ት Tergwame Greek · Coptic · Ethiopic · Syriac · Armenian · Georgian · Latin

Greek · Other · 0030–0800

Dok. 9: Fragment eines Briefes des Eusebius von Caesarea an Alexander von Alexandrien

Dokumente zur Geschichte des arianischen Streites (Athanasius Werke III) · pta

BothSourceEnglish
JSON Dossier
machine-draft · no human review 2 passages · 380 words

Work dossier · summary and historical context

Summary

This dossier concerns a fragment of a letter from Eusebius of Caesarea to Alexander of Alexandria, preserved only as a citation in Athanasius' anti-Arian polemic. Dating between ca. 313 and 328, the fragment is a rare witness to early Arian controversy correspondence. It survives without independent manuscript tradition, embedded in Athanasius' De Decretis Nicaenae Synodi. The fragment's content, a confession attributed to Arius' party, is framed polemically by Athanasius to demonstrate Eusebius' earlier orthodoxy. Its fragmentary state and selective quotation caution against reconstructing Eusebius' original argument or the letter's full scope.

This fragment is a key piece of evidence for the early Arian controversy, showing how later Nicene authors used earlier correspondence to construct a narrative of orthodoxy. It illustrates the selective preservation of texts through polemical citation and highlights the challenges of reconstructing lost works from fragments. The letter's relation to other Eusebian writings and its role in Athanasius' argument make it important for understanding the development of Trinitarian doctrine.

Historical context

The fragment belongs to the early Arian controversy (ca. 318–325), a period of intense theological debate over the relationship between God the Father and the Son. Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260–339), a prominent bishop and historian, corresponded with Alexander of Alexandria (d. 328), Athanasius' predecessor. The letter likely addressed accusations against Arius and his followers. The fragment survives solely because Athanasius cited it in his De Decretis Nicaenae Synodi (CPG 2122) to argue that Eusebius had once opposed Arian views. No other manuscript tradition exists, and the original letter is lost. The citation is embedded in a polemical context, making it difficult to assess Eusebius' original stance. The fragment's language reflects early Christian creedal formulas, but its interpretation is shaped by Athanasius' framing. The letter's date is inferred from Eusebius' episcopate (ca. 313–339) and Alexander's death (328).

Apparatus · what the pipeline recorded

Annotation and terms

12 commentary units 2 background2 term2 structure2 caution2 reception1 scripture1 sense 0 derived notes 3 open questions 2 narrative
What the kinds mean

Pipeline notes

  • coverageNo English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed.
  • limitThe English is a machine draft produced passage by passage from the transcribed Coptic; no human has verified it. The commentary is model-written and cites only keys the pipeline could resolve.
  • registerRegister: other in ancient Greek; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them.
  • structurePassages: 2 narrative.
  • sourceSource edition: pta — CC BY 4.0

Term index

CopticRenderingCountFirst
no glossary terms recorded
pta0100.pta009:1 · narrativehigh
Source
Ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ἐν τῇ πρὸς τὸν ἅγιον Ἀλέξανδρον ἐπιστολῇ τὸν καθηγητὴν τοῦ μεγάλου Ἀθανασίου, ἧς ἡ ἀρχή· Μεθ’ ὅσης μὲν ἀγωνίας καὶ μεθ’ ὅσης φροντίδος ἐπὶ ταῦτα ἦλθον τὰ γράμματα· τρανότατα βλασφημῶν οὕτω φησί περὶ τοῦ Ἀρείου καὶ τῶν σὺν αὐτῷ· Κατηγορεῖ αὐτῶν τὰ σὰ γράμματα ὡς λεγόντων, ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος γέγονεν ὡς εἷς τῶν πάντων. οἱ δὲ προήνεγκαν ἑαυτῶν γραμματεῖον, ὃ πρὸς σὲ πεποιήκασιν, ἐν ᾧ τὴν ἑαυτῶν πίστιν ἐκθέμενοι αὐτοῖς ῥήμασιν τάδε ὡμολόγουν· τὸν νόμου καὶ προφητῶν καὶ καινῆς διαθήκης θεὸν γεννήσαντα υἱὸν μονογενῆ πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων, δι’ οὗ καὶ τοὺς αἰῶνας καὶ τὰ πάντα πεποίηκε, γεννήσαντα δὲ οὐ δοκήσει, ἀλλὰ ἀληθείᾳ, ὑποστήσαντα ἰδίῳ θελήματι, ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον, κτίσμα τοῦ θεοῦ τέλειον, ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὡς ἓν τῶν κτισμάτων. εἰ δὴ οὖν τὰ παρ’ αὐτῶν γράμματα ἀληθεύει, πάντως δὲ καὶ παρὰ σοὶ φέρεται, ἐν ᾧ ὁμολογοῦσι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων, δι’ οὗ καὶ τοὺς αἰῶνας πεποίηκεν, εἶναι ἄτρεπτον καὶ κτίσμα τοῦ θεοῦ τέλειον, ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὡς ἓν τῶν κτισμάτων.
English
Likewise, in the letter to the holy Alexander, the teacher of the great Athanasius, the beginning of which is: "With how much anguish and with how much care I came to these writings," he speaks most clearly in blasphemy concerning Arius and those with him, as follows: Your letter accuses them of saying that the Son came into being from non-being, like one of all things. But they produced their own document, which they have composed to you, in which, setting forth their faith, they confessed in these very words: the God of the law, the prophets, and the new covenant, who begot a only-begotten Son before eternal times, through whom he also made the ages and all things, begetting not in semblance but in truth, bringing him into existence by his own will, unchangeable and immutable, a perfect creation of God, but not as one of the creations. If, then, their document speaks the truth—and it is certainly also in your possession—in which they confess the Son of God to be before eternal times, through whom he also made the ages, to be unchangeable and a perfect creation of God, but not as one of the creations.
pta0100.pta009:2 · narrativehigh
Source
ἡ δὲ σὴ ἐπιστολὴ κατηγορεῖ αὐτῶν ὡς ἂν λεγόντων, ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς γέγονεν ὡς ἓν τῶν κτισμάτων. αὐτῶν τοῦτο μὴ λεγόντων, ἀλλὰ σαφῶς διορισαμένων, ὅτι οὐχ ὡς ἓν τῶν κτισμάτων, ὅρα εἰ μὴ εὐθὺς πάλιν αὐτοῖς ἀφορμὴ δίδοται εἰς τὸ ἐπιλαβέσθαι καὶ διαβάλλειν ὁρμᾶσθαι ὅσα καὶ θέλουσι. πάλιν αὐτοὺς ᾐτιῶ λέγοντας ὅτι ὁ ὢν τὸν μὴ ὄντα ἐγέννησε. θαυμάζω δέ, εἰ δύναταί τις ἄλλως εἰπεῖν. εἰ γὰρ εἷς ἐστιν ὁ ὤν, δῆλον ὅτι ἐξ αὐτοῦ γέγονε πᾶν ὅ, τι καὶ ἔστι μετ’ αὐτόν· εἰ δὲ μὴ μόνος αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ ὤν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ἦν ὁ ὤν, καὶ πῶς τὸν ὄντα ὁ ὢν ἐγέννησεν; οὕτως γὰρ ἂν δύο εἴη τὰ ὄντα. καὶ ταῦτα μὲν Εὐσέβιος πρὸς τὸν ἀοίδιμον Ἀλέξανδρον· ἀλλὰ καὶ ἕτεραι ἐπιστολαὶ αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὸν αὐτὸν ἱερὸν ἄνδρα φέρονται, ἐν αἷς εὕρηνται ποικίλαι βλασφημίαι τοὺς περὶ Ἄρειον διεκδικοῦσαι.
English
Your letter accuses them of saying that the Son has come into being as one of the creatures. But they do not say this; rather, they have clearly defined that he is not as one of the creatures. See if this does not immediately give them an opportunity to seize upon it and to rush to slander as much as they wish. Again, I accused them of saying that the one who is begat the one who is not. I am amazed if one can say it otherwise. For if the one who is is alone, it is clear that everything that exists after him has come into being from him. But if the one who is is not alone, but the Son also was the one who is, then how did the one who is beget the one who is? For in that way there would be two beings. These things Eusebius wrote to the renowned Alexander. But other letters of his to the same holy man are also extant, in which various blasphemies are found, defending the party of Arius.
Citation. Tergwame, “Dok. 9: Fragment eines Briefes des Eusebius von Caesarea an Alexander von Alexandrien”, pta0100.pta009:1, machine-draft, 2026. https://naxiai.com/christian/works/pta0100.pta009#s1
Colophon. Source: pta · licence: CC BY 4.0 · model: deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor · provider: Relace · cost: $0.0016 · generated 2026-11-15.