Let’s discuss Athanasius of Alexandria!
St. Athanasius of Alexandria.
Athanasius of Alexandria is one of the most influential figures in Christianity. He was the Bishop of Alexandria, a city that was second to Rome alone in authority. As a young man he was present as the Council of Nicaea as an advisor to Alexander of Alexandria. It seems he became a Bishop at quite a young age since some accused him of not being thirty years old when he took the post as that was the minimum age one could become a Bishop. By that time he had already written the works known as On the Incarnation and Against the Heathen (which may have been a single work at first). These books remain standard reading for those interested in the development of Christian theology, especially Trinitarianism.
Athanasius was one of the earliest Bishops to hold such an office in the post-Constantine era. This is a time when Emperors and statesmen influenced the church unlike in years past. Athanasius remained consistent in his affirmations no matter who was in authority and no matter what their current position. This led to five different exiles from Alexandria! During some of those exiles he spent time in the desert with the monastics where he met the famous St. Anthony about whom he would write a popular hagiography.
“Athanasius Contra Mundum” is popular phrase that explains the dogmatic theologians quite well. It didn’t matter who was for him or against him, if needed he would stand “against the world” if he thought something was heretical. Although the Council of Nicaea seemed to have settled the question of the deity of Christ the influence of the Arian views continued to influence and push against the Council’s ruling. At one point it seemed (as St. Jerome would put it), “The whole world groaned and was amazed to find itself Arian.”
Athanasius may be one of the most important figures between the Council of Nicaea and the Council of Constantinople which many see as affirming and solidifying the decisions of the first council. He stood strong for Nicene Christology against Arianism affirming the full deity of the Son. Also, while Basil the Great is given most of the credit for the church coming around to calling the Spirit “God” one could argue that Athanasius’ Letters to Serapion on the Holy Spirit contain as much force as Basil’s work. I wrote a paper on this subject which you can find here.
These are my brief thoughts on Athanasius of Alexandria, let me know what else you find worth discussing about Athanasius.
__________
If you’d like to discuss Origen of Alexandria and Irenaeus of Lyons go here.
Athanasius was a great at winning arguments, even if that meant beating your opponent literally. Richard Rubenstein wrote a lively account of the fourth century church battles in “When Jesus Became God.” i think you would enjoy it.
I do remember a bit about the crowds using violence against the Arian Bishop who replaced Athanasius, but I don’t remember anything indicating direct involvement there…though to be honest, I don’t remember reading anything where he condemned it eitherl
It’s interesting, one as eminent as Sir Isaac Newton accused Athanasius of lying about Arius’ death in Paradoxical Questions concerning the morals & actions of Athanasius & his followers’ (1693) { a copy of which is available at newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk?
Two great resources for studying Athanasius are:
Athanasius: A Theological Introduction (Great Theologians Series) by Thomas Weinandy
Athanasius (Foundations of Theological Exegesis and Christian Spirituality) by Peter Leithart
These seminal works on Athanasius will more than provide the necessary context through which to read and understand Athanasius’ theology and person. Engaging in caricature and ad hominen attacks aren’t the best ways to go about getting at the man though; certainly his personal character is important (just as Calvin’s is), but what is under consideration is whether or not what Athanasius communicated was faithful in serving the Gospel or not. And he was faithful! (I’ll just leave it at assertion, and reference those books to substantiate that)
Does anyone know what is the first English translation of his writings in the 19th century? Translations and interpreters in the history are important for the study of the author.
Andrew
I don’t remember what Athanasius said about Arius’ death.
Bobby
I think I’d enjoy reading those. At this point though I am doing refresher sessions in preparation for my oral defense on the 21st. Maybe somewhere down the line!
@Bogo
I don’t know who was the first.
Interesting, as I just did a quick read-through of “On The Incarnation” last week.
I hope to follow this and learn more from you guys.
Jason
I could learn a lot from you right now. It’s been a while since I read it. Any thoughts you can share since it is fresh in your mind?
@Brian: Basically Sir Isaac Newton said Athanasius’ record of Arius’s death was not accurate nor fair.
Athanasius’ account (according to Newton) suggested Arius committed suicide in a bog-house, and that he died excommunicated from the church as a heretic. Apparently Newton believe Arius may have reconciled with the church, and believe Athanasius’ story as being false, spread 24 years after the death of Arius as a libel account ((in)vented by Athanasius (according to evidence Newton had seen)).
I personally have not read Athanasius’ account, although Newton had apparently read a letter Athanasius had wrote about the account of Arius’ death.
Having said this, I did not raise this controversy between Athanasius and later Newton to detract from Athanasius. I happen to like him quite a bit, just as I like Newton. About Athanasius I’d point out that the reason Athanasius’ dialectic was so effective was because his rhetoric built its logic up from simple syllogisms which were hard to counter.
Examples being:
“Only God can save; Jesus Christ saves; therefore, Jesus Christ is God”;
Or my very favourite:
“If the Father begat the Son, the Son was either begotten ex nihilo (out of nothing) or He wasn’t.”
“If He was begotten ex nihilio (out of nothing) He is not eternal since there is a point at which He existed as nothing”
“There is not point at which Jesus existed as nothing [John 1:1], therefore He could not have been begat ex nihilio.”
“If Jesus could not have been begat ex nihilio, He must have been begotten from some substance preceding creation [Col 1:15]. God’s preceded creation, therefore Jesus must have been begat from God’s own essence, thereby Jesus and God are of the same essence.
Patristic argumentation is always quite interesting to observe!
Brian,
What sticks out to me is that Athanasius spent his time affirming the deity of Christ. If one is not a careful reader he will think that Athanasius is a borderline Docetist.
Another thing that I noticed (which was my reason for reading it) was that Athanasius did not look at Jesus as being capable of erring as some do today. His main thrust was to say that Jesus became incarnate so that He might die and redeem us.
I honestly did a quick read-through to get a general view of his arguments, with the purpose in mind of going back more slowly.
Jason
Those are interesting observations. I did notice that he put more emphasis on the deity of Christ than with which I felt comfortable. I am glad to see I wasn’t the only one!
@Brian,
I was hoping that my comment would point Andrew T and Bondboy to something more fruitful in their studies on Athanasius. But I would definitely commend these to you when you have the time.
Brian,
I have no problem at all with his emphasis on the deity of Christ. I was simply a little surprised to see such an emphasis on it in a work on the incarnation.
There did seem to be a desire to counter some other ideas such as Arianism, or something similar. I’m guessing that led to somewhat of an imbalance in the manner in which he addressed the incarnation.
@Bobby Grow, thanks for the recommendations. Unnecessary but appreciated nonetheless.
The reason, I think, why he over emphasized the divinity of Christ is because much like modern apologist he didn’t want to leave his opponent with any wiggle room. Though it is interesting that he admited to “going beyond the NT evidence” in his formulation of the Trinity. But whatever you may think of that, you have to admit that he’s an excellent theologian and certainly one of my favorites.