EXEGETICAL CULTURES 1 | 137on each other as well as their pagan critics. The teachings of Arius of Alexan-
dria (d. 336) had a markedly Platonic tinge, presenting Christ as the created
Son of an utterly transcendent God rather than a flesh- and- blood man who
is also uncreated God. An appropriate scriptural formula eluded the bishops
summoned to settle the dispute at the Council of Nicaea in 325, so resort was
had to the philosophical term homoousios, “consubstantial.”^46 Second-
generation Arian controversialists like the Syrian Aetius (d. c. 366) or the
Cappadocian Eunomius (d. 394) studied Aristotle in Alexandria and then
displayed their mastery of the technical vocabulary in the Categories—so ide-
ally suited to the discussion of the divine attributes—during their controver-
sies with the proponents of Nicaea. In this way they might secure ecclesiasti-
cal patronage and even imperial favor. Some complained they had turned
theologia into technologia, “logic- chopping” that could be mastered from a
manual of withering, even sarcastic retorts such as Aetius’s Syntagmation.^47
While patristic interest in Aristotle grew much less fast than in Plato, he was
frequently invoked in the context of apologetic and polemic. It became a
commonplace that his categories and syllogisms were at the root of all
“heresy.”^48
The Carthaginian theologian Tertullian (d. c. 225) had already called down
a plague on Aristotle, who taught them dialectic, the art which de-
stroys as much as it builds, which changes its opinions like a coat, forces
its conjectures, is stubborn in argument, works hard at being conten-
tious and is a burden even to itself. For it reconsiders every point to
make sure it never finishes a discussion.^49
In the 370s and 380s Christian intellectuals began to pride themselves on
thinking “as fishermen” rather than “as Aristotle.”^50 Poses like this no doubt
explain why some patristic writers drew on Aristotle without mentioning his
name. But Nicaea had set the example of resort to philosophy. Later, both
46 M. Frede, “Les Catégories d’Aristote et les Pères de l’Église grecs,” in Bruun and Corti (eds), Ca-
tégories [5:5] 157–58.
47 On Aetius and Eunomius and their critics: R. Lim, Public disputation, power, and social order in
late Antiquity (Berkeley 1995) 112–38. Also L. R. Wickham, “The Syntagmation of Aetius the Ano-
mean,” Journal of theological studies 19 (1968) 532–69.
48 D. T. Runia, “Festugière revisited: Aristotle in the Greek Patres,” Vigiliae christianae 43 (1989)
1–34; J. Barnes, “Les Catégories et les Catégories,” and Frede, “Catégories” [5:46], in Bruun and Corti
(eds), Catégories [5:5] 58–60, 151–55.
49 Tertullian, The prescriptions against the heretics [ed. and tr. (French) R.- F. Refoulé (Paris 1957);
tr. S. L. Greenslade, Early Latin theolog y (London 1956) 31–64] 7.6–7.
50 Epiphanius, Panarion [ed. K. Holl (Leipzig 1915–33), revised J. Dümmer (Berlin 1980–), index
(Berlin 2006); tr. H. F. Williams (Leiden 1987–94)] 76.37.16; Gregory of Nazianzus, oration 23 [ed. and
tr. (French) J. Mossay (Paris 1980)] 12; E. Schwartz and others (eds), Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum
(Strasbourg 1914–) 2.5, 84.2–3; cf. A. Grillmeier, ““Piscatorie”—“Aristotelice,”” in id., Mit ihm und in
ihm (Freiburg 1978^2 ) 283–300; G. Podskalsky (tr. G. D. Metallenos), Ἡ ἑλληνικὴ θεολογία ἐπὶ Τουρκοκρατίας
1453–1821 (Athens 2005, revised edition) 44 n. 3.