Reading On the Incarnation St. Athanasius

Greek Koine and Biblical and Medieval Greek
21

Athanasius On the incarnation 2.5
Οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν αἱρέσεων ἄλλον
ἑαυτοῖς ἀναπλάττονται δημιουργὸν τῶν πάντων παρὰ τὸν
Πατέρα τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τυφλώττοντες
μέγα καὶ περὶ ἃ φθέγγονται.

Others, again, from the heretics fabricate for themselves another creator of all things besides the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, being greatly blinded even in what they say.

John Behr 2011

Then, again, there is the theory of the Gnostics,
who have invented for themselves an Artificer of all
things other than the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ. These simply shut their eyes to the obvious
meaning of Scripture.

Penelope lawson 1946

Notes:

In contrast to John Behr who translates ἀπὸ τῶν αἱρέσεων “from the heretics,” P. Lawson supplies the referent “of the Gnostics.”

“ἑαυτοῖς ἀναπλάττονται δημιουργὸν … “ This appears to be a play on words. Lampe p117 ἀναπλάσσω §4 imagine, invent (used of heretics) Justin, Eusebius. Athanasius Chrysostom. Loose paraphrase: The heretics were being creative, by inventing their own creator.

22

In a manner that might come as a surprise to a student from the third millennium, Athanasius grounds his argument for the Incarnation in creation, following the pattern set by the prologue to John’s Gospel. He cites from Moses, Paul (Hebrews), and the Shepard of Hermas which he sets apart from Moses and “Paul” by calling it a useful book ὠφελιμωτάτης βίβλου.


Athanasius On the Incarnation 3.1

Ταῦτα μὲν οὗτοι μυθολογοῦσιν. Ἡ δὲ ἔνθεος
διδασκαλία καὶ ἡ κατὰ Χριστὸν πίστις τὴν μὲν τούτων
ματαιολογίαν ὡς ἀθεότητα διαβάλλει. Οὔτε γὰρ αὐτομάτως,
διὰ τὸ μὴ ἀπρονόητα εἶναι, οὔτε ἐκ προϋποκειμένης ὕλης,
διὰ τὸ μὴ ἀσθενῆ εἶναι τὸν Θεόν· ἀλλ’ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων καὶ
μηδαμῆ μηδαμῶς > ὑπάρχοντα τὰ ὅλα εἰς τὸ εἶναι πεποιη-
κέναι τὸν Θεὸν διὰ τοῦ Λόγου > οἶδεν> , ᾗ φησὶ διὰ μὲν
Μωϋσέως· «Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ
τὴν γῆν»· διὰ δὲ τῆς > ὠφελιμωτάτης βίβλου > τοῦ
Ποιμένος· «Πρῶτον πάντων πίστευσον, ὅτι εἷς ἐστὶν ὁ
Θεός, ὁ τὰ πάντα κτίσας καὶ καταρτίσας, καὶ ποιήσας ἐκ
τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι.»

3.2
Ὅπερ καὶ ὁ Παῦλος σημαίνων φησί· «Πίστει νοοῦμεν
κατηρτίσθαι τοὺς αἰῶνας ῥήματι Θεοῦ,
εἰς τὸ μὴ ἐκ φαινομένων τὰ βλεπόμενα γεγονέναι.»

Notes:

μηδαμῆ μηδαμῶς is a much used emphatic negation.

οἶδεν: Athanasius frequently postpones a verb crucial to understanding a sentence. John Behr moves the verb upfront “For it knows” in accordance with English discourse strategy.


These things, then, they fantasize. But the inspired teaching and faith according to Christ casts out their vain talk as godlessness. > For it knows that > neither spontaneously, as it is not without providence, nor from pre-existent matter, as God is not weak, but from nothing and having absolutely no existence God brought the universe into being through the Word, which it says through Moses, “In the beginning God made heaven and earth” (Gen 1:1), and through that most useful book of the Shepherd, “First of all believe that God is one, who created and framed all things, and made them from non-existence into being:”1 as also Paul indicates when he says, “By faith we under­stand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which appear” (Heb 11:3).

John Behr 2011



Shep. 26:1 (Ἐντολὴ α’.1)

Πρῶτον πάντων πίστευσον ὅτι εἷς ἐστὶν ὁ θεός, ὁ τὰ πάντα κτίσας καὶ καταρτίσας, καὶ ποιήσας ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι τὰ πάντα, καὶ πάντα χωρῶν, μόνος δὲ ἀχώρητος ὤν.

Shep. 26:1 {Mandate 1.1} “First of all, believe that God is one, who created all things and set them in order, and made out of what did not exist everything that is, and who contains all things but is himself alone uncontained.

Michael W. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers

23

$ 4.4 Οὕτως μὲν οὖν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον πεποίηκε, > καὶ μένειν ἠθέλησεν ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ> · ἄνθρωποι δὲ κατολιγωρήσαντες καὶ ἀποστραφέντες τὴν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν κατανόησιν, λογισάμενοι δὲ καὶ ἐπινοήσαντες ἑαυτοῖς τὴν κακίαν, ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς πρώτοις ἐλέχθη, ἔσχον τὴν προαπειληθεῖσαν τοῦ θανάτου κατάκρισιν, καὶ λοιπὸν οὐκ ἔτι ὡς γεγόνασι διέμενον· ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐλογίζοντο διεφθείροντο· καὶ ὁ θάνατος αὐτῶν ἐκράτει βασιλεύων. > Ἡ γὰρ παράβασις τῆς ἐντολῆς εἰς τὸ κατὰ φύσιν αὐτοὺς ἐπέστρεφεν> , ἵνα, ὥσπερ οὐκ ὄντες γεγόνασιν, οὕτως καὶ τὴν εἰς τὸ μὴ εἶναι φθορὰν ὑπομείνωσι τῷ χρόνῳ εἰκότως.



4. Thus, then, God has made man, > and willed that he should abide in incorruption> ; but men, having despised and rejected the contemplation of God, and devised and contrived evil for themselves (as was said in the former treatise[1]), received the condemnation of death with which they had been threatened; and from thenceforth no longer remained as they were made, but were being corrupted according to their devices; and death had the mastery over them as king. > For transgression of the commandment was turning them back to their natural state, > so that just as they have had their being out of nothing, so also, as might be expected, they might look for corruption into nothing in the course of time.

Archibald Robertson 1891

Athanasius isn’t perfectly lucid concerning the original state of the man and woman. The first line
4.4 Οὕτως μὲν οὖν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον πεποίηκε, καὶ μένειν ἠθέλησεν ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ “Thus, then, God has made man, and willed that he should abide in incorruption” raises a notoriously difficult theological problem. The author makes a backward reference, following Robertson’s footnote I read Contra Gentes §§3-5[1]. It didn’t resolve the problem, just raised new problems.

Toward the end of the paragraph, a new conundrum is added to what has already been mentioned. Ἡ γὰρ παράβασις τῆς ἐντολῆς εἰς τὸ κατὰ φύσιν αὐτοὺς ἐπέστρεφεν “… for transgression of the commandment was turning them back to their natural state.” It sounds here like the “natural state” is mortality, but how do you reconcile that with “God has made man, and willed that he should abide in incorruption”? Created mortal with the opportunity to attain immortality (conditional immortality??), symbolized by eating from the tree of life. That really doesn’t resolve all the issues raised by: ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον πεποίηκε, καὶ μένειν ἠθέλησεν ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ·

[1] Contra Gentes §§3-5
http://catholiclibrary.org/library/view?docId=Synchronized-OR/npnf.000085.gr.html;chunk.id=00000009;toc.id=00000005;brand=default

24

On the question raised in my last post I found someone else who noticed this issue and commented on it:

Athanasius: Mortality and the Problem of Unbecoming

http://existdissolve.com/2010/12/athanasius-mortality-and-the-problem-of-unbecoming/

and another one employing “Critical Theory” [1]

https://www.academia.edu/33197039/Athanasius_Derrida_and_the_Carrying_of_Deification

[1] See Jordan Peterson’s evaluation of "Critical Theory.
jordaon peterson at oxford union
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1qVLB96nI0

25

Just returned several monographs on Athanasius which were not really very helpful. I haven’t found anything in English that could be called a commentary dealing with On the Incarnation. A Patristic Greek Reader, Rodney Whitacre 2007, includes a few segments from On the Incarnation. He provides brief lexical notes on important words. He also translates but puts all the translations at the end of the book. John Behr of Saint Vladimír’s has a Greek-English diglot which I am not using because the format is too small. I built my own diglot using Archibald Robertson’s 1891 translation using a table format to align each subsection side by side. I’m editing the diglot as I read.

Reading On the Incarnation is not easy. Rodney Whitacre rates it as an advanced text. Here is a sample:

On the Incarnation > § 20.2

Ἐπειδὴ δὲ καὶ τὸ ὀφειλόμενον παρὰ πάντων ἔδει λοιπὸν ἀποδοθῆναι· ὠφείλετο γὰρ πάντως, ὡς προεῖπον, ἀποθανεῖν, δι’ ὃ μάλιστα καὶ ἐπεδήμησε· τούτου ἕνεκεν μετὰ τὰς περὶ θεότητος αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῶν ἔργων ἀποδείξεις, ἤδη λοιπὸν καὶ ὑπὲρ πάντων τὴν θυσίαν ἀνέφερεν, ἀντὶ πάντων τὸν ἑαυτοῦ ναὸν εἰς θάνατον παραδιδούς, ἵνα τοὺς μὲν πάντας ἀνυπευθύνους καὶ ἐλευθέρους τῆς ἀρχαίας παραβάσεως ποιήσῃ· δείξῃ δὲ ἑαυτὸν καὶ θανάτου κρείτ τονα, ἀπαρχὴν τῆς τῶν ὅλων ἀναστάσεως τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα ἄφθαρτον ἐπιδεικνύμενος.

The first few lines are rugged terrain.

On the Incarnation > § 20.2
Archibald Robertson’s 1891 translation

But since it was necessary also that the debt owing from all should be paid again: for, as I have already said , it was owing that all should die, for which special cause, indeed, He came among us: to this intent, after the proofs of His Godhead from His works, He next offered up His sacrifice also on behalf of all, yielding His Temple to death in the stead of all, in order firstly to make men quit and free of their old trespass, and further to show Himself more powerful even than death, displaying His own body incorruptible, as first-fruits of the resurrection of all.

26

This is a question!

Is σώματος the antecedent of τούτου?

On the Incarnation St. Athanasius
§ 44.1 Ἀλλ’ ἴσως συγκαταθήσονται μὲν τούτοις αἰσχυνόμενοι, θελήσουσι δὲ λέγειν, ὅτι ἔδει τὸν Θεόν, παιδεῦσαι καὶ σῶσαι θέλοντα τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, νεύματι μόνον ποιῆσαι, καὶ μὴ > σώματος > ἅψασθαι τὸν > τούτου > Λόγον, ὥσπερ οὖν καὶ πάλαι πεποίηκεν, ὅτε ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος αὐτὰ συνίστη.

§ 44 But perhaps, shamed into agreeing with this, they will choose to say that God, if He wished to reform and to save mankind, ought to have done so by a mere fiat , without His word taking a body, in just the same way as He did formerly, when He produced them out of nothing.

27

I don’t see how it could be. What would it mean if it were? How would you read it?

28

This is a answer!

No.