The Bible in Athanasius of Alexandria (Bible in Ancient Christianity) [1 ed.] 0391041762, 9780391041769

Citation preview

THE BIBLE IN ATHANAS IUS OF ALEXANDRIA

THE BIBLE IN ANCIENT CHRISTIANITY D.

General Editor JEFFREY BINGHAM

Editorial Board BRIAN ROBIN

E. DALEY M. JENSEN

CHRISTOPH MARKSCHIES

A. TILLEY ROBERT L. WILKEN FRANCES M. YOUNG

MAUREEN

VOLUME 2

THE BIBLE IN ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

BY

JAMES D. ERNEST

BRILL ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS, INC. BOSTON • LEIDEN

2004

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Ernest, James D. The Bible in Athanasius of Alexandria / by James D. Ernest. p. cm. - (The Bible in ancient Christianity; v. 2) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 0-391-04176-2 1. Bible-Criticism, interpretation, etc.-History. 2. Bible-Use-History. 3. Athanasius, Saint, Patriarch of Alexandria, d. 373. 1. Title. II. Series. BS500E76 2004 220.6'092-dc22 2004045754

ISSN 1542-1295 ISBN 0-391-04176-2 © Copyright 2004 by Brill Academic Publishers, Inc., Boston All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

for Beth

CONTENTS

Preface ............................................................................................ ix List of Tables ............................................................................... xiii 1. Introduction: The Study of Athanasius and of His Use of Scripture ................ 1 Studies of Athanasius's Use ofScripture ............................... 6 Studies of Non-Athanas ian Use of Scripture ....................... 28 The Present Study ..................................................................... 38 2. The Earth Full of the Knowledge of the Lord: The Bible in the Apologetic Writings ...................................... .43 The Purpose and Shape of the Double Apology .................. 51 Uses of Scripture ................................................................. 67 Use of Scripture in Relation to Earlier Apologies ................ 98

3. The Word Enfleshed: The Bible in the Dogmatic-Polemical Writings ...................... 105 Uses of Scripture ................................................................ 113 Interpretation ...................................................................... 124 Metanarrative ..................................................................... 131 Images ................................................................................ 151 Words ................................................................................. 159 4. Conflict and Imitation: The Bible in the Historical-Polemical Writings ...................... 183 T{mos;, TIapaoEl 'Ylla, Exemplum ....................................... 184 Uses of Scripture ................................................................ 198 The Historical-Polemical Treatises .................................... 208 Constantius Antichrist. ....................................................... 242 Other Negative Exempla .................................................... 259

Vlll

CONTENTS

5. The Word Lived: The Bible in the Pastoral Writings .......................................... 269 Uses of Scripture ................................................................ 274 Earlier Letters to Monastics ............................................... 277 The Life ofAntony .............................................................. 293 Later Letters ....................................................................... 322 Canonized Books and Other Books ................................... 336 6. Conclusion: Athanasius in Light ofRis Use ofScripture ........................... 353 Review ............................................................................... 354 Assessment ......................................................................... 362 Prospect .............................................................................. 371 Appendixes A. Works of Athanasius .......................................................... 375 B. Scripture Index to Selected Greek Writings of Athanasius .. 380 C. Terms Used in the Tables .................................................. .419 D. The Date of Against the Pagans and On the Incarnation ..423 E. Kehrhahn's Description of Athanasius's Working Method in Against the Pagans and On the Incarnation .... .425 F. The Influence of Eusebius's Theophany on Athanasius ... .427 G. The Authenticity of Against the Arians 3 ......................... .429 R. Exegetical Teaching and Learning in the Homily on Luke 12:10 .......................................................................... 431 I. Athanasius and the Antichrist Tradition ........................... .433 J. The Authenticity of the Life ofAntony .............................. .435 Bibliography A. Editions and Translations .................................................. .43 7 B. Studies ................................................................................ 441 Indexes A. Subjects .............................................................................. 458 B. Greek Words and Phrases ................................................. .468 C. Modem Authors ................................................................. 471 D. Athanasian Texts ................................................................ 475 E. Scripture References ......................................................... .478

PREFACE

In its original dissertation form, this work was titled "Uses of Scripture in the Writings of Athanasius of Alexandria," where "uses" meant both individual citations, allusions, etc., and the several aims served by these uses collectively. I had been tempted to call it "The Presence of Scripture ... " to avoid a possible misreading of "U ses" to the effect that the Bible is only or primarily a tool that Athanasius controls. The title of this book, The Bible in Athanasius of Alexandria, by eliding the phrase "the writings of' hints that the power dynamic runs also in the opposite direction: the Bible permeates his writings because it permeates (although of course not without admixture of his own circumstances and tendencies) his mind and heart. This is a study of the variegated ways in which the Bible (as Scripture) functions in shaping, defining, and coloring the theological and ethical self-understanding and teaching of one of the most memorable and controversial figures in the early church. Readers wishing to get straight to the big-picture conclusions will find in the first two sections of the last chapter a concise summary of the preceding chapters and an assessment of Athanasius in light of them. But really the point of this study is to explore how we may carefully observe even small details and subtle nuances in an early Christian writer's use of Scripture, and how these observations can point us to a fuller understanding of that writer's whole world of discourse and action; and that exploration is carried out in chapters 2 through 5, each pertaining to one genre of his writings. The first chapter describes some of the previous scholarship and lays out some of the method I have used. I hope that students of Athanasius will find my results of interest and that students of other early Christian writers may be helped by observing the shortcomings and successes my working method. My initial and abiding sentiment upon completing this work was a heartfelt and emphatic "thanks be to God." I also wish to express my gratitude to others, beginning with the members of my dissertation committee. My director, Pheme Perkins, throughout my time in the Boston College-Andover Newton Joint Doctoral Program patiently

x

PREFACE

answered my questions on diverse topics, usually with an impromptu status quaestionis and bibliographic pointers. During the dissertation phase she provided the right mix of prodding, criticism, advice, and encouragement. Brian Daley, S.J., taught my introductory courses in patristic theology and co-taught with Lloyd Patterson, of blessed memory, the Athanasius seminar which gave this project its first impetus. I deeply appreciate both his erudition and his generous spirit. Mark Burrows contributed insight gained in his studies of hermeneutics especially in the medieval period. Khaled Anatolios, whose own earlier dissertation on Athanasius in the same program helped me with various historical-theological issues, also contributed thoughtful comments. Longer interaction with all four members of the committee could no doubt have improved this book infinitely. Of my several successive directors of graduate studies in the Boston College Theology Department I must acknowledge especially the teaching, advice, encouragement, and friendship of John Darr. Other particularly helpful members of the Boston College community were Stephen Brown, Shirley Gee, Linda Y ood, Claudette Picklesimer, Ron Marr, Robert Daly, S.J., Donald Dietrich. lowe much to more teachers than I can name here but will mention particularly Gerald Hawthorne, Gordon Fee, Charles Carlston, and Gabriel Fackre. Numerous staff members at Boston College, at st. Anselm College, and elsewhere provided invaluable assistance. I am grateful to the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at Boston College for financial support of my degree program, including the dissertation fellowship that made possible all of my preliminary textual work, and to the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation for support of the leave of absence during which most of the actual writing was accomplished. I hope that my debts to the larger scholarly community, and especially to students of Athanasius of several generations and nations, are plainly evident from the footnotes and the bibliography. I must offer particular thanks to Charles Kannengiesser, who early on gave me offprints of a number of his articles, and to David Brakke, who provided me with offprints and prepublication versions of several articles and of his English versions of Syriac and Coptic Athanasian works. Their kind encouragement makes neither of them responsible for any deficiencies in my use of their valuable scholarship. Much of my actual writing occurred during a leave of absence from my editorial responsibilities at Hendrickson Publishers. I am grateful for the support, encouragement, and forbearance of all of my

PREFACE

Xl

colleagues during my time there, including especially Stephen Hendrickson, David Townsley, Patrick Alexander, John Kutsko, Phil Frank, and Shirley Decker-Lucke. I appreciate also the encouragement given by my current colleagues at Baker Academic. For offering this work a place in this series I thank series editor Jeffrey Bingham, Brill North America publishing director Patrick Alexander, and the anonymous members of the series board who read the manuscript and offered numerous perceptive suggestions. It would have taken a better scholar and theologian than I have yet become to implement them all fully, but their suggestions, to the extent that I was able to follow them, made this a better book. My parents, Darrell and Dolores Ernest, have always been unfailingly supportive. Numerous personal friends, former teachers, fellow church members, and relatives supported this work through their words of encouragement and their prayers. My family sacrificed the most to make this book possible. My wife, Beth (nee Jenkins), believed in me, encouraged me, and took on an unreasonable share of the burden of keeping our household going while also managing her own demanding responsibilities in parish ministry. Our children, Miriam and Samuel, allowed me to disappear at all hours into my study, which they decorated at various stages with their notes and posters of encouragement. Although the point of this opus is not to praise "our father Athanasius among the saints" (as manuscripts of his writings often style him) but to study him, the reader will see that I have done so with a certain sympathy. I hope that this book may in some way contribute to the understanding and experience of Scripture as "wellspring of life" (to use his phrase) in the church today.

LIST OF TABLES 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-8 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 4-6 4-7 4-8

The Introduction to Against the Pagans ............................... 52 The Second Section of the Introduction to On the Incarnation ........................................................................... 62 Uses of Scripture in Against the Pagans and On the Incarnation ......................... .................................................. 67 Uses of Scripture in Selected Writings ................................ 68 Uses of Scripture and Citation Formulas in Against the Pagans and On the Incarnation ........................................... 70 Canonical Distribution of Uses of Scripture in Against the Pagans .... ........................................................................ 84 Canonical Distribution of Uses of Scripture in On the Incarnation 33-40 ................................................................ 86 Canonical Distribution of Uses of Scripture in On the Incarnation 1-32,41-57 ...................................................... 88 The Biblical Dossier of the Encyclical Letter ofAlexander concerning the Deposition ofArius (Henos somatos) ....... 107 Uses of Scripture in Against the Arians 1-3 ...................... 114 Canonical Distribution of Uses of Scripture in Against the Arians 1-3 .................................................................... 116 Disputed Biblical Texts in Against the Arians 1-3 ............ 118 Instances of Certain Adverbs in Selected Works of Athanasius ...................................................................... 147 Touchstone Texts in Against the Arians 1-3 ..................... 154 Correlation Modes .............................................................. 199 Canonical Distribution of Uses of Scripture in the Historical-Polemical Writings ............................................ 202 Average Size of Citations and Quotations in the Historical-Polemical Writings ............................................ 206 Uses of Scripture in the Historical-Polemical Writings ..... 207 The Citation of Judges 19 in the Circular Letter ............... 212 Correlation with Scripture in the Defense before Constantius ................. ........................................................ 220 Frequencies of Correlation Types in the Defense before Constantius .... ..................................................................... 224 An Extended Reminiscence of Gal 1 in the Defense before Constantius ............................................................. 227

XIV

LIST OF TABLES

4-9 Correlation with Scripture in the History of the Arians ..... 244 4-10 Frequencies of Correlation Types in the History of the Arians ........................................................................... 254 5-1 Uses of Scripture in the Pastoral Writings ......................... 275 5-2 Canonical Distribution of Uses of Scripture in the Pastoral Writings ................................................................ 278 5-3 Uses of Scripture in the Letter to Ammoun ........................ 281 5-4 Correlation with Scripture in the Letter to Dracontius ...... 290 5-5 Set Speeches of Antony in the Life ofAntony .................... 297 5-6 Uses of Scripture in the Life ofAntony .............................. 299 5-7 Correlation with Scripture in the Life ofAntony ................ 302 5-8 Uses of Scripture in the First Letter to Monks ................... 324 5-9 Uses of Scripture in the Letter to Rufinianus ..................... 328 5-10 Uses of Scripture in the Letters to Horsisius ...................... 331 5-11 An Allusion to (Adaptation of) Luke 1: 1--4 in Festal Letter 39 .................................................................. 340 5-12 The Biblical Canon of Festal Letter 39 .............................. 341 5-13 Canonical Distribution of Uses of Scripture in Selected Writings of Athanasius ........................................ 348 C-l Typographical Markup ofInstances of Scripture Use ...... .420 C-2 Definitions of Terms Describing Use type ........................ .421 C-3 Definitions of Numeric Terms .......................................... .422

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Study of Athanasius and of His Use of Scripture Long centuries of Christian tradition regarded Athanasius of Alexandria with pure reverence as the sainted bishop and theologian who almost single-handedly turned back the Arian threat of the fourth century-a hagiographical attitude which the ripening of critical scholarship undermined.! In the middle of the 19th century, Mohler's biography still praised Athanasius as a saint beloved by all who knew him well. For Newman, Athanasius was a hero, the very model of a bishop, writer, and theologian. Harnack credited Athanasius with returning the church of his day from political distractions to a focus on the preaching of salvation through Christ. Archibald Robertson (editor of the Athanasius translations in the NPNF) believed that even those who did not credit Athanasius with singlehandedly saving the Truth from its enemies nevertheless admired and respected him-even Gibbon. 2 But Gibbon already checked the very 1. What follows here is only a very concise and selective overview of the secondary literature on Athanasius in general. F. L. Cross, The Study of St. Athanasius (Oxford: Clarendon, 1945), assessed the history of scholarship up to the midtwentieth century. A bibliography of the secondary literature published up to around 1992 occupies pp. 155~344 of Christel Butterweck's Athanasius von Alexandrien: Bibliographie (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1995); a final, unnumbered page of this book lists thirteen additional items published by 1995. As Butterweck points out (paraphrasing what she says on p. 13): Athanasius's contacts with the earliest monks as well as with numerous important church and secular leaders, and as a "theologian and church politician" (here Butterweck is alluding to the title of an article by Schneemelcher) left such a mark on church history and the history of dogma that a bibliography on his life and works would almost have to incorporate the whole bibliography on the fourth century. Thus even this massive (but nevertheless very useful, esp. because of the Schlagwortregister) bibliography is by design only partial. Now see also the thorough new literature review and bibliography by lohan Leemans, "Thirteen Years of Research on Athanasius (1985~1998): A Survey and a Bibliography," Sacris erudiri 39 (2000): 105-217. 2. Gibbon, who in general is highly critical of the early Christian leaders, does in fact speak highly of "the intrepid Athanasius" (The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire [ed. J. B. Bury; New York: Heritage, 1946], 601). For example, he offers this summary: "Amidst the storms of persecution, the archbishop of Alexandria was patient of labour, jealous of fame, careless of safety; and, although

2

CHAPTER ONE

positive assessment of Athanasius in his text with more critical comments in his footnotes, a foreshadowing of unmuted criticism to come. 3 Toward the end of the 19th century, Otto Seeck charged that Athanasius had forged documents in his historical and apologetic writings. In the first decade of the twentieth century, Eduard Schwartz portrayed him as ruthless and domineering, a view supported in 1924 by H. I. Bell's publication of a papyrus apparently validating charges that Athanasius used brutal violence against Meletian monks. Gibbon's "intrepid Athanasius" becomes "an utterly intransigent character."4 More recently Timothy Barnes portrayed Athanasius as a scheming, lying, and violent tyrant. His comparison of Athanasius to a modem gangster in Constantine and Eusebius is widely quoted, and his more recent Athanasius and Constantius highlights the bishop's skill as a liar. 5 Where such views caught on, interest in Athanasius's writings as theology waned; they were seen rather as propaganda supporting a quest for political power. Accordingly a leading historian of rhetoric describes him as "a skilled but unscrupulous dialectician whose invectives are not pleasant reading."6 The dissonance between the hagiographical and the demonizing interpretations has generated a more balanced view. The character of Athanasius was at least partially rehabilitated in 1988, when Duane his mind was tainted by the contagion of fanaticism, Athanasius displayed a superiority of character and abilities, which would have qualified him, far better than the degenerate sons of Constantine, for the government of a great monarchy. His learning was much less profound and extensive than that of Eusebius of Caesarea, and his rude eloquence could not be compared with the polished oratory of Gregory or Basil; but, whenever the primate of Egypt was called upon to justifY his sentiments or his conduct, his unpremeditated style, either of speaking or writing, was clear, forcible, and persuasive." See Leslie W. Barnard, "Edward Gibbon on Athanasius," pp. 361-70 in Arianism: Historical and Theological Reassessments (ed. R. C. Gregg; Cambridge, Mass.: The Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1985). 3. Barnes, "Edward Gibbon on Athanasius." 4. This is the first mention of Athanasius in A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1986), at 1:88. This study was originally published in 1964. 5. Barnes says that Athanasius "organized an ecclesiastical mafia" in order to bolster his power over against the emperor by destabilizing the city of Alexandria and that "like a modem gangster, he evoked widespread mistrust, proclaimed total innocence-and usually succeeded in evading conviction on specific charges" (230). -Barnes's two books contribute immeasurably to Athanasian studies, not because of what they say about Athanasius's character or theology but in the areas of chronology and political relations between the emperors and the church. 6. George Kennedy, A New History of Classical Rhetoric (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994),264.

INTRODUCTION

3

Arnold argued that Bell had misconstrued the evidence of the papyri.? Others, including Frances Young, Leslie Barnard, Christopher Stead, and Martin Tetz, had already been focusing again on Athanasius's positive contributions while acknowledging the evidence for certain flaws. 8 The books and articles of Charles Kannengiesser focus attention on the political and especially the local Alexandrian social circumstances in which Athanasius operated, but whereas the critical approaches of Schwartz and others sometimes obviate serious consideration of the Athanasian texts as theology, Kannengiesser's references to social setting enable a theological reading of a particular kind. He concludes that unlike Arius, whom he sees as a thirdcentury Origenian interested in working out certain problems in speculative theology, Athanasius represents not an intellectual elite but the "silent majority" of Alexandrian Christians who hoped for salvation in Christ and had no use for notions that might undercut the biblical basis of that hope. That is, Athanasius' s concerns as a theologian were not speculative but ecclesial and pastoral. They came out of a church that could no longer engage in the relatively pure spiritual reflection that is possible only in sectarian isolation but had been drawn into the maelstrom of imperial politics. Kannengieser's description of Arius is probably destined to remain controversial, since evidence for Arius's actual teaching is scarce,9 but the exposition of a central pastoral concern in Athanasius's anti-Arian dogmatic writings is well established and crucial to understanding those works. The most recent major studies of Athanasius, with their diverse interests and methodologies, contribute in different ways to a bal7. His book, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1991), includes as a section of its first chapter a review of nineteenth- and twentieth-century views of Athanasius (11-23). This material was also published separately as "Athanasian Historiography: A Century of Revision," Coptic Church Review 12 (1991): 3-14. My remarks here draw especially on this chapter of Arnold and on some of Kannengiesser's articles, especially "St. Athanasius of Alexandria Rediscovered: His Political and Pastoral Achievement," Coptic Church Review 9 (1988): 68-74. 8. See the bibliography. Even more positive appreciations have been forthcoming from writers who want to appeal to him in support of current concerns, e.g., Orthodoxy or ecumenism (Florovsky, Thomas Torrance, and others). Concise and balanced is Peter Brown, The Rise of Western Christendom (2d edition; Oxford: Blackwell, 2003), 79-80. 9. The literature regarding Arius is large. Major treatments include Robert C. Gregg, ed., Arianism: Historical and Theological Reassessments (Patristic Monograph Series, 11; Cambridge, Mass.: The Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1985); and Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition (2d edition; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002).

4

CHAPTER ONE

anced portrayal. David Brakke's work, which focuses especially on the role of Athanasius in fostering asceticism, demonstrates the interplay of social and theological factors. His readings not only of the familiar writings available in Greek but also of previously neglected ascetical writings available only in Coptic or Syriac show how Athanasius cultivated various groups in Egyptian society in order to construct a catholic Christian practice centered around the authority of the bishop of Alexandria but accessible to all, Hellenized urbanites as well as desert monastics. 1O Annick Martin's comprehensive study of the evidence for Egyptian Christianity in the fourth century significantly enhances our ability to locate the Athanasian texts, and the names and events to which they refer, in concrete historical settings.!! Khaled Anatolios's study shows that whatever the social and historical dynamics at work in Athanasius's writings, their intellectual coherence demonstrates a definite and sustained theological motivation: the bishop's response to the challenge of Arianism hinges on a clear articulation of the absolute distinction between Creator and created and the unambiguous identification of the Word as uncreated.!2 Existing scholarly literature therefore provides substantial resources for understanding the Athanasian texts in the context not only of theology and church history but also of social and political history. Of course both contexts are important. In an age in which odium theologicum has like other cultural institutions become global and multicultural, and thus if not more sinister and lethal than ever then at least more complex, it is a salutary thing that we can less easily revere those who according to one orthodoxy or another carried the high praises of God in their throat without asking hard questions about the two-edged sword they may have carried in their hand. But 10. The bulk of David Brakke's dissertation, "St. Athanasius and Ascetic Christians in Egypt" (Yale University, 1992) was revised, supplemented with English translations of some of the ascetical writings, and published as Athanasius and the Politics of Asceticism (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), which has been reprinted, unchanged except for title, as Athanasius and Asceticism (Baltimore: lohns Hopkins University Press, 1998). Two chapters of Brakke's dissertation were published separately: "The Greek and Syriac Versions of the Life of Antony," Museon 107 (1994): 29-53; and "The Authenticity of the Ascetic Athanasiana," Orientalia 63 (1994): 17-56. For his other articles, see the bibliography. 11. Annick Martin, Athanase d'Alexandrie et I 'eglise d'Egypte au IVe siecie (328-373) (Rome: Ecole franvaise de Rome, 1996). 12. Khaled Anatolios, Athanasius: The Coherence of His Thought (London: Routledge, 1998).

INTRODUCTION

5

the most perceptive social criticism does not in the process of exposing the odium claim eo ipso to have deflated the theologicum. The fact that the fourth century mixed theological controversies with political machinations so thoroughly that we cannot rightly consider them in isolation does not mean that theology was ever only a cover for the will to power, though at times it surely was also that. To the semi-perceptive suggestion that "the most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way," and further that "persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion," we might counterpropose that the real explanation of peculiarly theological rancor is that in theology so much more is at stake.13 Any reading of Athanasian texts, or other Christian texts of the period, that did not register the gravity of their specifically theological concerns would be a gross misreading. However dangerous it may inherently be to seek the face of God-for the seekers for one set of reasons, and sadly also at times, for a different set of reasons, for those who cross them-and however much Athanasius and his colleagues, competitors, and heirs may also have become pawns, or rather bishops, in the larger imperial-political chess game, "seeking the face of God" was their proper work and their central concern. This is the case especially, as a recent study has pointed out, in their biblical interpretation. 14 Disputation about God, and more particularly about the relationship of the Word that became incarnate in Jesus Christ to the transcendent Divine, was part and parcel of the quest for a holiness that encompassed right ethics, right worship, and right doctrine. Athanasius's distinctive contribution to that quest was his delineation ofthe skopos of Scripture in a way that illuminated that relationship. The present study explores in detail how that contribution was expressed in different modes not only in his more purely pastoral writings but also in his apologetic, doctrinal-polemical, and historical-polemical essays. His writings across all of these genres exhibit a fundamental concern with the incarnation of the Word of God for human salvation.

13 Bertrand Russell, "How to Avoid Foolish Opinions," in Unpopular Essays (London: Allen & Unwin, 1950). 14 Robert Louis Wilken, The Spirit of Early Christian Thought: Seeking the Face of God (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2003).

6

CHAPTER ONE

1. Studies ofAthanasius's Use of Scripture

Regarding the more specific subject of the present study, namely, the uses of Scripture in the writings of Athanasius, the literature is not abundant, and it consists mostly of articles rather than books. IS The author of a recent handbook to patristic exegesis explains: "Athanas ius only holds marginal interest for us, because he himself took little interest in exegesis."16 This verdict is correct insofar as "exegesis" implies deliberate exposition of continuous biblical text. The Clavis patrum graecorum does include a category of exegetical writings under the name of Athanasius, but these seem to be mostly spurious. The case of the large Commentary on the Psalms in PG 27 will be discussed below. That volume of Migne also includes numerous exegetical fragments that are attributed to Athanasius in the catenae; how much of that material has any connection at all with him is an open question. In addition, the Synopsis sacrae scripturae, listed in the CPG not among the exegetica but with the spuria, is sometimes still attributed to Athanasius, but it is almost certainly a later work. l7 Some of these works might after careful evaluation be 15. This survey is selective and illustrative. Some important discussions (e.g., Allan Clayton and Frances Young) are noted in the particular chapters below to which they are most relevant. A full bibliography would include the items included under the heading Schrifiauslegung in Butterweck, Athanasius von Alexandrien: Bibliographie, 379-80. Many of the items listed there focus on particular biblical texts or motifs; numerous others have to do with exegetical or theological questions connected specifically to the Arian controversy; and some deal with the relation of Scripture and tradition. As Charles Kannengiesser notes: "Mit dem Vorhaben, uber Athanasius von Alexandrien als Exeget zu schreiben, erspart man sich wenigstens die Muhe einer komplizierten bibliographischen Obersicht" ("Athanasius von Alexandrien als Exeget," pp. 226-43 in Stimuli: Festschriji for Ernst Dassmann [edited by Georg Schollgen and Clemens Scholten; Munster: Aschendorff, 1996], at p. 336). 16. Manlio Simonetti, Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church: An Historical Introduction to Patristic Exegesis (trans. John A. Hughes; ed. Anders Bergquist, Markus Bockmuehl, and William Horbury; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994), 77. Simonetti then comments briefly on the Letter to Marcellinus. This treatment is of course fully justified given the purpose and size of that book. 17. In the "Animadversiones in vitam et scripta S. Athanasii" included in the front matter of PG 26, the editor notes that Tillemont thought that the 7TUKTLU TWV 8ELWV rpu¢wv that Constans requested from Athanasius (Apol. Canst. 4) were the Synopsis .\"acrae scripturae of the Athanasian corpus; but he argues against Tillemont both on the basis of the meaning of 7TUKTLU and also on the basis of the discussion of the canon in the Synopsis. (See PG 26: clxxvi-clxxviii.) Actually the Old Testament and New Testament canons of the Synopsis and Festal Letter 39 agree; but there are differences in the discussion of additional books. (See Table 5-12 for the canon of Ep.fest. 39.) The first five books listed by Athanasius as recommended reading for catechumens are also listed as such by the Synopsis; and their names are

INTRODUCTION

7

credibly attributed to Athanasius, so a comprehensive study of Athanasius as exegete would have to assess them. In addition, some of the Greek homilies attributed to Athanasius, for example the Homily on Matthew 11:27 (generally cited as In illud Omnia), may be authentic. But they are based on texts that caused difficulties for Nicene theology, so they share with the dogmatic writings of Athanasius this feature: their exegesis is not like that of a commentary that approaches the text of Scripture to learn whatever it turns out to offer by applying a particular methodology or set of interpretive techniques; it is more a matter of defending against an exegetically supported doctrinal assault by proposing an alternative exegesis, using a methodology that will produce the required result. In this sense Athanasius does offer exegesis. The bulk of the present study, however, describes uses of Scripture that would fall outside most definitions of "exegesis." A useful starting point for discussing recent literature is an article published in 1959 by T. E. Pollard. 18 At that time it was customary to categorize early Christian writers as allegorists (Alexandrians) and literalists (Antiochenes). Despite the Alexandrian epicenter of their conflict, Pollard classes both Athanasius and his Arian opponents as literalists, as over against "the allegorical method of interpreting Scripture, at least as the basis for the formulation of doctrine." The Arians were "extreme literalists," while Athanasius is said to show here and there traces of the influence of the Alexandrian allegorical tradition. In the main, however, he followed "clearly defined exegetical principles." These are (1) the sufficiency of Scripture; (2) the scope of Scripture; (3) the custom with Scripture (E8oS Ti) ypa¢i)); (4) the sense (Ol(lvow) of Scripture; (5) the style of Scripture; and (6) the context of Scripture. In summary, Pollard states that "by laying down these principles of exegesis and by using them with care in repeated in the list of the OT antilegomena. But whereas Athanasius also lists the Didache and the Shepherd as being read to catechumens, the Synopsis does not. As the Migne editor notes, the Synopsis does not mention the Shepherd of Hermas at all, and it does list several works that Athanasius never mentions. More seriously, it seems to me, the Synopsis lists the Didache among the NT antilegomena along with several works that come in for stem disapproval. On this basis alone it is difficult to imagine that Athanasius could have written the Synopsis. -Szymusiak's note on Apol. Canst. 4 raises the question but leaves it unanswered: "S'agirait-il de la 'Synopsis,' P.G. 28, 283--438, rangee traditionellement au nombre des ecrits douteux, ou d'une simple copie de la Bible?" 18. "The Exegesis of Scripture and the Arian Controversy," BJRL 41 (1959), 414-29.

8

CHAPTER ONE

his criticism of the selective exegesis of the Arians," Athanasius was able to show that their theology was not biblical. Pollard calls this set of principles Athanasius's "method." His list is quite disparate, however. The "scope" of Scripture is indeed an important criterion in Athanasius's hermeneutics, but it is not really an element of an exegetical method. 19 Nor is "sufficiency." Athanasius, who insists on the priority of biblical teaching over speculative reasoning, does state that Scripture provides sufficient support for his doctrinal positions; but this claim does not constitute an exegetical principle or technique. Pollard's attempt to find in Athanasius a statement regarding the relative authority of Scripture and tradition as sources for doctrine reads into Athanasius a response to a dispute that arose centuries later. The "sense" and the "custom" of Scripture are not equivalent terms, as Pollard says they are; "style" is perhaps closer to the latter. "Context" is a simplified way of referring to several related elements which in fact represent Athanasius's only explicit claim to be using a "method"; these are hardly discussed at alPo But if Pollard's article does not deliver the "clearly defined exegetical principles" that it promises, it nevertheless points out important questions, texts, and possible elements of an exegetical method. A more promising point of departure is laroslav Pelikan's 1962 study, The Light af the Warld. 21 Unfortunately, this study has not always received the attention it deserves: to theologians and historians of doctrine, the use of light imagery per se is not the most critical feature of Athanasius's thought; it is one image out of many.22 On the other hand, historians of biblical exegesis may not see Pelikan's book as a study in that field. And yet it follows Athanasius's own concerns more closely than any study aimed at extracting "exegetical principles" from his work and identifies a hermeneutical approach that pervades all of his writings, dogmatic-polemical, historicalpolemical, and pastoral. In Pelikan's words: This theological method, which Athanasius advocated in his discussion of the problem of biblical paradeigmata and which he himself 19. At any rate, Pollard's explanation of what the term "scope of Scripture" means is less than fully satisfactory. See p. 142 below for a discussion of this term. 20. For Athanasian exegetical "rules" and vocabulary, see below pp. 136-51 and 172-77. 21. The Light of the World: A Basic Image in Early Christian Thought (New York: Harper, 1962). 22. This despite the fact that according to Pelikan (p. 57) the NT hapax arrauya(Ja (from Heb 1:3) occurs 90 times in Athanasius.

INTRODUCTION

9

practiced in his constructive and polemical writings, I shall call in one phrase "the collation of biblical images."23

By this Pelikan means Athanasius's practice of taking up major biblical images seriatim and deriving theological meaning from them, none of them being understood in isolation, but all contributing to a coherent whole. This he does not only in theology proper but also in ethics. 24 The most important single work explicitly devoted to Athanasian Scripture interpretation is the 1968 dissertation of Hermann Josef Sieben on Athanasius's use of the Psalms. 25 One might wonder to what extent Sieben's work is undermined by the subsequent development of a consensus that the Athanasian Commentary on the Psalms is inauthentic;26 the answer is, not much, because of the dissertation's five parts, only the third (titled "Prophetische Psalterlesung") is thoroughly dependent on the Commentary. And yet, since it was never published and is difficult to access, it has not received the attention it deserves. Sieben states that the biggest problem with older treatments of Athanasius's view of Scripture was that either 23. Ibid., 29. 24. Ibid., 95~ I 10. 25. "Studien zur Psalterbenutzung des Athanasius von Alexandrien im Rahmen seiner Schriftauffassung und Schriftlesung" (dissertation zur Erlangung der theologischen Doktorwiirde am Institut CathoJique zu Paris, 1968). Apart from Allen Clayton's dissertation on Athanasius's interpretation of Prov 8 (see below p. 15 n. 44), Sieben's dissertation is the only full monograph on Athanasian biblical interpretation that I am aware of. In addition, Sieben refers to a manuscript in Russian that he was unable to obtain: 1. Varlamov, "Die Heilige Schrift in der Theologie des Heiligen Athanasius des GroBen" (Leningrad, 1960, Manuskript an der geistlichen Akademie). 26. I.e., the Expositiones in Psalmos, CPG 2140. When Sieben wrote the dissertation, the commentary was available only in Migne, concerning which M. Geerard's terse comment is: "Editio est nulli usui" (Clavis patrum graecorum, vol. 2, Ab Athanasio ad Chrysostomum [Turnhout: Brepols, 1974], 28). Sieben knew that M. J. Rondeau had found the Athanasian Psalms commentary to be dependent upon that of Eusebius ("Une nouvelle preuve de I'influence litteraire d'Eusebe de Cesaree sur Athanase: L'interpretation des Psaumes," RSR 56 [1968]: 385-434) but he argued that even so Athanasius's own categories and methods for typological interpretation could be found in this work. The publication ten years later of Giovanni Maria Vian's Testi inediti dal Commento ai Salmi di Atanasio (Studia ephemeridis "Augustinianum" 14; Rome: Institutum Patristicum "Augustinianum," 1978) stirred new interest, including that of Gilles Dorival, whose article "Athanase ou PseudoAthanase?" (Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 16 [1980]: 80~89) made a case for its inauthenticity. G. C. Stead, who in 1982 was still prepared to consider the commentary probably authentic ("The Scriptures and the Soul of Christ in Athanasius," VC 36 [1982]: 233~50), later concluded that Dorival was right ("St. Athanasius on the Psalms," VC 39 [1985]: 65~ 78).

10

CHAPTER ONE

they took into account only his dogmatic writings, or else they pigeonholed his interpretation as allegorical or literal, or Alexandrian or Antiochene. Sieben points out that what is needed is to see the various genres in which Athanasius wrote about the Bible in organic relationship to each other. Simply taking up the existing writings in their various genres-dogmatic, apologetic, exegetical, homiletical-would be an unsatisfactory procedure in Sieben's view, because the dogmatic writings would tip the scales and make the typological use of the OT in other writings appear secondary. It is better, he says, to focus not on the writings that happen to have been transmitted but on the historical figure of Athanasius, because the dogmatic writings were occasional responses to the Arian controversy; they take pride of place in the transmitted literary corpus but occupied less of his life as a bishop. So Sieben sets out in his various chapters to describe the Sitz im Leben of each species of Athanasian Scripture use. He selects the Psalms as the book of the Bible to follow in the writings of Athanasius because there was a commentary only for the Psalms (as was thought). The point of departure for his study, he says, is the role that Scripture plays not so much in Athanasius's theology as in his life and spiritual-religious world. 27 Accordingly, Sieben begins with the use of the Bible in the Life ofAntony (part 1 of the dissertation), then moves on to the Letter to Marcellinus on the Interpretation of the Psalms (part 2), the Commentary on the Psalms (part 3), the dogmatic writings (part 4), and finally the Festal Letters (part 5). The L!fe of Antony, although written later than the Orations Against the Arians and many of the Festal Letters, comes at the beginning of Sieben's dissertation, because he judges that it represents Athanasius's "grundlegende, originare Schriftauffassung,"28 the way he relates to them spontaneously out of his own spirituality: namely, as a guidebook to virtue or ascesis. As the first and more general basis of this judgment, Sieben quotes Werner Jaeger to the effect that whereas modems tend to see ancient Christian authors in terms of the history of doctrine, the Fathers themselves would have seen such a perspective only as a point of departure toward the question of one's orientation to life. 29 He adds a second, more particular basis:

27. This summary closely follows Sieben, "Psalterbenutzung," 6-7. 28. Ibid., II. 29. Ibid., 11; quoting W. Jaeger, "Paideia Christi," in Humanistische Reden und Vortriige (2d ed.; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1960),26.

INTRODUCTION

11

Because Athanasius is known too exclusively as the champion of dogma and in fact the use of Scripture that has been transmitted to us in his works is mainly of a dogmatic nature, it appears to us to be appropriate at the very outset to correct or fill out this one-sided image of Athanasius and his relationship to Scripture. In other words, we wish to make a distinction between use of Scripture in dogmatic argumentation, which was forced upon Athanasius by historical circumstances, and the spontaneous involvement with Holy Scripture that grew out of the center of his piety and his worldview. 3o This perspective appears frequently in the writings of Sieben's Doktorvater, Charles Kannengiesser; and it accords well with recent studies by Badger, Brakke, and others of Athanasius's teaching on ascesis and salvation. 3 ! Sieben's choice of the Life of Antony as the starting point for his study is explicitly based on the reasonable assumption that this work's portrayal of Antony's life in general and his relationship to Scripture in particular accurately reflects Athanasius's own attitudes and ideals. 32 The Life of Antony contains no explicit reflection on the nature and interpretation of Scripture, but in it Athanasius's approach to Scripture can be seen emerging from the theological anthropology dramatized in the famous monk's life. 33 Athanasius is more fundamentally a pastor than a theologian. And yet we must be careful not to replace Athanasius as we actually have him in his texts with a more attractive Athanasius. Did Sieben unintentionally stack the deck by choosing the Psalms-the prayer book of the early church-as the texts to follow through Athanasius's writings? One could argue that the dogmatic and controversial writings present more of the real Athanasius, because in these he was pressed to the limits of his ability to produce readings of the Bible that would vindicate his beliefs and his conduct, while 30. Sieben, "Psalterbenutzung," 12, my translation. 31. Carlton Mills Badger, Jr., "The New Man Created in God: Christology, Congregation and Asceticism in Athanasius of Alexandria," (dissertation, Duke University, 1990); Brakke, Athanasius and Asceticism. 32. The question of the historicity of the portrayal of Antony is unimportant here, as Sieben also notes (Psalterbenutzung, 13~14; Sieben's lengthy note 4 reviews scholarship up to 1968 on the historicity question.) Sieben goes on to say that it does not much matter to the argument he is making how much of the portrait of the ideal human in VA comes is Greek and how much is biblical (Psalterbenutzung, l5~16); this unconcern about the historical sources of the ideal (to which, again, Sieben dedicates a long footnote) is at first sight puzzling, but Sieben is making the point that what actually matters for his study is what the ideal looks like and how Athanasius relates it to the Bible. -Regarding the authenticity of the Life of Antony and its relationship to the historical Antony, see below pp. 294~98, and Appendix J. 33. Sieben, "Psalterbenutzung," 18.

12

CHAPTER ONE

the Festal Letters present not so much his own use of the Bible as a repetition of traditional Alexandrian preaching and teaching slightly modified by monastic piety and current theological concerns. If the dogmatizing of the anti-Arian writings constitutes the most notable share of his life's work, can we really interject that this was nevertheless an opus alienum, an unwanted task imposed by unfortunate circumstances on a pastor who would rather have spent his days teaching ordinary Egyptian Christians how to pray, keep the feasts, and ward off the demons? Maybe he was a pugilist at heart. Many modem readers of Athanasius probably would agree with Hans von Campenhausen's assessment: It is obvious that he was a well-trained theologian. But it is difficult to

feel that theological work as such gave him any pleasure, let alone that he had any desire to teach others. For him theology was simply a weapon. 34

But in my opinion Sieben is almost completely right, and Campenhausen was half wrong: if one defines "theological work" as the kind of argumentation that appears in the anti-Arian dogmatic writings, perhaps it did not give him much pleasure. At least the exegetical component of this work shows nothing like the reverent but eager expectancy with which Origen approaches the biblical text, bringing no agenda other than a desire to learn from it, ruminating lovingly over its phrases and words, and delighting in fresh discoveries. Nevertheless, teaching others how to live and believe as Christians was exactly what Athanasius wanted most to do, and by some accounts he was very good at it. 35 His battle was against the devil, and the theology that was his weaponry is that of the Letter to Marcellinus, the Life of Antony, and to a lesser extent the Festal Letters. From his own point of view, he was carrying out the same task in the antiArian writings, where he finds the same Enemy who hinders ascetic practice at work also in the teachings of his enemies. The dogmaticpolemical campaign was a "strange work" for Athanasius in that it was a task that was forced upon him, but from his own perspective 34. Hans von Campenhausen, The Fathers of the Greek Church (London: A. & C. Black, 1963), 70. 35. Erasmus, in a letter to John of Lincoln that is quoted in the Migne preface to Athanasius (PG 25:23), names TO OLOaKTlKOV as Athanasius's outstanding gift. Athanasius, according to Erasmus, had none of Tertullian's harshness (duram), Jerome's showiness (EmOELKTLKOV), none of Hilary's laboriousness (operosum), Augustine's and Chrysostom's excessive rhetorical complexity (laciniosum), no Isocraticos numeros as in Gregory of Nazianzus.

INTRODUCTION

13

his efforts in this arena were continuous with his ascetic and pastoral teaching. He would not see his own dogmatic discussions as abstractions that distract from Christian living but as correctives to hostile positions that would make Christian living impossible or at least unintelligible. 36 So while accepting Sieben's central thesis, this study ignores his warning against proceeding genre-by-genre through the writings of Athanasius. In 1970 and 1971 Thomas Torrance published a four-part article titled "The Hermeneutics of St. Athanasius."37 Torrance plucks texts from across the Athanasian corpus without distinguishing authentic, doubtful, and spurious works (fragments on Luke, the Psalms commentary, the De incarnatione contra Apollinarium). He also ignores important parts of the corpus: the Life of Antony is represented by a single reference at the end of a footnote, and other ascetic writings and the Festal Letters are not mentioned at all. Furthermore, Torrance-approaching Athanasius not as a historian of doctrine but as a practicing theologian-ignores much of Athanasian scholarship.38 For these and other reasons his articles are not a reliable guide to the details of Athanasian biblical interpretation. Nevertheless, Torrance's theological interests produce a reading of Athanasius that is 36. Pelikan, refuting the charge that Athanasius "intellectualized faith into a species of knowledge," says: "When Athanasius set out to specify the content of the Christian message, his vocation as a defender of Nicene orthodoxy against the Arians compelled him to dwell upon the doctrinal and even propositional aspects of the message. But even in the midst of his vigorous polemics against Arianism or of his arguments in favor of the orthodox interpretation of the Scriptures, the existential character of the Christian message as a message of salvation continued to make its presence felf' (Light of the World, 90.) 37. Thomas F. Torrance, "The Hermeneutics of Saint Athanasius," parts 1--4, Ekklesiastikos Pharos 52, no. 1 (1970): 446-68; 52, no. 2 (1970): 89-106; 52, no. 4 (1970): 237--49; 53 (1971): 133--49. The numbering of issues and pages is unconventional, and the typographical errors are legion. In the second part (i.e., 52, no. 2 [1970]: 89-106), a revised section was inserted in the wrong place and the unrevised text left standing. To repair this section, the reader must delete everything on p. 95 from the call to note 40a on the top line through the third line of the new paragraph, "are rooted in Jesus Christ" (included in the deletion are notes 40a--40h). Replace this section with the material beginning on p. 93, line II, with the call to note 27 and ending with p. 94, line 5, "are rooted in Jesus Christ." -The error was evidently caused by a kind of parablepsis occasioned by the use of the phrase "human need" both on p. 93, line 11 and on p. 95, line 1. In the discussion that follows, I have corrected obvious typographical errors without notice. 38. Torrance mentions Harnack once (at the beginning) and refers occasionally to older writers whose comments may be found in notes to the English translations of Athanasius (Robertson, Newman, Shapland). His own construal of Athanasius's texts is flawed by numerous questionable exegeses.

14

CHAPTER ONE

highly sympathetic. His emphasis on the theological coherence of Athanasius's thought keeps him from noticing development across Athanasius's writings or the use of different approaches in different rhetorical settings, but the view he offers of the forest might not be substantially improved by the use of greater critical acumen in examining the trees. Torrance begins with Harnack's observation that Athanasius discards the traditional, philosophical, Alexandrian Logos doctrine; instead of interpreting the Son in terms of the Logos idea, Christ the Word is seen primarily in terms of the biblical Father-Son language, the Son being the incarnation of and homoousios with the Father. This Father-Son relationship is scriptural and in tum becomes the principle by which Scripture must be interpreted. Athanasius also rejects the Platonic distinction between the realm of sense perception and the realm of knowledge, which was the basis of Origen's allegorical exegesis. He retains typology, but this, according to Torrance, was "the antithesis of allegory" because both type and anti type are acts of God in history.39 Proper interpretation of Scripture is possible only when the interpreter discerns the relationship between the words of Scripture and the Word who speaks in them. Thus the incarnation of the Word, understood as God's saving work, is the key. Hence interpretation is proper and correct when it does the following: I) keeps to the scope of the divine revelation in the Scriptures 39. Torrance, "Hermeneutics," part 1, p. 448. Two subsequent paragraphs (pp. 448-50) argue that Athanasius also rejected Origen's letter/spirit distinction in favor of a more Pauline use of these terms; but this whole discussion seems to me to be marred by the removal from its context (in the discussion of the exegesis of the phrase KTL'WV ITVEUlla in Amos 3:5) of Athanasius's reference in Ep. Serap. 1.9 to "the mind that was remade and renewed in Jesus Christ." This passage does not so unambiguously support the anti-Apollinarian reading Torrance gives it; nor is it clear that the discussion of I Cor 3:6 in Ep. Serap. 1.8 opposes rather than follows Origen. (See here Shapland's comments, p. 78, n. I.) This is not the only lapse in these articles. Some are minor, like the mistranslation of KaT' EITLVOLaV as "noetically" on p. 452. The discussion of EITLVOLa and E1TlVOElV in the second part ("Hermeneutics," part 2, p. 91) shows that Torrance knew better. Others are simply puzzling but not really damaging. For example, just after the mistranslation just mentioned (part 1, p. 452), the discussion of a phrase from CA 2.31 ("no relation of question and answer is involved") indicates that Torrance reads this as meaning that humans are not in a position to question God; but in fact Athanasius is here saying that since the Son is by his own nature Word and of God's being, there was no need for any verbal reply by the Word when God's creative fiat was uttered: what God spoke immediately came to pass. -But in other texts Athanasius speaks of the impropriety of humans' asking certain kinds of questions of God, and Torrance refers to these elsewhere.

INTRODUCTION

15

2) respects the economical nature of God's acts and words 3) keeps to the orderly connexion signified by the words and sentences of Holy Scripture in order that they may yield their own interpretation, and 4) checks and proves its statements in accordance with the rule of faith that arises out of the Church's understanding of the kerygma as mediated to us through the apostolic writings. 4o

This conclusion to Torrance's introduction provides the somewhat flexible agenda for the rest of the article, which takes up first the scope of Scripture, then the economical nature of biblical statements, then thirdly "the way to interpret the Holy Scriptures." The discussion of the scope of Scripture naturally draws heavily upon the relevant texts in CA 3, but it also ranges throughout the corpus of Athanasius's writings to collect other comments on biblical interpretation. 41 One doubtful aspect of Torrance's treatment of "scope" is that he speaks of two levels, "scope of Biblical usage" and "scope of faith or doctrine," and mixes in under the first heading his comments on several terms Athanasius uses to describe ways in which Scripture speaks of things divine and human: L8LUllla, Ta~u;, E8oS;, O"uviJ8ELa, occasion, person, place, purpose. These considerations Torrance sees as ruling out "tropological and allegorical exegesis," which "inevitably distorts the natural sense of the text, and misapplies it to alien ends or notions under the dictation of preconceptions";42 it leaves room for only "a measured element of typology" in the interpretation of some texts, and that "under the direction of the Spirit."43 Moving from "scope of Scripture" to "scope of faith or doctrine," Torrance holds that in the final analysis the objective scope of Scripture is Christ himself. He may be substantially correct in saying this, but in doing so he moves a step away from the specific Athanasian language about the two-fold scope. Torrance distinguishes between the "scope of scripture" and the "scope of faith" more clearly than is warranted by the Athanasian texts.44 40. Torrance, "Henneneutics," part 1, p. 454. 41. Ibid., 454--68. 42. Torrance, "Henneneutics," part 3, 248-49. 43. Torrance, "Henneneutics," part 4, 134. -Did Torrance read the Festal Letters? That kind of omission was not unthinkable when Torrance wrote this series; but today, in the light of the work of Kannengiesser, Brakke, and others, it appears to produce serious distortion. 44. Allen Clayton objects to Torrance's distinction (Allen Lee Clayton, "The Orthodox Recovery of a Heretical Proof-text: Athanasius of Alexandria's Interpretation of Proverbs 8:22-30 in Conflict with the Arians," Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Methodist University, 1988, 250 n. 19).

16

CHAPTER ONE

Tradition, Torrance continues, means specifically the apostolic kerygma; it cannot be reduced to words and so controlled and manipulated but is rather the reception in faith of Christ himself. Thus interpretation of the Scriptures in accord with tradition means understanding them in the context of the living community of faith.45 Since the Bible speaks of God, who cannot be understood on the same level as humans, its language is necessarily analogical. Hence it uses rrapaDd YflaTa-a word that Torrance says Athanasius uses not in any technical sense, whether from architecture or Platonic metaphysics, but simply to refer to some aspect of the visible or physical world which is adopted and adapted to point out something that cannot be reduced to words or to point upward to a divine reality that is ultimately ineffable, or to reflect the glory of God which we are unable to see.

So contrasts such as image and radiance, spring and river, substance and expression are simply pointers. They are valuable because they are not human concoctions but are given by revelation and rooted in real acts of God; and yet they are merely pointers which cannot be pressed. They are "in no sense arguments, types, or exemplars from which we could draw inferences," and in fact at a certain point they have to be sloughed off in favor of a non-pictorial grasp of the concepts they represent; but they do form the basis for human imitation of God. 46 But the parallelism between God and humans in which the rrapaDd YflaTa mark out a path for humans to follow is entirely a product of the divine dispensation (OlKovoflla) of grace: the whole economy of salvation in general, and in particular the incarnation. 47 The reality of the incarnation, and specifically of the inseparable union of the human nature of the Son with the godhead, guarantees that biblical imagery is not conventional or fictional but a faithful pointer to divine reality. Torrance believes "tropological exegesis of the Gospel" in the pre-Athanas ian Alexandrian tradition resulted from a failure to appreciate the reality and inseparability of that union, though he does not elaborate on this point. Athanasian exegesis, on the other hand, steers between the two extremes of either despising the biblical rrapaDEl YflaTa as mere conventional language or 45. Torrance, "Hermeneutics," part 1,464-67. 46. Torrance, "Hermeneutics," part 2,99-103. The quotation is from p. 101. Torrance speaks of leaving the images behind in part 4, p. 138. 47. Ibid., 103-6.

INTRODUCTION

17

taking them so concretely as to extrapolate from them in ways that would be ultimately incompatible with the realities to which they point. 48 Hence the vocabulary that constantly recurs when Athanasius talks about interpretation of Scripture: "right, proper, apposite, suitable, congruent, fitting, etc."49 Thus Torrance gives a theological explanation for a usage that historians might explain as a reflection of current terminology in Hellenistic theological rhetoric. Both kinds of explanation need to be considered. The last two keywords in Torrance's survey are O:KpL~Ela and O:KoAou8La. 50 The necessity of working to discern the exact sense of the words of Scripture arises from the principle-stressed by Torrance throughout-that the goal is to get beneath the surface wording to underlying divine realities. The meaning of a word in a particular biblical text has to be suitable and fitting in terms of the truth intended by Scripture as a whole. Thus coherence is a major concern. Torrance finds in Athanasius a wide range of uses of the word O:KoAou8La: "various senses of causal or physical sequence or logical implication, ... or just simply of consistency"-and consistency not only in the meaning of the words of Scripture, but in the events of the divine economy to which they point. 51 The chain of coherence thus runs from divine action through biblical witness thereto, and beyond that into the life of the faithful disciple who studies the Scriptures in order to follow along in the pattern of the divine actions. 52 The Athanasius of Torrance's summary resembles Karl Barth. Athanasius was "no biblicist" because he did not "need to prove all this theological statements by the citation of texts."53 The Scriptures were not dictated by the Holy Spirit, but they were written "by holy men as they were obedient to the operations of the Spirit" who has always revealed God to Israel and finally spoke through the Son. This hedging seems to me more Barthian than Athanasian. When Athanasius reads the Bible he is "listening to the Word of God spoken by the Spirit." Furthermore, Torrance seems to indicate that this 48. Torrance, "Hermeneutics," part 3, 237-42. 49. Torrance, "Hermeneutics," part 4, 134. 50. Discussion of QKpL~ELa occupies "Hermeneutics," part 4, 136-38; QKOAou9La, 138-43. 51. Ibid., 139. 52. It is not clear to me what texts Torrance means to cite at this point (ibid., 139 nn. 37-38), but the idea is surely Athanasian. 53. Ibid., 134; repeated on p. 145.

18

CHAPTER ONE

listening is also aided by the Spirit; or at least it is a spiritual exercise, though "Athanasius does not have much to say about this."54 This kind of 8EwpLa seems necessary for the discernment of the divine realities underlying the words of the Bible, which must be exegeted in a way that is consistent with the kerygma regarding the incarnation. That process of understanding is progressive, for Torrance acknowledges that Athanasius finds in Nicea a "decisive step" in the disclosure of the "logical economy of the Christian faith." The truth moves forward, and we must keep step. Exactly what Torrance means then by the caveat that this is "not an appeal to the development of tradition in the later sense" is unclear. 55 Perhaps it is a matter of emphasis-the later developments are seen as insight into what the Scriptures always really meant-but who would have disagreed with that? Certainly for Athanasius, as Torrance insists, true piety continues to see the truth reflected in the Scriptures. So is Torrance making Athanasius too much a Barthian, or are Barth and Torrance simply faithful followers of Athanasius? Though Torrance is largely faithful to Athanasius, he does not really tell us how it is possible to perceive behind Scripture the truth that is only indicated in napaoEL 'YllaTa on the surface. In focusing on hermeneutics he discusses what Athanasius says about his own method and uses examples to illustrate his principles in practice; but he does not try to assess Athanasian practice independently. His discussion of the coherence of the biblical napaod 'YllaTa suggests, however, that Athanasian biblical exegesis is something like putting together a puzzle. One might turn the various pieces in different directions individually, but only when the individual pieces are aligned and connected correctly will they yield a worthy unified picture. That picture corresponds to the olcXvOLa or O"KO'IT()T]Gi. TOUTO 8E Kal ~ eEla 'Ypalj TIpOGT]flai. VEL AE'YoUGa EK TIpoGdmou TOU 8EOU

THE FIRST REASON FOR THE INCARNATION: TO OVERCOME DEATH: D14-IO

DI4.6 DI4.6

Wis 6:1S Ps SI:6-7

C C

4 19

DI5.2 DI5.5

Wis 2:23-24 Rom 1:26-27

C C

20 4S

D/6.3 DI6.3 DIS.I DIS.l DI8A D/9.2 D/ 10.2

Rom 3:4 Gen 2:17 Acts 17:27 Eph 4:10 1 Cor 15:22 1 Cor 15:53 2 Cor 5:14-15

R A R R

I 2 4 2

R C

2 42

D/ 10.2 D/ 10.3 D/ lOA

DIlO.5

Heb 2:9 Heb 2:10 Heb 2:14 1 Cor 15:21-22

C C C C

25 25 41 24

D/ 10.5

1 Tim 6:15

Q

4

R

KaeOTIEp ~ Goi.a T]Gi.v ~ eEi.a 'Ypalj TOUTO GT]flai. VEL AE'YOUGa KaeWS; Kal ~ Goi.a T]Gi.v an' ooS; ELTIEV 6 TOU XPLcrTOU flO:PTuS;'ATIOGTOAoS;

WS; TIOU Kal

3

TauTa 8E Kal TIapa TWV alJTou TOiJ LWTf]pOS; eEoAo'Ywv av8pwv mGTOUGeai. TLS; 8UvaTUL EVTU'YXO:vwv TOlS; EKElVWV 'YPoflflaGLV, DaGL V Kal TIO:ALV GT]flai. VEL AE'YWV Kal TOUTO GT]flai. VOUGL AE'YOVTES; AE'YOVTOS; TOU XPLGTOOPOU av8poS;

A SECOND REASON FOR THE INCARNATION: RENEWAL OF THE IMAGE OF GOD: D1 11-16

D/ 11.4

DI14.2 DI14.2

Rom 1:25 NT Luke 19:10

Q L C

6

1

6

DT]GL Kal mhos; EV TOlS; EuayyEHOLS;

74

CRAPTER TWO

Ath. DI 14.2

Bib!. John 3:3

Type C

Size 4

DIl5.l DIl5.7 DIl6.2

1 Cor 1:21 Luke 19:10 Eph 3:17

C C C

27 6 3S

DI 16.3

Isa 11:9

R

7

Citation formula

"08EV Kal 7TPOS; TOUS; 'lo1Joal.o1JS; EAE"{EV

Ka8ws; Kal llaKapLOS; ITauAos; EYY1JTJTT]S; Tfis; ava1iOLTlUl). This latter interpretation, which came down to Olympiodorus in the Alexandrian tradition and is also found in the Life of 64. See Brakke, Athanasius and Asceticism, 258-65. 65. See the reminiscence of Job 40:25-29 at in the Long Speech at VA 24.4-5; of Job 40:29 at Ep. Aeg. Lib. 2.

320

CHAPTER FIVE

Saint Syncletica,66 is presupposed here by Athanasius. It is also

found in the comments of Didymus on Ps 34:2, where this expression is an example of Scripture's use of euphemisms and of course the beast itself is the devil, and in Origen's Ennarationes in JOb. 67 So Athanasius is simply relying on the common Alexandrian interpretation. Didymus also shares the odd reading of a Pauline text at VA 19.1. To support his exhortation to diligent self-discipline, Antony cites Rom 8:28: 'ExwllE8a ouv, TEKva, Til~ aaK~ the first and the second counted likewise for one" (my translation of Lefort's French, Lefort lSI :36). Lefort deems this a haplography (151 :36 n. 25) and supplies the words in angle brackets. Ill. Westcott insisted that there was "not the least reason to believe that this Canon was designed as a protest against the Canon of Eusebius. It was indeed nothing

THE WORD LIVED

343

exegesis, his approach to canonicity is simple and prescriptive, uncluttered by any need to describe alternative understandings or variegated historical actualities.112 He is forced by facts to admit that some books other than those he lists as canonical are useful and to be used, but he insists that they are unambiguously extracanonical. They follow, and are thus left out of, the summary comments that "these are the springs of salvation" (a phrase that recapitulates, as if to heal, the earlier reminiscence of Jeremiah's complaint) and "in these alone is the good news proclaimed regarding the teaching of piety" (recalling the remark near the beginning of the first extant Coptic fragment regarding the rootedness in Christ of the "teaching of the worship of God"). The canonical Scriptures, not the other books, are the Scriptures which in an altered citation of Matt 22:29 wield divine power. I \3 The "other books," which are outside the canon, have been appointed by the Fathers to be read to proselytes who need simple

more than the old Alexandrine canon" (Brooke Foss Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament [third ed.; London: Macmillan, 1870]). Current scholarship rejects the idea of an "Alexandrian canon" in the sense of a Jewish Bible including more books than the "Palestinian canon" (i.e., the extra books of the major LXX codices), but if Westcott meant that Athanasius's list reflects his understanding of the canon that he had inherited from his Christian Alexandrian predecessors rather than a revision of Eusebius's list, he was probably right. -For recent summaries of state of the question of an Alexandrian canon, see Lee M. McDonald, The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon, 90-92; Julio Trebolle Barrera, The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible, 232-33. 112. Zahn observed that Athanasitls's straightforward, unqualified presentation of his list of books would give the impression that this canon had been used always, everywhere, by all. Since this was far from the case, we could say that he was in effect legislating. See Athanasius und der Bibelkanon. 16: " ... scheint er nur wiederzugeben, was seit den Tagen der Apostel in der katholischen Kirche gegolten hat. ... In dem er dies aber in so bestimmter Form tinter Berufung auf die Apostel als Stifter des Kanons tlnd die Vater als Bewahrer desselben den Kirchen Agyptens verklindigt, tritt er thatsachlich als Gesetzgeber auf." (Here Zahn notes the use of Deut 4:2 in Ep. fest. 39.) -That Athanasius's listing of the canon was prescriptive rather than descriptive was the major thesis of Bart D. Ehrman, "The New Testament Canon of Didymus the Blind," Vigiliae christianae 37 (1983): 1-21. 113. Whereas in Matt 22:29 Jesus says, ITAavacr8E ~~ EL86TEvW. 147 n. 78, 172 OlEPj.!llVEUW. 166 n. 110 olEPxoj.!aL.217-18 Ol T]YllGl~. Ol T]Yllj.!a. 165 n. 109 Ol' OALyWV. 65,322 n. 74 Ol1TATl olavOLa, 273 n. 6 86Klj.!Ol Tpa1TE~ Tal. 181 n. 152,326 ~a8ELa

EOEl AEYElV. 178

E8lKO~. E8lKW~. 160-61 E8o~ (Ttl ypa¢U). 7, 15, 158 n. 94 El86TE~. 288 ELKWV. ELKOVE~. 152,156,157,

192,197 174, 175 n. 143 EKAaj.!~avw. 172 EKOOXT]. 172 EKAElljJl~. 100 n. 99 EKT18TII..ll. 339 Ej.!¢a(n~. 160 n. 99 Ev8EO~. 82 EVVOLaL. 128 Elpj.!6~.

E~llyEOj.!aL. E~llYllTT]~. 165 n.

109, 166n.l1O, 172 E1TlVOELV. E1TLVOLa. 14 n. 39, 126, 156, 167 EpEUVW. 147 n. 78, 172 Epj.!llvda. EPj.!llVEU~. EPj.!llVEUW. 78 159 n. 96,164, 166 n. 110, 172 EucrE~Ela. EUcrE~T]~. 19,371 'llAWTaL). 318 'llAow.288,332

1]

AOYO~ Ecrn. 148

GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES

T,ALKla. 313 ll. 48 8Ela ypa¢iJ. 347 ll. 133 8Ela E1TL¢avELa. 428 8Ela AOYla, 82, 128 8ElKWS;. 146-48,150,171,176, 356 8EOAOY0S; (uviJp), 79,97, 109 ll. 108,432 8EorrvEu