"Athanasius of Alexandria," in Encyclopedia of Theologians, ed. I. Markham, vol. 1 (London: Blackwell, 2009). Reprinted in Student’s Companion to Theologians, ed. I. Markham (London: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013), 16-25. (original) (raw)
Related papers
Athanasius and the Arian Controversy
In 230AD, in the Early Church of Alexandria, Arius, a priest of a large church, made some scandalous claims, bringing Christ’s divinity into question. Using scriptural passages he interpreted to support his convictions, Arius put forward the argument that Christ was not of the same essence as the Father. This also meant that he was created by the Father, although he was used by the Father to create everything else. Therefore, although the Son is first and foremost of the created beings, there must have been a time where he did not exist. Athanasius, a fellow bishop in Alexandria, saw the heresy in this argument, and decided to prove Arius wrong. He argued that if Jesus was not God, then he could not have offered salvation to the world . Furthermore, in praising and worshipping Jesus, Arius was actually practicing idolatry. Athanasius has left us with a rich theological legacy. Firstly, he helped clarify the nature of the Trinity, which also pertains to the identity of Christ. Through pin-pointing the mistakes of Arius, he has also demonstrated the importance of reading Bible verses in their scriptural context. Finally, through examining Athanasius as a man, we are also able to see three beautiful facets of God’s character; his implacability, his ability to use us in whatever context he likes, and his faithfulness.
Together with Irenaeus of Lyons, Athanasius was one of the most vital figures of the patristic age. While Irenaeus was responsible for distinguishing Christianity from Gnosticism, Athanasius was responsible for ensuring the permanence of the doctrine of Christ's deity in Christendom. Yet he has not been able to escape fierce criticism. In 2000 the patristic scholar David Brakke, basing himself partly on the work of Timothy Barnes and a newly discovered letter of a contemporary of Athanasius, wrote a chapter in which he condemned Athanasius for his tyrannical actions as patriarch of Alexandria and compared him to a modern-day ayatollah. Eleven years after Brakke's chapter interest in this "opaque but complicated figure" was by no means diminished and was seen notably in one evangelical study of him and two translations published by St. Vladimir's Seminary Press. 2 Peter Leithart's work on Athanasius has the earmarks of an expert in the field. It is more of an evaluation of Athanasius than a biography and is additionally the first installment in the series Foundations of Theological Exegesis and Christian Spirituality which, among other objectives, strives to recover patristic exegesis for contemporary theology. Despite this admirable aspiration the series has a major flaw which will presently be considered. Chapter one's description of the shady aspects of Athanasius' personality cannot be improved on, especially since it is applicable not only to him but to his successors in the patriarchal chair of Alexandria. For all his piety, Leithart states, Athanasius was "a
The Creation of The Episcopal Power in Late Antiquity. The Case of Athanasius of Alexandria
The authors of Church histories from the first half of the fifth century had presented in their work a triumphal view of the Christian success over paganism in the fourth century. In all these works, a man was glorified as the defender of Nicene orthodoxy against the Arian heresy; that is Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria. A central figure in the above-mentioned ecclesiastic histories, Athanasius had achieved a great attention by the modern scholars, justified by the role played by the bishop as a central actor in the context of the fight against the Arian heresy, between 328 (the date of his election as bishop of Alexandria) and 373 (the date of his death). The present paper intends to analyze the bishop's power in the fourth-century Alexandria. Also, the analysis of the bases of patriarchal power, both legally and informally, represents an important part in the economy of the discussed subject.
Uta Heil, 2018
There are two important aspects in Athanasius’ self-representation as an author that led to his success and reputation. One aspect is his depiction as the true teacher, the other aspect is his portrayal as the real martyr. “Teacher” belongs to a more intellectual habitus, “martyr” to a practical and spiritual one. Both aspects support each other and underline his authority as a reliable author. Especially the adoption of the theme “persecution” and “martyrdom” is notable, because it is the first creative reuse of this theme in a new context during a time when the persecution of Christians was an element of the past, but when, at the same time, the veneration of the martyrs of the first three centuries grew constantly. Athanasius managed to depict his many exiles as martyrdom, not as damnation or cowardly flight. On the contrary, he achieved to describe his many depositions as maneuvers of the heretics, either of the Eusebians or of the emperors, though historical research has shown that he was not exiled because of theological reasons at all. In the end it was the conviction of the later generations after Athanasius that Christianity owed the prevalence of Nicene Orthodoxy to him; his five exiles did not discredit his legacy but on the contrary supported it.