as RPC Hanson stated, the pro-Nicenes also thought of the Son as subordinate. Ayres says that even Athanasius regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father. For example, he regarded the Son as part of the Father and would never say that the Father is homoousios with the Son. The first theologian to insist on full equality was Basil of Caesarea. For example: > Before Nicaea, all church fathers described the Son as subordinate, > e.g.,: The “conventional Trinitarian doctrine with which Christianity > entered the fourth century ... was to make the Son into a demi-god … a > second, created god lower than the High God” (Hanson Lecture). > > “With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and > West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year > 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement (end) of the > controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy.” (Hanson, p. > xix) > > Athanasius also described the Son as subordinate. He always described > the Son “as proper to the Father, as the Father's own wisdom,” meaning > that the Son is part of the Father, never the other way round. (Ayres, > p. 206)  > > Basil of Caesarea was the first to proclaim full equality: “In all the > previous discussions (before Basil of Caesarea) of the term > (homoousios) … a certain ontological subordination is at least > implied.” (Ayres, p. 206) “In Basil, the Father's sharing of his being > involves the generation of one identical in substance and power.” > (Ayres, p. 207) So, whether the Son was subordinate to the Father was also not the real main issue in the Arian Controversy. Was the Controversy about Arius? -------------------------------- The title 'Arian' Controversy implies that Arius caused it and that it was about Arius' teachings. However, Hanson and Lewis confirm that Arius was not the 'cause' but that it was the continuation of the controversy that raged during the previous century: > "He was the spark that started the explosion, but in himself he was of > no great significance.” (Hanson, p. xvii-xviii) > > “This controversy is a complex affair in which tensions between > pre-existing theological traditions intensified as a result of dispute > over Arius.” (Ayres, p. 11-12) Furthermore, the Controversy was not about Arius' teachings. He left no school of followers. After Nicaea, he was no longer mentioned. Nobody thought his writings were worth preserving. As Hanson, Ayres, and Williams confirm, it is called the 'Arian' Controversy only because Athanasius falsely accused his opponents, the anti-Nicenes, of being followers of Arius, which they were not. For example: > “The people of his (Arius’) day, whether they agreed with him or not, > did not regard him as a particularly significant writer. … Neither his > supporters nor his opponents thought them (his writings) worth > preserving. … He virtually disappears from the controversy at an early > stage in its course.” (Hanson, p. xvii) > > “It is virtually impossible to identify a school of thought dependent > on Arius' specific theology." (Ayres, p. 2) > > “The expression 'the Arian Controversy' is a serious misnomer.” > (Hanson, p. xvii) > > “’Arianism’ as a coherent system, founded by a single great figure and > sustained by his disciples, is a fantasy … based on the polemic of > Nicene writers, above all Athanasius.” (Williams, p. 82) > > “The textbook picture of an Arian system … inspired by the teachings > of the Alexandrian presbyter, is the invention of Athanasius’ > polemic.” (Williams, p. 234) So, what was the real core of the Arian Controversy? Was there a golden thread that ran through the controversy in the third and fourth centuries? Authors Quoted -------------- Following the last full-scale book on the Arian Controversy, published in English by Gwatkin at the beginning of the 20th century, R.P.C. Hanson in 1988 published perhaps the most influential book in modern history on the Arian Controversy. (Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381. 1988) This was followed in 2004 by a book by Lewis Ayres.(Ayres, Lewis, Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004) Ayres confirmed the importance of Hanson's book. > “Richard Hanson’s The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (1988) > and Manlio Simonetti’s La Crisi Ariana nel IV secolo (1975) remain > essential points of reference.” (Ayres, p. 12) Ayres’ book is based on those surveys and “in some measure advances on their texts.” (Ayres, p. 5) I also quote from another important book by Rowan Williams, focusing specifically on Arius.(Williams, Rowan (24 January 2002) . Arius: Heresy and Tradition (Revised ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8028-4969-4.)

**Arius' death was it miraculous or was he poisoned?** Arius died in 336, at Constantinople of some gory intestinal disorder. Some believe that his death corresponded to the prayers of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Others believe that he may have been poisoned. Have any historians or medical professionals ever explained what type of poison could have produced the death of Arius in such a gruesome manner? [Hemorrhagic death of Arius](https://historyoftheearlychurch.wordpress.com/2021/06/07/75-the-freak-hemorrhage/) *Who believed that his death was a miraculous event and why?* *Those who believe he was murdered, what kind of poison could produce the physical manner in which he died?*

Did Athanasius and the Nicene Fathers, in their condemnation of Arius, draw the conclusion that the personage which Arius is actually describing (and whom he, presumably, worshipped) is really the one generally called ‘The Devil’ and that, therefore, Arius could be categorised as a ‘Devil Worshipper’ ? 1. The historical context 2. Athanasius’ account of the excommunication of Arius 3. Arius’ own description of what he calls ‘Christ’ and the ‘Word’ 4. The inference, from scripture, of whom Arius is actually describing 5. The question of what, specifically, was ever documented of the one Arius worshipped. ================================================================================ 1. Charles Lee Irons (1), in the synopsis of The Biblical Basis of Eternal Generation , recounts the history of Arius’ denial of the eternal and divine existence of the Son of God : > Throughout the fourth century, the church fathers were engaged in a bitter debate with Arianism, and it was within the context of that debate that they clarified the church’s doctrine of the Trinity. Arianism was the view that the Son is a sub-deity **who did not always exist** but was created by God as the first and most glorious being in the universe, “the firstborn of all creation.” Arians affirmed the pre-existence of Christ — He existed as the Logos before His virgin birth. But they **denied the eternal pre-existence of Christ**. They said there was **a time when He did not exist**, and that before His generation, He did not exist. They said He was **created out of the things that do not exist**. They say that although He is the most glorious and first creature made by God, and can even be called “God” in some sense because of His exalted honor and divine glory, He falls on the creature side of the Creator-creature distinction. 2. Athanasius of Alexandria records the event of the excommunication of Arius in his Discourses Against the Arians , in the First Discourse chapter 1 and paragraph 7 : >For this was why the Ecumenical Council, when Arius thus spoke, **cast him from the Church,** and **anathematized him**, as impatient of such irreligion. And ever since has Arius's error been reckoned for a **heresy** more than ordinary, being known as Christ's foe, and harbinger of Antichrist 3. In the same First Discourse - chapter 2, paragraphs 5 and 6, Athanasius exposes what Arius describes of the person which he (that is, Arius) calls ‘Christ’, as follows : > … the Word of God Himself was made out of nothing … (sic) > > … and, once (meaning ‘once upon a time’ - Edit) he was not … (sic) > > … though (he) is called God, yet is he not ‘very God’ … (sic) 4. If one examines Arius’ own description against scriptural references, it becomes clear that there **is** a person answering to that description. *But it is not Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, born of the virgin Mary.* Since a person is being described, by Arius, who is ‘the firstborn of creation’ (that is to say, the first creation - Edit) and ‘the first created spirit’ and ‘who once was not’ and ‘who was made out of nothing’ - then that is the person who, in scripture, is called ‘the son of morning’ and ‘Lucifer’, Isaiah 14:12-15, who said ‘I will be like the most High’; and the person who is the first - created - spirit identified by scripture (in both Genesis and Job) that is to say the Serpent in Eden, and the person who, as one of the sons of God, requested of God that he be a ‘satan’ (an adversary) to Job; and is the same person who tempted Jesus in the wilderness being called a ‘Tempter’ and ‘Diabolos’ ; and is elsewhere called *Antidikos* (1 Peter 5:8) *Anomos* (2 Thessalonians 2:8) *Poneros* (1 John 2:13,14) and the Dragon (Revelation 12:3). In short, this is the ‘Angel of Light’ described by the apostle Paul : >... For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, **transforming themselves into** the apostles of Christ.And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an **angel of light**. [I Corinthians 15:45 KJV] 5. Then is it the case that either Athanasius or the Nicene fathers drew this conclusion in their opposition to Arius and their excommunication of him at the Ecumenical Council in 325 AD, either specifically at the time, in their condemnation of him, or thereafter in publications denouncing him ? Did they ever assert that Arius was actually describing - and worshipping - the ‘Devil’ ? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Charles Lee Irons, PhD, is an adjunct professor at California Graduate School of Theology.

Where did Arius learn his theology? Did he rely on specific theologians that wrote before him? Origen? Clement of Alexandria? Lucian of Antioch? Were his ideas based on the Bible or on Greek philosophy? Was he part of a specific school of thought or did he develop an entirely new system?

I realize that it may not be completely possible to answer this question given that so much of what Arius wrote has been lost and/or misrepresented by his opponents. However, I have read his few letters that remain and his post-exile letter to Constantine doesn't seem much different than his others. I don't have access to the [R.P.C. Hanson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hanson_(bishop)) 's 1998 book [The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381](https://www.amazon.com/dp/080103146X) (reissued, 2006) so I'm hoping someone here who does can provide further insight. Here's the quote that leads me to the question: >Though he never repudiated the council or its decrees, the emperor ultimately permitted Arius (who had taken refuge in Palestine) and many of his adherents to return to their homes, once Arius had reformulated his Christology to mute the ideas found most objectionable by his critics. (Source: *Wikipedia* article on [Arius](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius))

Arius himself wrote that “the Son of God … is, ***like the Father, 'unchangeable***’” (Rowan Williams, page 96) but Athanasius wrote that Arius taught that the Son is “***like all others … subject to change*** … because he is changeable by nature” (Contra Arianos(v), RW, 100). Are we able to reconcile these statements, or did one of them lie? For one possible answer, see Rowan Williams pages 113-116 , beginning with the phrase "This leaves the third point noted above as a major theme of Arian exegesis to be investigated ..."

Arius wrote that the Son was “begotten ***timelessly*** by the Father … before aeons … begotten ***timelessly*** before everything” (Letter to Alexander – See RPC Hanson, The Search, page 8). But Alexander of Alexandria stated that Arius also wrote that “there was a time when he did not exist” (RPC Hanson, The Search, page 16). Did Arius contradict himself? How could there be time before the Son existed if he was “begotten timelessly before everything?”

Origen of Alexandria 184-253 taught that the relationship between the Father and the Son was one of an ‘eternal begetting’ but Arius 256-336 argued that ‘the Logos had a beginning and that the Son, therefore, was not eternal, the Logos being the highest of the Created Order‘ (quoted from Wikipedia). There is contention about the position of Lucian of Antioch 240-312 but little doubt that his pupil Eusebius of Nicomedia UNK - 337 followed Arius’ theology. An answer to a question posed by Peter Turner lists current denominations who appear to follow this teaching or have views that appear to be similar, but it is the original response of Arius, or Eusebius, which interests me, regarding what, to me, is an insurmountable obstacle to their claims. ---------------------------------------------------- In Hebrews 7:3, the writer states that Melchisedec is portrayed as having no ‘beginning of days’. The translation ‘*made* like unto the Son of God’ is incorrect, the word ἀφομοιόω, *aphomoiow*, being used (not ποιέω, *poieo*, the word meaning ‘make’ or ‘do) which denotes (see Thayer ) the ‘rendering of a likeness‘, or (BDAG) ‘becoming like‘, or (Liddel&Scott) ‘likened or portrayed like’. The only time the word is used in scripture, it cannot be suggested that this is an act of creation and cannot be suggested that ‘Melchisedec is made in the way the Son of God is made’. The words simply do not convey that meaning. Rather, the opposite, for Melchisedec is a ‘likeness’ a ‘representation’ and one of the features of that representative likeness is this : that the Genesis narrative states no past history. He has no genealogy in scripture. He appears to have no origin, no parentage, no . . . . beginning of days. And the writer applies this feature of Melchisedec to Jesus Christ. Clearly the likeness is not a likeness of his earthly path, the ‘days of his flesh’, for we know that Gabriel announced, to the virgin, the event of her becoming great with child. And we know the angelic host appeared and glorified God when the babe was born and placed in swaddling clothes in a manger. Did we have accurate historical records we could exactly place the time of his birth to the very hour, so this cannot be the meaning of the writer to the Hebrews. The representative likeness of a feature of having ‘no beginning of days’ must relate to the Son of God’s existence before coming into the world ; before being ‘manifest in flesh’, 1 Timothy 3:16 (TR/KJV). If no ‘beginning of days’ then no possibility of calling this one ‘created’. For if there be anything other than God himself in existence, time must have begun and days (of whatever shape or form) can be counted. He was - before there was such a thing as 'a day'. In the beginning . . . was the Logos. He was there, when it all began, John 1:1. This same truth is expressed by John the apostle who writes (I John 1:2) of ‘the life, the eternal’ (see the literal Greek, for example Young’s Literal Translation) which was ‘with the Father‘ and was - then - ‘manifested'. Again, whether one suggests ‘everlasting’ as a translation of αἰών, *aion* Strong 165 or the more usual rendering ‘eternal’, makes no difference. Looking backward in time, ‘everlasting’ sees no beginning. Thus ‘the life the eternal’ being ‘with the Father’ (and there being nothing else in view) then that life must be the life of the Son : prior to manifestation. And this life had no beginning, whether one understands that ‘eternity’ is another thing altogether than ‘time’ or whether one views the past as ‘everlasting’. How did Arius and Eusebius counter this argument (having no beginning of days) and how did they attempt to translate Hebrews 7:3 ? Is there any reliable record ?

Addition after Comment : The title header does not provide sufficient space to word the question without ambiguity. Thus : **If the one born in Bethlehem was ‘a creature’ (as says Arius) and yet did not sin, then why was the first humanity (Adam) not so created (according to the words and doctrine of Arius ?) ...** ... is the full and unambiguous title. ----------------------------------- In an open letter to the Alexandrians, the signatories to the Council of Nicaea state the following of the doctrine of Arius : >In the first place, then, the impiety and guilt of Arius and his adherents were examined in the presence of our most religious emperor Constantine, and it was unanimously decided that his impious opinion should be anathematized, with all the blasphemous expressions he has uttered, in affirming that "the Son of God **sprang from nothing**" and that "there was **a time when he was not**." He said moreover that "the Son of God, because possessed of free will, was **capable either of vice or virtue**," and he called him **a creature and a work**. All these sentiments the holy synod has anathematized, having scarcely patience to endure the hearing of such an impious opinion—or rather madness—and such blasphemous words. (*Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus I:9.*) Quoted from Christian-history.org [As has been noted, and as is well known, it is difficult to source documents from Arius himself, but easier to cite from his opponents, who quote him extensively.] Elsewhere, Trinitarian doctrine is quite clear in stating that He who is called ‘word’ was ‘with God’ ‘in the beginning ‘ (John 1:1), and ‘God was the word’ (John 1:1, literal) ; that ‘the life the eternal which was with the Father’ (1 John 1:2, literal) is ‘manifested’ (1 John 1:2) which ‘manifestation‘ is also named ‘the Son of God‘ (1 John 3:8); and that ‘God was manifest in the flesh’ (1 Timothy 3:16, TR/KJV). Trinitarian doctrine clearly states that Jesus of Nazareth is not merely a human person, whose existence began in Bethlehem, on earth, in flesh, but that this humanity is a ‘manifestation’ of Him who is divine, eternal and co-equal in deity with the Father. Trinitarian doctrine makes it clear that the first man was of earth, earthy, only ; mere flesh and blood, with breath breathed into him, no more. But Jesus of Nazareth is a new creation, humanity manifesting God himself ; humanity and deity in one unique Person. Thus Trinitarian doctrine is clear that Jesus is ***not*** another created Adam, a second creation of mankind. But Arius ***did*** so state. Thus Arius seems to me to be finding fault with the Creator. For if Adam is a man of sin and death (as scripture unarguably conveys, and as every penitent soul admits) then the one born in a manger in Bethlehem was a ‘second attempt’ ; surely. [**Note after comment** : I am speaking of the manifested humanity, not of any 'prior' (presumably angel-like) spirit sort of existence. The question is about manifested humanity and its propensities within the created sphere.] For if it be the case that the babe in the manger is ‘capable of virtue or vice’ and is a ‘created creature’ and yet did not do any vice, but only ever did good ; then why did the Creator not make this creature to begin with ? Why the failure of Adam ? For Trinitarian doctrine clearly states that the liability inherent in any creation (and therefore in the best of all possible creations) is, firstly, the creature itself (that it is just that - creature) and, secondly, the inevitable presence in the creation of a certain knowledge (the knowledge of good and evil) which knowledge is at once both so irresistibly tempting to the creature yet so utterly and fatally catastrophic to the creature. *But does Arius’ doctrine convey that truth ?* For if the one come of woman in Bethlehem is merely another creature, and that creation was such that he did not fail or fall, *yet he could do either, it is said,* then why - O why ? - did not the one whom Arius calls ‘Creator’ create that perfection in the first place ? What do we know of the doctrine of Arius that would demonstrate he had a solution to this doctrinal problem ? ------------------------------------------- Scripture quotations are from the KJV (1769) or from the literal translation provided by the Englishman's Greek New Testament (1877).

Both Athanasius noted that Arius taught two Wisdoms. Athanasius wrote that in Arius’ theology, > “There are … two Wisdoms, one God's own who has existed eternally with > God, the other the Son who was brought into existence. … There is > another Word in God besides the Son” (RH, 13). Alexander similarly wrote that Arius stated, > “Nor is he the Father's true Logos nor the Logos by nature, nor his > true Wisdom” (RH, 16). > > “He came into existence himself through the proper Logos of God and > the Wisdom which was in God, in which God also made everything and him > (the Son) with it” (RH, 16). In Lorentz's summary of Arius’ theology, he said: > “There are two Logoi and two Wisdoms (Sophiae), and several powers of > God. … Arius distinguished between an original Reason (Logos) or > Wisdom immanent from eternity in the Godhead and the Son who was not > immanent in the Godhead but created, and who could only be given these > titles loosely or inexactly.” (20) Why is it significant that Arius taught “two Logoi and two Wisdoms”? Was this a deviation of some kind? (All references are to RPC Hanson's book, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God - The Arian Controversy 318-381

In 325 CE, following the defeat of Arius at the Council of Nicea, Emperor Constantine the Great went on a campaign of book burning to eradicate all memory of Arius and his beliefs : >After the First Council of Nicea (325 CE), Roman emperor Constantine the Great issued an edict against nontrinitarian Arians which included a prescription for systematic book-burning: > >"In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offense, he shall be submitted for capital punishment....." > >According to Elaine Pagels, "In AD 367, Athanasius, the zealous bishop of Alexandria... issued an Easter letter in which he demanded that Egyptian monks destroy all such unacceptable writings, except for those he specifically listed as 'acceptable' even 'canonical'—a list that constitutes the present 'New Testament'". (Pagels cites Athanasius's Paschal letter (letter 39) for 367 CE, which prescribes a canon but does not explicitly order monks to destroy excluded works.[original research?]) Heretical texts do not turn up as palimpsests, scraped clean and overwritten, as do many texts of Classical antiquity. According to author Rebecca Knuth, multitudes of early Christian texts have been as thoroughly "destroyed" as if they had been publicly burnt. The great Alexandrian library was destroyed under mysterious circumstances around that time. So my thought is that it might be impossible to get my hands on Arius' writings. Is it? Or have any of his words survived?

Was Nikolaos of Myra (St. Nicholas) present at the Council of Nicaea and, if so, did he punch (or slap) Arius? This amusing factoid tends to crop up at this time of year and has a well-established place in Byzantine iconography, for example: [This blog post from 2015](http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2015/02/28/did-st-nicholas-of-myra-santa-claus-punch-arius-at-the-council-of-nicaea/) and [this article from 2016](http://www.ncregister.com/blog/steven-greydanus/lets-stop-celebrating-st.-nicholas-punching-arius) dispute the historicity of this fact with fairly convincing arguments, including the fact that the first mentions of his presence are more than 500 years after Nicaea and the actual "punching" story is first recorded in the 14th century. The Teubner critical edition of the various lists of Nicaea attendees, [*Patrum nicaenorum nomina latine, graece, coptice, syriace, arabice, armeniace, sociata opera*](https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_p0OpPm3Ea6MC) seems to conclude that his name was only added to the list by influence of later biographies (such as of Symeon the Metaphrast), but that the earlier, more reliable manuscripts do not include him. So, **what is the evidence that St. Nicholas was at Nicaea and punched Arius?**

I was reading about St. Nicholas who helped in part inspire our modern stories of Santa Claus and read the following: > One weak tradition has him actually attending the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, when Arian doctrine was rejected. The story goes that he got into a heated debate with Arius himself about whether there was a time when the Word did not exist. Nicholas strongly disagreed. > > The debate ended suddenly when Nicholas punched out Arius then and there on the floor of the council! Source There's no source listed for the "weak tradition" and it certainly makes a very interesting story especially if true. Typically the saint is the victim. Where did the story originate and how old is it? What is the likelihood that it's actually true? As a side note, was mild violence such as this common in any of the councils that have been held over the centuries?