[OPEN] Reading Athanasius: Week One

[Macrina]

Welcome to the first "meeting" of our little reading group here in the Patristics forum!

As discussed in this thread, we've decided to start with reading Athanasius: The Incarnation of the Word of God.

There will be a new thread every week, with a link in the old thread to make sure nobody gets lost. Usually, we'll start on Monday, but since I have to be out of town tomorrow, I'm posting this tonight.

We agreed to start by reading the first two chapters. I suggest that we start by discussing the first chapter, and see how that goes, before we get into the second one.

Please post:
* Your questions
* Your comments
* Anything you'd like to share (or ask) about Athanasius, his life, or the church during his time
* Suggestions on how we can best facilitate discussion

All are welcome to participate. At this point, I'm leaving it pretty open-ended, hoping that we can all contribute some questions for discussion and thought.

Thanks for joining us!

 

[Willtor]

As some background, Athanasius is thought to have written this letter around 318, which would make him about 20 years old. Not too shabby. It follows "Against the Gentiles" which is more of an apologetic work (this is more theology). Chapter 1 refers to that as what has already been discussed.

In Chapter 2, he says, "For if, as they say, everything has had its beginning of itself, and independently of purpose, it would follow that everything had come into mere being, so as to be alike and not distinct. For it would follow in virtue of the unity of body that everything must be sun or moon, and in the case of men it would follow that the whole must be hand, or eye, or foot. But as it is this is not so. On the contrary, we see a distinction of sun, moon, and earth; and again, in the case of human bodies, of foot, hand, and head."

I imagine this has something to do with his cosmology, but I don't quite understand it. Why is it reasonable to infer that if everything had come into being independent of purpose that it would all be the same?

 

[Macrina]

I had the same question as Willtor.

Nothing helpful to say, just "hmm."


Btw, when we talk about "chapters" we mean the chapter divisions (one per page) of the version linked to here. The smaller divisions we're calling "sections." Just to be clear -- we had a little confusion about that in the planning thread. So... Chapter One ("Creation and the Fall") contains the first 5 sections.

I'm too tired to offer much in the way of coherent thought right now. Looking forward to catching up with y'all when I get back from my seminar.

 

[Sojourner<><]

As some background, Athanasius is thought to have written this letter around 318, which would make him about 20 years old. Not too shabby. It follows "Against the Gentiles" which is more of an apologetic work (this is more theology). Chapter 1 refers to that as what has already been discussed.

In Chapter 2, he says, "For if, as they say, everything has had its beginning of itself, and independently of purpose, it would follow that everything had come into mere being, so as to be alike and not distinct. For it would follow in virtue of the unity of body that everything must be sun or moon, and in the case of men it would follow that the whole must be hand, or eye, or foot. But as it is this is not so. On the contrary, we see a distinction of sun, moon, and earth; and again, in the case of human bodies, of foot, hand, and head."

I imagine this has something to do with his cosmology, but I don't quite understand it. Why is it reasonable to infer that if everything had come into being independent of purpose that it would all be the same?

Because he is thinking of terms of order and disorder, a uniform distribution of chaotic indistinction would be evidence of non-creation. He seems to be saying that distinction between things is order, which argues the case for a Creator.

Does anybody know where he's drawing from with his definition of evil in section five:

" for it is God alone Who exists, evil is non-being, the negation and antithesis of good"

I wonder if this is his philosophy or if he is referring to some other source ...

 

[Willtor]

Because he is thinking of terms of order and disorder, a uniform distribution of chaotic indistinction would be evidence of non-creation. He seems to be saying that distinction between things is order, which argues the case for a Creator.

I see. And I suppose that hand and foot are ways of breaking up the body in some cosmologies before the discovery of atoms. But I thought they philosophized the existence of elements.

Does anybody know where he's drawing from with his definition of evil in section five:

" for it is God alone Who exists, evil is non-being, the negation and antithesis of good"

I wonder if this is his philosophy or if he is referring to some other source ...

That's a little bit ahead of the reading, but he's addressing the paradox of evil. Who made evil? By his thinking, evil is non-being, and so there is no question as to who made it. Evil is not a "thing" as good is a "thing." I don't know exactly where he got it, though. I haven't read Origen, but I understand he deals with a lot of this sort of thing.

 

[Kristos]

Because he is thinking of terms of order and disorder, a uniform distribution of chaotic indistinction would be evidence of non-creation. He seems to be saying that distinction between things is order, which argues the case for a Creator.

Does anybody know where he's drawing from with his definition of evil in section five:

" for it is God alone Who exists, evil is non-being, the negation and antithesis of good"

I wonder if this is his philosophy or if he is referring to some other source ...

I don't know exactly who wrote this theology of evil first, but I can say that it has been part of the Orthodox Tradition from very early and is biblically based. In general, Orthodox theologians are not seen as innovators - innovation is bad.

 

[Sojourner<><]

I don't know exactly who wrote this theology of evil first, but I can say that it has been part of the Orthodox Tradition from very early and is biblically based. In general, Orthodox theologians are not seen as innovators - innovation is bad.

But why? I can see why clever ideas are bad if they aren't true, and that there is no such thing as new truth, but what about previously hidden and newly uncovered truth? Is this frowned upon as well?

 

[Kristos]

As some background, Athanasius is thought to have written this letter around 318, which would make him about 20 years old. Not too shabby. It follows "Against the Gentiles" which is more of an apologetic work (this is more theology). Chapter 1 refers to that as what has already been discussed.

In Chapter 2, he says, "For if, as they say, everything has had its beginning of itself, and independently of purpose, it would follow that everything had come into mere being, so as to be alike and not distinct. For it would follow in virtue of the unity of body that everything must be sun or moon, and in the case of men it would follow that the whole must be hand, or eye, or foot. But as it is this is not so. On the contrary, we see a distinction of sun, moon, and earth; and again, in the case of human bodies, of foot, hand, and head."

I imagine this has something to do with his cosmology, but I don't quite understand it. Why is it reasonable to infer that if everything had come into being independent of purpose that it would all be the same?

He's speaking against a certain belief of the time and following their reasoning to a logical end - which he then acerts is false. This section is very interesting to me, because it could have been written yesterday - just change some of the names...

 

[Kristos]

But why? I can see why clever ideas are bad if they aren't true, and that there is no such thing as new truth, but what about previously hidden and newly uncovered truth? Is this frowned upon as well?

Revelations from God that develop over time are not the same as innovation. Development and deeper understanding certainly can be good, but this is not the same as innovation.

 

[PassthePeace1]

As some background, Athanasius is thought to have written this letter around 318, which would make him about 20 years old. Not too shabby. It follows "Against the Gentiles" which is more of an apologetic work (this is more theology). Chapter 1 refers to that as what has already been discussed.

In Chapter 2, he says, "For if, as they say, everything has had its beginning of itself, and independently of purpose, it would follow that everything had come into mere being, so as to be alike and not distinct. For it would follow in virtue of the unity of body that everything must be sun or moon, and in the case of men it would follow that the whole must be hand, or eye, or foot. But as it is this is not so. On the contrary, we see a distinction of sun, moon, and earth; and again, in the case of human bodies, of foot, hand, and head."

I imagine this has something to do with his cosmology, but I don't quite understand it. Why is it reasonable to infer that if everything had come into being independent of purpose that it would all be the same?

The readers of that time, have an advantage over us, because everyone would have a complete knowledge of Epicurean beliefs. They belived that all matter was uncreated, so therefore no Creator.

While back then, their understanding of an atom was limited to the idea that the atom, was the smallest particle making up all matter. They had no understanding that the combination of atoms could make up different substances. So they would believe, for example, that wood was made from wood( or tree) atoms, cows out of cow atoms....etc...etc...So I think (not sure...lol.) that the point Athanasius was trying to make by challenging their belief, is why then are there variations, within one object or species? Using my example of a tree, if all trees were merely made up of tree atoms, then why do with have oak trees, pine trees, elm trees...etc, and why does do we see in the same tree, leaves, bark, and roots, if they are all made of the same wood atoms. He was arguing that because of these different variations, that we can see, that there was a Mind, or a Cause as he also put it, behind creation.

So in a nutshell, I think he was trying to show how their view of an uncreated universe is weak and limited, as opposed to the creation that we can see, and experince, which would need a Mind, behind it's creation. Gosh, I hope that makes sense.

Peace be with you...Pam

 

[Willtor]

Ah, thanks, Pam. That helps somewhat. I should read Epicurus.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Revelations from God that develop over time are not the same as innovation. Development and deeper understanding certainly can be good, but this is not the same as innovation.

Well, I think I understand what you mean if you're talking about new beliefs that aren't true, i.e. heresies.

 

[Macrina]

Yes, Pam, thanks -- that does help.



I thought it interesting that Athanasius quotes the Shepherd of Hermas alongside scripture, sandwiching it in between quotes from Genesis 1 and Hebrews 11. I sometimes forget how important the non-canonical apostolic texts once were.

 

[GraceLikeRainFallsDown]

This section is very interesting to me, because it could have been written yesterday - just change some of the names...

I found this section interesting for the same reason. It seems many pick and chose theories that suite their own taste.

 

[GraceLikeRainFallsDown]

Hi Everyone!

I just wanted to put my two cents in on the reading.

To start:

I do not know if anyone else read the forward by C.S. Lewis, but I found it interesting. He spoke of the importance of reading the first hand source of subjects instead of only second hand sources. He continued on the importance of reading the "old" books along with the new ones.

It made me think about how many (myself included) spend so much time reading current Christian authors but not the "Fathers" of Christianity or even in some cases the Bible. It drove home the point that Christian commentary cannot be a substitute for the Word of God. It was a good message to me.

Lewis also pointed out that the old books (including Incarnation of the Word of God) have been tested throughout time where as the "new" ones have not stood the test of time. He mentions that Athanasius "did not move with his times; it is his reward that he now remains when those times, as all times do, have moved away."

Lewis's comments made me appreciate this thread. Thank you Marcina for starting it.

 

[GraceLikeRainFallsDown]

I had a question. In Section 3 of Chapter 1, he says "since the will of man could turn either way, God secured this grace that He had given by making it conditional from the first upon two things - namely, a law and a place."

When I first read it, it implied to me that he felt since God gave us free will He would not know what we would chose so He created a plan to secure us. While I agree that God gave us free will and created a plan to secure our salvation, I also believe that God knows all and knows what we will do before we do it. He knows which way we will turn. (Maybe I am reading too much into the statement.)

How do you guys interpret this line?

 

[GraceLikeRainFallsDown]

Here is a non-theological questions.

In the first section, first sentence, he says "in our former book . . ." By "our" does he mean someone else co-wrote the book with him or is it a translation issue.

It is really not very important, but I was curious if anyone knew.

 

[PassthePeace1]

I had a question. In Section 3 of Chapter 1, he says "since the will of man could turn either way, God secured this grace that He had given by making it conditional from the first upon two things - namely, a law and a place."

When I first read it, it implied to me that he felt since God gave us free will He would not know what we would chose so He created a plan to secure us. While I agree that God gave us free will and created a plan to secure our salvation, I also believe that God knows all and knows what we will do before we do it. He knows which way we will turn. (Maybe I am reading too much into the statement.)

How do you guys interpret this line?

I didn't really see that line, to suggest that God doesn't have foreknowledge....if anything, I see it affirming God being omniscient. I think he is pointing out, that even though God does have foreknowledge, He doesnt prejudge us, but because He also gave us free-will, that He allows us to choose.

I think he is also saying because of free-will and the choices mankind could make, God put conditions on grace...in Adam and Eves case...the garden of Eden and one prohibition...not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. What I take from this, if God had not placed those conditions, there would have been no consquences for the fall of mankind.

I am glad you brought this up, I didn't really pick up on it during my first reading....I was still tripping out, over a body being a whole hand or foot...lol... It took me awhile to wrap my head around that one.

 

[Willtor]

Here is a non-theological questions.

In the first section, first sentence, he says "in our former book . . ." By "our" does he mean someone else co-wrote the book with him or is it a translation issue.

It is really not very important, but I was curious if anyone knew.

This is a second letter addressed to the same person. When he uses the first person plural, he's talking about himself and his audience.

When I first read it, it implied to me that he felt since God gave us free will He would not know what we would chose so He created a plan to secure us. While I agree that God gave us free will and created a plan to secure our salvation, I also believe that God knows all and knows what we will do before we do it. He knows which way we will turn. (Maybe I am reading too much into the statement.)

I agree with PassthePeace1. Also, I think Athanasius is not primarily concerned with foreknowledge, but with God's provision. Adam and Eve could have sinned against God without God having told them the consequences. But in His provision, God told them that they would abide in death if they broke fellowship.

 

[Macrina]

I do not know if anyone else read the forward by C.S. Lewis, but I found it interesting. He spoke of the importance of reading the first hand source of subjects instead of only second hand sources. He continued on the importance of reading the "old" books along with the new ones.

It made me think about how many (myself included) spend so much time reading current Christian authors but not the "Fathers" of Christianity or even in some cases the Bible. It drove home the point that Christian commentary cannot be a substitute for the Word of God. It was a good message to me.

Lewis also pointed out that the old books (including Incarnation of the Word of God) have been tested throughout time where as the "new" ones have not stood the test of time. He mentions that Athanasius "did not move with his times; it is his reward that he now remains when those times, as all times do, have moved away."

Yes, I read that introduction, too, and really appreciated it. I do think that we tend to rely too much on secondary sources -- I know that I do this, even if it's rather a cop-out. But there's a lot to be said for reading something that the Church through the ages has affirmed. If one goes to the Christian bookstore and picks up the bestsellers of the moment, who knows what the quality will be?