ABSTRACT
Michel Barnes, writing in 1998, believed that 'the last fifteen years or so have seen a major re-evaluation of 'Arianism'; not the least of these re-evaluations is new doubt about the authenticity of the traditional category and designation 'Arian(ism)' (1998: 47); he recognised there that 'Arius' theology is now rehabilitated to this extent: it is clear that Arius' theology was not an alien theology, but a Christian theology which would have appeared familiar even to those who profoundly disagreed with it'. Gwynn declares it to be 'difficult to distinguish possible fact from polemical rhetoric' (2007: 132) and that 'it is difficult to exaggerate the influence that these Athanasian passages have exerted upon later reconstructions of the period following the Council of Nicaea'. Indeed he demonstrates that the heresy of which Athanasius speaks, Gwynn calls it 'Athanasian Arianism', 'does not derive from the writings of Arius or of the individuals who allegedly comprise the 'Eusebians'.
