Who or what caused the Arian Controversy?

In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, Arius caused the Controversy by developing a new heresy, opposing established orthodoxy, and by gaining many followers. The term "Arianism," by itself, implies that it is something developed by Arius: > Britannica defines Arianism as: “A heresy **first proposed by Arius** of > Alexandria that affirmed that Christ is not divine but a created > being.” > > Arianism is “a heresy of the Christian Church, **started by Arius** ... > who taught that the Son is not equivalent to the Father (όμοούστος = > consubstantialis), thereby provoking a serious schism in the Christian > Church” (Jewish Encyclopedia ). (Note that this quote explains "equivalent" as "same substance" (homoousios).) > > “Athanasius' account begins by presenting Arius as **the originator of a > new heresy**” (Ayres, p. 107). In other words, Arianism is something that Arius developed. He developed a new theology or heresy, which caused the Controversy because many people accepted it. However, Archbishop Rowan Williams, in a recent book on Arius, described him as a conservative, meaning that he defended the tradition, which would mean that he did not develop a new theology: > “Arius was a committed theological conservative; more specifically, a > conservative Alexandrian” (Williams, 175). > > “A great deal of recent work seeking to understand Arian spirituality > has, not surprisingly, helped to demolish the notion of Arius and his > supporters as deliberate radicals, attacking a time-honoured > tradition” (Williams, 21). > > “In Alexandria he (Arius) represented … a conservative theology” > (Williams, 233). Other authors added: > “Arius … represents a school … and the school was to some extent > independent of him. Arianism did not look back on him later with > respect and awe as its founder” (Hanson, 97). > > “Arius too, far from being an original thinker, was simply one more > adherent of the dyohypostatic (two hypostases) tradition” (Lienhard ). > > “My second theological trajectory is the one in which we locate Arius > himself. This loose alliance I will term ‘Eusebian’. When I use this > term I mean to designate any who would have found common ground with > either of Arius' most prominent supporters, Eusebius of Nicomedia or > Eusebius of Caesarea” (Ayres, p. 52). One comment is that those two things can be true at the same time. How would that be possible? Arius either developed a new theology or he did not. If he were a conservative Alexandrian, he was defending the traditional Alexandrian theology. Ken Graham says: "Would be better to quote Christian definitions rather than those of non-christian sources." Ken, if you knew anything about this subject, you would have known that the guys I quote are the world experts in the field, and they are all Catholics in good and regular standing. The problem is that people do not want to accept the revised account of the Arian Controversy: > “The study of the Arian problem over the last hundred years has been > like a long-distance gun trying to hit a target. The first sighting > shots are very wide of the mark, but gradually the shells fall nearer > and nearer. The diatribes of Gwatkin and of Harnack (published around > the year 1900) can today be completely ignored” (Hanson, p. 95-96). Dottard commented: > Arius initiated the new teaching that was rejected by the council of > Nicaea. The "controversy" arose because many recognized his teaching as > different from that of the NT which Nicaea was called to resolve. (It > did so because it essentially tried to meld Greek philosophy with > Biblical teaching which has always been a disaster. Dottard, you start by saying that Arius developed a new teaching. That is exactly what the experts are saying is not true.