An alternative theory of
Arius of Alexandria and Leucius Charinus:
Web Publication by Mountain Man Graphics, Australia
Arius of Alexandria (AA) was an extremely prominent heretic known by his name and works in the fourth century. AA was purported to have written a great deal of heretic tractates but "none survive". Leucius Charinus (LC) was an extremely prominent heretic known by his name and works in the fourth century. LC was purported to have written a great deal of heretic tractates and much is recoverable. LC is by some presumed to have written before the fourth century. This presumption is examined and specified as dependent upon a reference by Tertullian. The presumption is questioned as to its reliability to the issue of dating LC prior to the fourth century. The works of LC and the name of LC becomes widespread in the fourth century. Are Arius of Alexandria and Leucius Charinus the one and the same historical author of heretical works? Monstrous fictions best described as Hellenistic romance narratives based on stories associated with the new testament which was supported and published by Constantine c.325 The extra canonical tractates were extremely popular with the resistance. The memory of Arius of Alexandria was damned by Constantine. His memory was to be erased with effect commencing perhaps 325 CE The name of Leucius Charinus commenced in the mid fourth century. It does not appear unreasonable that Leucius Charinus was the non-de-plume associated with the heretical works of Arius of Alexandria after the memory of Arius was politically banned from mention. The banned "Apocryphal tractates" were ultimately preserved in remote areas (eg: Nag Hammadi, Syria) The banned "Apocryphal tractates" were ultimately preserved in remote languages (eg: Coptic and Syriac) There is also the question of Arius' Hellenistic (non christian) gnosticism. P.R.F. Brown March 2009
If we presume we are dealing with historical figures then their common traits are: 1) AA and LC were authors of books 2) AA and LC wrote their books in greek. 3) AA and LC wrote books which were deemed heretical in the fourth century If we presume we are dealing with historical figures then their differences are: 1) When they lived - on the basis of the names AA and LC When AA lived is reasonably securely dates to between c.260 to 336 CE When LC lived is problematic: there is no mention of a name before mid-fourth century To make the issue even more intriguing the first mention of the name may have been in the tractate The Acts of Pilate", as "Karinus" and "Leucius", the two Hebrew scribes who disappeared in a blinding flash after each writing "The Gospel of Nicodemus" in equal letters under inspiration.. 2) When they lived - on the basis of the names of the "books purported to have been written by AA and LC" When AA lived is reasonably securely dates to between c.260 to 336 CE When LC lived may be presumed to be late second century if and only if we can accept Tertullian's statement that: "The falsely written Acts of Paul was authored by a presbyter in Asia who added something of his own to the prestige of Paul and was removed from his office after he had been convicted and had confessed that he had done it out of love for Paul." 3) Aside from Tertullian, the five "Leucian Acts" are not mentioned before Eusebius. Hegesippus may have had knowledge of a Gospel of the Nazoreans. Hippolytus may have had knowledge of a Gospel of Thomas.. Irenaeus may have had knowledge of a Gospel of Judas. Origen may have had knowledge of three "apocryphal sources" aGospel of Thomas (but was it the Infancy Gospel of Thomas?), a Gospel of Peter, and a Gospel of the Nazoreans. Clement of Alexandria may have had knowledge of a Gospel of James. Commodius the poet may have had knowledge of an Epistle of the Apostles. 4) Before Eusebius we do not appear to have an unambiguous citation to any of the books purported to have been written by LC. As we should expect him to have, Eusebius explicitly names at least three of the "Leucian Acts" as follows: an Acts of Peter and Andrew, an Acts of John, an Acts of Andrew and John, an Acts of Andrew and Matthew, an Acts of Andrew. 5) Without disclosing a name Eusebius informs us about the author. He was a heretic He was unworthy of mention He was completely out of accord with true orthoxy He was the author of fictions He was the author of fictions of which the character of the style was at variance from apostolic useage. He was the author of fictions, where the thoughts of things were at variance from apostolic useage. He was the author of fictions, where the purpose of things was at variance from apostolic useage. He was clearly the heretical author of anti-apostolic fictions. He was the author of books which were not just to be considered rejected. He was the author books which were to be cast aside. He was the author of books which were absurd He was the author of books which were impious Eusebius withholds to us the name of the author (perhaps for political purposes) Photius 500 years later cites the authors name as LC "as the book itself shows" 6) Eusebius also informs us that other books were extant which he deemed heretical. These other heretical books included a Gospel of Peter, a Gospel of Thomas, a Gospel of Matthias, and a number of Gospel of (any others besides them).
For the detailed sources See Leucius Charinus SOURCE (1): He was probably associated with a "church" but was probably "without a church He was motherless He was houseless He was creedless He was an outcast He was a wanderer He was worthless He was the author of falsely written books He was the author of "The Acts of Paul" He was the author of of a book used women to defend womens' right to teach He was an author who added something of his own He was an author who added something of his own to the prestige of Paul He was an author who added something of his own to the prestige of Paul in the book "The Acts of Paul" He confessed that he had authored the book He confessed that he had authored the book out of love He confessed that he had authored the book out of love for Paul. He was convicted on the basis of this confession [Ed. by whom is not stated] He was removed after this conviction from his office SOURCE (2): He was a heretic He was unworthy of mention He was completely out of accord with true orthoxy He was the author of fictions He was the author of fictions of which the character of the style was at variance from apostolic useage. He was the author of fictions, where the thoughts of things were at variance from apostolic useage. He was the author of fictions, where the purpose of things was at variance from apostolic useage. He was clearly the heretical author of anti-apostolic fictions. He was the author of books which were not just to be considered rejected. He was the auhor books which were to be cast aside. He was the author of books which were absurd He was the author of books which were impious SOURCE (3) He was the author of Acts in use amoung heretical sects SOURCE (4) He was a "cobbler of fables". SOURCE (5) He was the disciple of the devil He was the author of books all of which are forbidden, banned damned. He was the author of books which were to be not merely rejected. He was the author of books which were to be eliminated He was damned He was damned in shackles He was damned in inextricable shackles He was damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema He was damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema forever SOURCE (6): He was "tiresome" in his elaborations of detail. SOURCE (7): He was the author of a book read by Photius (perhaps in Babylon) He was the author of a book entitled The Circuits (or Travels) of the Apostles He was an author of the Acts of Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas, and Paul He was reported to be the author of book whose name was in the book as the work itself shows. Read a book entitled Circuits  of the Apostles, comprising the Acts of Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas, and Paul, the author being one Lucius Charinus,  as the work itself shows. He was an author who used uneven and strange style He was not always careless His words and constructions were mostly common and hackneyed His language lacked trace of the smoothness of the Gospels and Apostles His language lacked trace of the spontaneous expression of the Gospels and Apostles His language lacked the natural grace of the Gospels and Apostles His contents were very silly His contents were very self-contradictory He was a mingler and a confounder He asserted that Jesus was one of two gods He asserted that Jesus was never was really made man but only in appearance He asserted that Jesus appeared at different times in different form to His disciples He asserted that Jesus appeared as a young man He asserted that Jesus appeared as an old man He asserted that Jesus appeared as a boy He asserted that Jesus appeared as a tall man He asserted that Jesus appeared as a short man He asserted that Jesus appeared so tall that His head reached nearly to heaven. He invented much idles and absurd nonsense He asserted that Jesus was not crucified, but some one in His stead He asserted that Jesus could laugh at those who imagined they had crucified Him He talked foolishly He told monstrous tales of silly and childish resurrections of dead men and oxen and cattle. [Ed: Acts of Philip (Syriac)] He was summarised "In a word ... as the mother of all heresy": In a word, his books contain a vast amount of childish, incredible, ill-devised, lying, silly, self-contradictory, impious, and ungodly statements, so that one would not be far wrong in calling them the source and mother of all heresy.
SOURCE 1: (original basic beliefs) He claimed that God Himself, as he really is, is inexpressible to all. He claimed that this inexpressible essence alone has no equal He claimed that this inexpressible essence alone has no one similar (homoios) He claimed that this inexpressible essence alone has no one of the same glory. He claimed that he and his associates [Ed: "Gnostics"?] called this inexpressible essence unbegotten, in contrast to an essence who by nature is begotten. He claimed that he and his associates praised this inexpressible essence as without beginning in contrast to an essence who has a beginning. He claimed that he and his associates worshipped this inexpressible essence as timeless, in contrast to an essence who in time has come to exist. SOURCE 2: (c.325 CE, Nicaea) He claimed that "There was time when Jesus was not" He claimed that "Before Jesus was born Jesus was not" He claimed that "Jesus was made out of nothing existing" He claimed that "Jesus is/was from another subsistence/substance" He claimed that "Jesus is subject to alteration or change" SOURCE 3: (c.327 CE, Syria?) He was known for his stubborness He was asked by Constantine whether he might want to come to Constantine's headquarters He was asked by Constantine whether perhaps he could enjoy the privilege of seeing Constantine He was known to have made Constantine amazed over the fact that he had not immediately presented himself when summoned. He was ordered to hasten to Constantine's court He was offered a public (official) vehicle in order to hasten to Constantine's court He was asked to obtain the favour of Constantine He was advised that he "may" then be able to return to your own country. SOURCE 4: (c.333 CE, Syria?) He imitated He imitated the evil He imitated the wicked He was rebuked He was rejected He was just like Porphyry (a non-christian Neopythagorean academic) He was like Porphyry in that he was an enemy of the fear of God He was like Porphyry in that he wrote wicked writings against the religion of Christians, He was like Porphyry in that he wrote unlawful writings against the religion of Christians, He was like Porphyry in that he was a reproach to all generations after He was like Porphyry in that he fully and insatiably used base fame He was like Porphyry in that on this account his writings were righteously destroyed He was to be called a Porphyrian He had supporters who were also to be called Porphyrians He was renamed He was renamed so that he may be named by another name He was renamed to the name of those whose evil ways he imitated He was renamed so that he may be named by the name of those whose evil ways he imitated His writings wherever they be found were to be delivered to be burnt with fire His wicked and evil doctrine was to be destroyed His doctrines were to be blotted out His very memory was to be blotted out He was permitted by no means that there remain to him any remembrance in the world. He was the subject of "damnation" His books were being secreted or hidden His books were not to be secreted or hidden but were to be delivered to the fire His books were to be delivered by citizens to the fire on punishment of death His books in one's possession impled capital punishment by beheading without delay. SOURCE (5): (c.333 CE, Syria?) He was a wicked interpreter He was an image and a statue of the Devil He had a nature absolutely most base He offered error He proffered profusely the poisons of his own effrontery He introduced a belief of unbelief. He introduced a belief of unbelief that is completely new. He was trusty for evil He had lost the grace of taking advice. He vomited pernicious words He produced pernicious words his writings He did not coexist with the Eternal Father of his origin He wrote books that collected and gathered terrible and lawless impieties He wrote books that agitated tongues [Editor: Very popular books] He wrote books which deceived and destroyed He said "Either let us hold that, of which already we have been made possessors, or let it be done, just as we ourselves desire." He had fallen in matters. He had fallen dead in matters He considered holy only what was in him He said "We have the masses." He was a warrior of insanity. He was an Ares He fashioned the finest things for the masses He had little piety toward Christ He needed to be cured. He had the audacity worthy to be destroyed by thunderbolts! He wrote with a pen distilling poison He added certain things somehow swaggeringly He added certain things quite accurately elaborated He went further and opened the whole treasury of madness He asked to celebrate services to God in Alexandria He asked to celebrate the lawful and indispensable services to God in Alexandria He has terrible shamelessness He needes to be refuted and thoroughly He answered to "foolish one" He constructed a disease of savage thought He constructed a discord against the church He was involved in evil. He hastened to destroy his friends He had a mask of modesty He pretended silence He showed himself to be tame and submissive He used the artifice of pretence; He - within - wass full of countless evils and plots. He was made by the desire of the Devil He was made as a manufactory of iniquity for us. He possessed a perverted mouth He possessed a nature quickly roused to wickedness! He talked of one God. He added things further to orthodox doctrines He was abrogated He joined things to an impous separation of orthodox doctrines He substituted a foreign hypostasis He undoubtedly believed badly He detracted from Jesus who is indetractable He paved the way for the marks of addition He detracted from the uncorrupted intelligence of Jesus He detracted from the belief in immortality of Jesus He detracted from the uncorrupted intelligence of the Church He engaged in silly transgression of the law He was a witty and sweet-voiced fellow He sang evil songs of unbelief He was quite fittingly subverted by the Devil He was a wicked person He was a destructive evil. He was barred publicly from Godís church He was (be well assured) lost He engaged in folly. He claimed the masses acted with him. He did not listen to Constantine. He did not lend his ears to Constantine. He did not understand his folly He was clearly mad He was a knave He never admited where in the world he was He wrote letters to Constantine with a pen of madness He claimed all the Libyan populace was supporting him He was not really blameless He was a gallows rogue He did not perish even when surrounded by great horror He was known for his wits - they were not dull He was a profane person He undermined the (orthodox) truth He undermined the (othodox) truth by various discourses He was a sick and helpless soul He was not ashamed to disparage (state orthodox) doctrine He refuted (state orthodox) doctrine He admonished (state orthodox) doctrine He seemed superior in faith He seemed superior in discourse He was a source of aid for people He was not to be associated with He was not to be addressed He was the author of rotten words and meters He was notorious - "It was mistake to be around him" He had a bitter tongue He was the contraversial subject of imperial discourses against him He was a fool in respect to his soul He was a wordy one in respect to his tongue, He was an infidel in respect to his wits. He was asked to grant a field for discussion He was a truly profane and base. He was a truly dissembling person. He made Constantine exited writing compositions against him He needed to be captured in order to keep an imperial appointment at the public gallows He was a worthless person He was very hasty He did invoke some God for aid He caused Constantine to speak against him He reproached the church He grieved the church He wounded he church He pained the church He had marvellous faith He demoted Jesus He dared to circumscribe Jesus He questioned the presence of Jesus He questioned the activity of Jesus He questioned the all-pervading law of Jesus He thought that there was a place outside of Jesus He thought that there something else outside of Jesus He denied the infiniteness of Jesus He was a shamless and useless fellow He progressed to the height of wickedness He progressed to the height of lawlessness He pretended piety. He told Constantine to go away He wrote that he did not wish God to appear to be the subject of suffering of outrage He wrote that (on the above account) he suggested and fabricated wondrous things indeed in respect to faith. He accepted Jesus as a figment He called Jesus foreign He did not adapt, he did not adapt (it was said twice) to God [Editor: the "new" orthodox God] He was twice wretched He was truly an adviser of evil He was a villain He was a mediator of wild beasts. (See Plato) He was described as mad and clearly raving He was a patricide of equity He did not conclude that God is present in Christ He talked disgracefully He brought punishment upon himself He had no faith in Christ He did not follow the law that God's law is Christ He appeared to take thought from his own self He had august consuls He was a fellow full of absurd insensibility He hastened to disturb the whole world by his impieties. He did not understand that Constantine, the man of God, already knew all things He brought state orthodoxy into the light; He hurled his wretched self into darkness. He ended his labors with this He claimed there were a multitude of persons wandering about him His supporters were asserted to have given themselves to be eaten by wolves and by lions. His supporters were each oppressed by additional payment of ten capitation taxes and by the expenses of these His supporters sweated unless they ran as speedily as possible to the salvation-bringing Church, His supporters were condemned for wicked complicity His investigations were called abominable His sophisms were clear His sophisms were known to all persons, at all events for the future. He struggled to accomplish something. He counterfeited fairness of discourse He counterfeited gentleness of discourse He donned externally a mask of simplicity He was an artificer His flame was quenched with the rain of divine power His associates were threatened by local and state authorities His associates were threatened to speedily flee his association His associates were to accept in exchange the uncorrupted faith [of the church] He was an "iron-hearted man" He received an invitation from Constantine saying: "Come to me, come, I say, to a man of God" He was perhaps healthy in respect to spiritual matters Prepared P.R.F. Brown, March 2009 SOURCES for Leucius Charinus (1) Tertullian Prescription against Heretics (2) Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica - On Heretical Books (3) Epiphanius' "Against Heresies" (4) Augustine's Contra Faustum Manichaeum (5) Chapter 5 - Decretum Gelasianum (6) Gregory of Tours' epitome of the Acts of Andrew (7) Photius' BIBLIOTHECA OR MYRIOBIBLON SOURCES for Arius of Alexandria (1): 0000 CE - Thalia; Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, Revised Edition, 98-116 (2): 0325 CE - Earliest of the Nicaean "Creeds" (3): 0327 CE - Emperor Constantine to Arius (4): 0333 CE - Emperor Constantine's "Circular" (5): 0333 CE - Constantine's "Dear Arius Letter