SOURCE: Thomson, Robert W. “Introduction.” InAthanasius: “Contra Gentes” and “De Incarnatione,” edited and translated by Robert W. Thomson pp. xi-xx. Oxford: Oxford at the Clerendon Press, 1971.

[In the following excerpt, Thomson examines the personality of Athanasius, focusing on how it contributed to his turbulent career.]

Few Fathers of the Church have more captured the popular imagination than Athanasius of Alexandria. Exiled repeatedly, he came to enjoy an almost mythical reputation as the champion of Nicaea and the sole obstacle to an Arian empire. The significance of Athanasius' career was, however, much wider than the triumph of the Nicene expression homoousios. In the field of theology Athanasius brought controversy away from philosophic speculation to the problem of elucidating a faith already imparted to the church, where principles rather than specific words were all-important. He did not insist on the term homoousios until the 350s.¹ No less significant was his stand in the sphere of relations between the Church and the now Christian emperors. Despite his early willingness to appeal to Constantine, Athanasius adhered firmly to a policy of no co-operation when, for the sake of peace, the imperial authorities were prepared to compromise on what he believed to be principles of faith. Within his own archdiocese, Athanasius' long episcopate is also notable for the growth of a patriotic spirit among the Egyptian monks and an intensification of their loyalty to their bishop. In a larger context, Athanasius' friendship with the Western bishops and the popes marks a strengthening of ties between Alexandria and Rome, while his opposition to Eusebius of Nicomedia (later patriarch of Constantinople) and to Constantius was the prelude to the later ecclesiastical rivalry between Constantinople and Egypt.²

Athanasius was born about 295, being little over thirty at the time of his consecration as bishop of Alexandria on 8 June 328. Of his family³ and childhood nothing is known, though legend has sought to fill the gap. His formal education was somewhat restricted, but his abilities and piety drew him to the attention of Alexander, bishop of Alexandria from 312 to 328. As a deacon he became his secretary, and accompanied him to the council of Nicaea. On the death of Alexander he was elected to succeed him, but not without opposition from two groups, the Meletians and the Arians.⁴

The Meletian schism had begun over twenty years earlier, in 305. It was of a type long familiar to Christian churches after a period of persecution. How should those Christians who had succumbed to pressure and had sacrificed (or bought certificates of compliance) be treated? On what terms, if any, could they be readmitted to communion? Meletius, bishop of Lycopolis, while still in prison dissociated himself from the mild policy of Peter of Alexandria; he insisted that lapsed clergy must be replaced and that the laity could be readmitted only after all persecution had ended. He began to ordain on his own authority. Though this rigorist position did not finally prevail, the schism lasted well beyond the middle of the fourth century.

Opposition to Athanasius from the Arians was based on questions of faith, not order. Arius, a senior priest of Alexandria, had begun preaching that Christ, the Son of God, was not co-eternal with the uncreated Father. As Son he was created, an inferior deity, who had a beginning, because he was begotten. Only God the Father was unbegotten. Therefore Christ had a middle role between God and the world. Arius was denounced by Colluthus (by Meletius himself according to Epiphanius; Arius had once supported Meletius' strict policy but had later made his peace with Alexander). None the less he refused to recant. Deposed at an Egyptian synod in 323, Arius found support among several bishops in the East, notably Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea. The problem thus rapidly passed beyond the borders of Egypt and threatened the peace of the whole Eastern church. The emperor Constantine, thinking no important issue was involved, sent Hosius of Cordova to reconcile the two parties in Egypt. But passions and commitments had gone too far. The emperor therefore summoned a council to solve the dispute. It met at Nicaea in the spring of 325.

At Nicaea Arius was condemned, and an expression of faith expressly anathematizing his teaching approved. In this creed was included the term ‘consubstantial, homoousios’, to define the relation between the Father and the Son; it was later to be a stumbling-block for many. The Meletian schism was also discussed, but a lenient view taken: the Meletian clergy were to retain their functions and be integrated with the clergy of Alexander. The question of Easter and other disciplinary matters were also settled.⁵

When Athanasius became bishop as Alexander's successor he was thus faced with troubles at home and opposition abroad. His first years he spent visiting his archdiocese, but it was not long before complaints about his high-handedness reached the emperor. The most serious charge was that one of Athanasius' priests, Macarius, had overthrown an altar and broken a chalice in the church of a Meletian priest, Ischyras. Acquitted by the emperor, Athanasius was soon afterwards accused of murdering Arsenius, bishop of Hypsele, but the charge was disproved. Arsenius had been mistreated by Athanasius for his Meletian views and had escaped into hiding, but was discovered by the archbishop's supporters.

The Arian party had not been crushed at Nicaea, despite the emperor's measures. In 332 Arius was summoned to court and signed a declaration of faith which did not contain the homoousios. Constantine then directed Athanasius to receive back Arius, who no longer held such extreme views as had been condemned at Nicaea. But the archbishop, more aware than the emperor of the dogmatic issues at stake, refused. Meletian and Arian opposition to Athanasius in Egypt and the support given in the East by prominent bishops to an Arianizing theology so disturbed the religious peace of the empire (for which Constantine considered himself responsible to God)⁶ that the emperor was easily persuaded to summon a council at Tyre in 335, the thirtieth anniversary of his reign. Athanasius' hesitation in setting out for Tyre, where the council was weighted against him, is evident from a letter written by a Meletian to two of his priests in 335.⁷ But Athanasius dared not disobey the emperor and eventually set sail with a large number of supporting Egyptian bishops. These had not been invited and were not allowed to sit.

The old charges were brought up again, and when Athanasius realized that his case was not being fairly assessed and a hostile commission had been deputed to investigate in Egypt, he left for Constantinople. In his absence he was deposed. The bishops at Tyre were summoned to Jerusalem to the dedication of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. There they received Constantine's declaration of faith—the same that Arius had given earlier—and the latter, together with his followers, was restored.

Arriving in Constantinople, Athanasius petitioned the emperor in the street. At first Constantine was sympathetic, and summoned the council to the capital. But a combination of Athanasius' own violent words and a new charge that he had threatened to interfere with the shipment of corn from Egypt to Constantinople persuaded the emperor to remove his turbulent archbishop. Athanasius was exiled to Treveri (Trier), the court of Constantine's eldest son, Constantine II. Unlike most exiled bishops, he was not replaced, and the Meletian leader John Arkaph was also banished. Athanasius remained in contact with his diocese by letter.

On the death of Constantine (May 337) Athanasius and other exiled bishops were able to return to their sees. Opposition, however, did not die down. Eusebius of Nicomedia, now bishop of Constantinople, and his followers had the emperor's ear, and several of the newly returned bishops had to leave again for exile. Athanasius himself was declared deposed by a council held at Antioch (339), where the Eusebian party ordained Gregory of Cappadocia as archbishop of Alexandria in his stead. Gregory was installed by the prefect of Egypt amid scenes of violence, and Athanasius left for Rome.

The pope, Julius, welcomed Athanasius and other exiled bishops, including Marcellus of Ancyra. They were exonerated of charges against them by a council of Italian bishops, but the fact that Marcellus had been accused of heresy (Sabellianism), while the charges against Athanasius had been of a disciplinary nature, meant an unfortunate obscuring of the issues, and Athanasius later found it necessary to refuse communion with Marcellus. For the confrontation between Athanasius and the Eusebian party became more and more a theological battle fought with creeds and dogmatic formulae, in which association with suspected heretics was a damaging accusation.

In 343 the Eastern and Western bishops met at Sardica (Sofia) on the initiative of Constans, now emperor of the whole West after the death of Constantine II. The two groups were unable to come to terms. The Eastern bishops withdrew to Philippopolis in Thrace and anathematized not only Athanasius but the Pope and all who had caused Athanasius to be readmitted to communion. At Sardica the Western bishops recognized the innocence of Athanasius and Marcellus and deposed those who had taken over the sees of all rehabilitated bishops. The split remained. However, Constans continued to put pressure on his brother Constantius, who relaxed the persecution against the Eastern supporters of Athanasius and invited Athanasius to his court. But only after the death of Gregory in Alexandria (June 345) did Athanasius venture to accept. In October of the following year he re-entered Alexandria to a triumphant welcome.

For the next ten years Athanasius was able to care for his archdiocese in person, but the struggle was not over. Until Constans died in the revolt of Magnentius (350) the situation was peaceful, but when Constantius became sole ruler of the whole empire in 353 his sympathies for the Arianizing party found no further restraint. He obtained a condemnation of Athanasius from the bishops of Gaul; although Arianism had not troubled the church in Gaul, only Paulinus of Treveri, where Athanasius had been exiled eighteen years previously, refused to sign. Another council at Milan, called at the request of Pope Liberius, Julius' successor, was also browbeaten into condemning Athanasius. The latter was not dismissed from his see directly. Constantius did not officially rescind his earlier permission to let Athanasius return, but resorted to local force. Duke Syrianus with a force of soldiers invaded the church of Theonas on the night of 8 February 356, when Athanasius and the congregation were holding a service of preparation for the next day's liturgy. Athanasius was removed to safety by his supporters after the congregation had escaped. He disappeared into hiding in the desert for the next six years.

Early in 357 his replacement entered Alexandria—George of Cappadocia, former tutor of Julian, who had made a name for himself as a profiteering pork contractor to the army. Violence was used to subdue Athanasius' supporters and churches were handed over to the Arians. But George's policy aroused such resistance that in fear for his life he withdrew from Alexandria the following year. After Julian's troops had proclaimed Julian as Augustus, George decided to return; but when news of Constantius' death reached Alexandria the mob imprisoned and murdered him. (Julian took advantage of his unmourned demise to acquire his collection of books.) Athanasius' exile ended (February 362) when Julian became emperor and permitted the bishops exiled by Constantius to return.

In Alexandria Athanasius summoned a council of bishops still loyal to the Nicene faith (the ‘council of confessors’, as most of the bishops present had suffered for their faith). Athanasius' tone was accommodating. Those who through fear had signed the statements of faith imposed on the recent councils of Rimini and Seleucia by Constantius were pardoned. But the situation in Antioch was more troubled. A delicate synodal letter was issued, in which the question of terminology was settled in a generous way; but the split between the Arians and the Nicene party, themselves divided between the ‘old guard’ and those who had slipped away and were now offered readmittance to communion, was not healed in Athanasius' lifetime.

Athanasius' energetic activities outside Egypt aroused Julian's displeasure. Once more he was ordered to leave Egypt. From October 362 until the death of Julian in June 363 he remained in hiding in the desert. But for the third time the death of an emperor brought about a direct reversal of Athanasius' fortunes. He was recalled by Jovian and hastened to meet the new emperor at Antioch. Jovian, however, died at the beginning of the next year, and his successor Valentinian, though a supporter of the Nicene faith, appointed his brother Valens, who was of Arian sympathies, as fellow Augustus in the East. Valens commanded all bishops exiled by Constantius and recalled by Julian to leave their sees. For the fifth time Athanasius had to leave Alexandria. He spent four more months in hiding (October 365 to 1 February 366). Valens suddenly rescinded his command in order to conciliate opinion at the time of Procopius' revolt. For the last seven years of his life Athanasius lived in peace in Alexandria. He died on 2 May 373, having spent in exile seventeen of his forty-six years as bishop.

Athanasius' literary activity reflects the various facets of his own character—violent and fiery, uncompromising on the faith, and quick to brand his opponents as enemies of God, yet willing to overlook differences of language where the essential was agreed. He was unphilosophic and repetitive in argument, but had a profound grasp of scriptural exegesis. And, as a solid foundation to all, he showed a deep concern for the spiritual development of his flock, with a strong sympathy for the ascetic tendencies of the age.

This last is clearly evident from his most influential work, the Life of Anthony,⁸ a recasting of the classical biographical form, which served as a model for later Christian hagiography and which had a profound effect in bringing monastic ideals to the West. Already during his second exile some of his monastic followers had aroused great interest at Rome. He also wrote several treatises on virginity, which had a wide circulation in Coptic, Syriac, and Armenian versions. Athanasius' solicitude for his diocese is reflected in the Festal Letters, issued in accordance with an Alexandrian tradition begun by Dionysius. They announced the date of Lent and Easter, and served as an occasion to discuss current questions and problems. Athanasius also engaged in correspondence with many notables outside Egypt, primarily on dogmatic matters.

Second in contemporary influence to the Life of Anthony were the various polemical apologies composed after Athanasius' second exile and during the early years of his third (when he was hidden in the desert by his devoted supporters, the Egyptian monks). Here also Athanasius created a new genre of Christian literature, in which original documents, letters, and synodal decrees are presented in self-vindication. Unfavourable evidence is suppressed, yet these apologies are of great historical interest. Their often vitriolic and sometimes scurrilous tone did not detract from their appeal. Earlier than the apologies are his most important dogmatic works, Against the Pagans and On the Incarnation, and the three treatises Against the Arians.

A completely different side of Athanasius emerges from his commentaries on some books of the Old Testament. Only the Commentary on the Psalms has survived, though in incomplete fragments. It evinces an allegorical approach to scriptural exegesis in great contrast to Athanasius' method in his dogmatic and polemical works.⁹

The great interest of the [Oratorio contra Gentes] is that it shows that already in his first work Athanasius had developed most of the characteristics of his later thinking. His first concern was with the Christian's spiritual growth. But awareness and knowledge of God can come only through Christ. The emphasis in Athanasius' teaching is therefore on the doctrine of redemption, to which a right understanding of the divinity and humanity of Christ is essential. Arian notions struck at the very root of the true significance of redemption—if Christ is not truly God in the same sense as the Father (of the same substance …), then he cannot have redeemed men from sin and death. In this double work Athanasius first explains how man fell from his ability to know God, adding traditional refutations of the inanity of idolatry, the direct consequence of man's turning from the worship of God to the worship of material things under the influence of sensual desire. The second part is concerned with the redemption of fallen man by Christ. This has two aspects, the conquering of physical death which was the consequence of sin, and the turning back of men's souls to God that they might understand him and inherit immortality, thereby becoming themselves divine.

The Discourses against the Arians are concerned with a specific aspect of the more general ideas put forward in Athanasius' first work. The redemption of mankind can only be meaningful if Christ was indeed truly God. In the first book the Arian denial of this is first refuted, and the definition of Nicaea that the Son is unbegotten and of the same … [indivisible essence] as the Father defended. The other two books substantiate these arguments with careful exegesis of the passages in Scripture which refer to the relation between God the Father and God the Son, and to the Incarnation.

The importance of Athanasius' dogmatic theology does not lie in his originality, but in his subordination of reason to faith. He was concerned with the exposition of a given tradition, not with speculative metaphysics. He was thus not limited to certain formulae but to certain basic truths which transcended the words in which they were framed. His earlier works did not insist on homoousios to explain the relation between the Father and the Son; less precise terms were acceptable, and in later life he was willing to admit different interpretations of the important word hypostasis. Likewise in the question of the relation between God and man in Christ Athanasius used a very wide range of expressions. What he considered fundamental was a proper emphasis on the consubstantiality of the three persons of the Trinity, and particularly on the unity of Christ. For his unyielding devotion to these principles he was rightly regarded as ‘the pillar of the church’ and the ‘epitome of virtue’.¹⁰

Notes

1. In the Epistula de Decretis Nicaenae Synodi. On the term cf. J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (London, 1950), pp. 242 ff.

2. Cf. N. H. Baynes, ‘Alexandria and Constantinople: A Study in Ecclesiastical Diplomacy’, reprinted in Byzantine Studies and Other Essays (London, 1960), pp. 97-115.

3. A brother Peter succeeded him as bishop. For the life of Athanasius see the works cited in the Bibliography.

4. On the Meletian schism see notably H. I. Bell, Jews and Christians in Egypt (London, 1924), pp. 38 ff.; on Arianism see the bibliographies in J. Quasten, Patrology iii (Utrecht, Antwerp, 1960), pp. 7-13.

5. On the council of Nicaea cf. Hefele-Leclerq, Histoire des conciles i (Paris, 1907); for the creed cf. Kelly, op. cit., pp. 205 ff.

6. On Constantine's attitude to the Church cf. N. H. Baynes, ‘Constantine the Great and the Christian Church’, Proceedings of the British Academy 15 (1929); A. H. M. Jones, Constantine and the Conversion of Europe (London, 1948).

7. Cf. H. I. Bell, op. cit., pp. 53 ff.

8. See the important article of H. Dörries, ‘Die Vita Antonii als Geschichtsquelle’, Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, phil.-hist. Klasse, 1949, nr. 14, reprinted with revisions in his Wort und Stunde i (Göttingen, 1966), pp. 145-224. On Athanasius' works in general see Quasten, op. cit., pp. 20-79.

9. Cf. M.-J. Rondeau, ‘Une nouvelle preuve de l'influence littéraire d'Eusèbe de Césarée sur Athanase: l'interprétation des psaumes’, Recherches de science religieuse 56 (1968), 385-434.

10. Gregory of Nazianzen, Oratio xxi. … But due allowance should be made for the rhetorical nature of Gregory's panegyric. …

Abbreviations and Bibliography

The following abbreviations are frequently used in the notes:

Camelot = Th. Camelot, Athanase d'Alexandrie, Contre les païens et sur l'incarnation du Verbe, Sources chrétiennes 18 (Paris, 1946).

Casey, Short Recension = R. P. Casey, The De Incarnatione of Athanasius: Part 2, The Short Recension, Studies and Documents 14 (London, Philadelphia, 1946).

Grillmeier, Christ = A. Grillmeier, Christ in christian tradition (London, 1965).

Kehrhahn = T. Kehrhahn, De sancti Athanasii quae fertur Contra Gentes Oratione (Berlin, 1913).

Lampe, Lexicon = G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford, 1961-8).

Müller = G. Müller, Lexicon Athanasianum, Berlin, 1952.

Opitz = H.-G. Opitz, Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung der Schriften des Athanasius, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 23 (Berlin, Leipzig, 1935).

Quasten = J. Quasten, Patrology iii (Utrecht, Antwerp, 1960).

Ryan = G. J. Ryan, The De Incarnatione of Athanasius: Part 1, The Long Recension Manuscripts, Studies and Documents 14 (London, Philadelphia, 1945).

The abbreviations of works by Athanasius and other Fathers may be elucidated from Lampe, Lexicon, pp. xi-xlv.

For abbreviations used in the apparatus criticus see below, pp. xxxii-xxxv. Old Testament references are to the chapter and verse of the Septuagint version.

In addition to those cited above, the following works are useful:

G. Bardy, Saint Athanase (Paris, 1914).

N. H. Baynes, Byzantine studies and other essays (London, 1960).

———‘Constantine the Great and the Christian Church’, from the Proceedings of the British Academy 15 (1929).

H. I. Bell, Jews and Christians in Egypt (London, 1924).

H. F. von Campenhausen, Griechische Kirchenväter (Stuttgart, 1955).

H. Dörries, ‘Die Vita Antonii als Geschichtsquelle’, Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, phil.-hist. Klasse, 1949, nr. 14, reprinted with revisions in his Wort und Stunde i (Göttingen, 1966), pp. 145-224.

S. L. Greenslade, Church and state from Constantine to Theodosius (London, 1954).

A. H. M. Jones, Constantine and the conversion of Europe (London, 1948).

J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian creeds (London, 1950).

G. L. Prestige, Fathers and heretics (London, 1940).

———. God in patristic thought (London, 1936).

E. Schwartz, ‘Zur Geschichte des Athanasius’, Nachrichten der K. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, phil.-hist. Klasse, 1904, 1905, 1908, 1911, reprinted as Gesammelte Schriften 3 (Berlin, 1959).

K. M. Setton, Christian attitude towards the Emperor in the fourth century (New York, 1941).

A. Stülcken, Athanasiana, Texte und Untersuchungen, N.F., IV. Band, 4. Heft (Leipzig, 1899).

For full bibliographies see the chapter on Athanasius in Quasten, Patrology iii, and the annual Bibliographia Patristica (Berlin).

This edition was finished before the two important works of J. Roldanus (Le Christ et l'homme dans la théologie d'Athanase d'Alexandrie. Leiden, 1968) and E. P. Meijering (Orthodoxy and Platonism in Athanasius, Leiden, 1968) were available to me. The latter has a valuable paraphrase and commentary on the contra Gentes-de Incarnatione (pp. 5-58). L. Leone also has provided useful Patristic and classical parallels in his edition of the contra Gentes (Sancti Athanasii Contra Gentes, Collana di Studi greci 43, Naples, 1965).