G. C. Stead has recently pointed out that the attempt to solve the problem of Arian origins is beset by two difficulties, both due to the paucity of the information available to us: (i) our knowledge of Lucian of Antioch and his theology is too limited for us to be able to estimate the extent of Arius' debt to him, and (ii) we have too little information about the philosophy current in Alexandria during this period. Despite these limitations of our knowledge, and the further limitation indicated by M. F. Wiles that ‘our knowledge of the teaching of Arius is drawn for the most part from short doctrinal fragments chosen for polemical purposes by his opponents', we are forced either to refuse to pass any judgment-and this is difficult to do because of the critical nature of the controversy which arose over Arius’ teaching-or, on the basis of the fragmentary evidence we have, to form the hypothesis which accounts most adequately for that evidence.

In two studies published some years ago I put forward the hypothesis that there are some elements in Arian teaching whose derivation is difficult to trace to the Alexandrian tradition stemming from Origen, and that these elements are more probably derived from the Antiochene tradition, from Paul of Samosata through Lucian of Antioch.