The Convincing Biographer: The Use of Genre in Athanasius' Christology

John Carroll University
Carroll Collected
Masters Theses Master's Theses and Essays
Spring 2019
THE CONVINCING BIOGRAPHER: THE

USE OF GENRE IN ATHANASIUS’
CHRISTOLOGY
Angelica DiGangi
John Carroll University, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: https://collected.jcu.edu/masterstheses

Part of the Religion Commons
Recommended Citation
DiGangi, Angelica, "THE CONVINCING BIOGRAPHER: THE USE OF GENRE IN ATHANASIUS’ CHRISTOLOGY" (2019).
Masters Theses. 41.
https://collected.jcu.edu/masterstheses/41
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses and Essays at Carroll Collected. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of Carroll Collected. For more information, please contact [email protected].
THE CONVINCING BIOGRAPHER: THE USE OF GENRE IN ATHANASIUS’
CHRISTOLOGY
A Thesis Submitted to the

Office of Graduate Studies
College of Arts & Sciences of
John Carroll University
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Master of Arts
By
Angelica M. DiGangi
2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
CHAPTER 1: ATHANASIUS’ LIFE AND CHRISTOLOGY .......................................... 3

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3
Life and Context of Athanasius ....................................................................................... 3
Arian Controversy ....................................................................................................... 5
Arius’ Christology ....................................................................................................... 7
The Council of Nicæa ................................................................................................ 10
Athanasius’ Christology ................................................................................................ 14
Reception of Athanasius’ Christology .......................................................................... 22
Conclusion..................................................................................................................... 27
CHAPTER 2: THE GREEK BIOGRAPHY ..................................................................... 29

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 29
History and Context ...................................................................................................... 30
Early Structure of the Bios ............................................................................................ 32
Shift to the Holy ............................................................................................................ 33
The Greek Bios.............................................................................................................. 40
Life of Antony as a Greek Bios ..................................................................................... 42
Conclusion..................................................................................................................... 52
CHAPTER 3: SOCIO-RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LIFE OF ANTONY ......... 54

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 54
Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation Process ........................................................................ 59
Rhetography............................................................................................................... 60
Argumentative Texture .............................................................................................. 66
Rhetorolects ............................................................................................................... 68
Conclusion..................................................................................................................... 71
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 73
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................. 75
i
INTRODUCTION
Pieces of literature are complex teaching tools. Authors draw on various milieu
and rhetorical techniques to present ideas in creative ways. By presenting the material in
such a way, the audience is moved to action that direct instruction is not able to produce.
Creative tales build fantastic heroes, dramatic emotions, and elaborate situations, all set
into a world that is believable or relatable. The genre of the Greek Biography (or bios)
aimed to do such a thing by blending fiction and reality into a piece of work that
demonstrates the potential for a good life. The bios genre presented elaborate heroes that
possessed all the virtues the author held dear and demonstrated what those virtues look
like when lived out in the world. Life of Antony is one piece of literature that fits into the
bios genre. Written by Athanasius during the turmoil of the Arian Controversy,1 Life of
Antony is a detailed narrative presenting the teachings and actions of Antony of the
Desert. This study aims to demonstrate the various layers that are present in this text,
which Athanasius used to promulgate his Christology.
To do so, this thesis project will include three chapters that have their own
methodologies. The first chapter explores the context of Athanasius’ life and its influence
on his Christology. It details the beginnings of the Arian Controversy and how
Athanasius and Arius differed in their understanding of Jesus Christ. The second chapter
then examines the development of the Greek bios considering the historical context from
1
There are discussions among scholars whether Athanasius did in fact author Life of Antony. The
debates primarily discuss the original language of the text, linguistic styles, and early attribution of
Athanasius to the text. See, William Harmless, Desert Christians: An Introduction to the Literature of
Early Monasticism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 111–13 and Peter Juriss, “In Defense of
Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria as Author of the Life of Antony: A Discussion of Historical, Linguistic
and Theological Considerations,” Phronema 12 (1997): 24–43. However, this study will acknowledge
Athanasius as the author based on theological considerations, which the first chapter of this study explores.
1
which it came. It also will detail the change in paradigm when the subjects shifted from
political to holy subjects. During this examination, it will demonstrate how the Life of
Antony follows the holy paradigm with Athanasius using the genre to promote his
Christology. The final chapter turns to focus on the text itself by introducing socio-
rhetorical interpretation (SRI). Without completing a full SRI analysis, the last chapter
will highlight key aspects of the text crucial for the SRI process. By doing so, it will
highlight the potential of SRI’s contribution to understanding Athanasius’ Christology
within the text.
This multi-method thesis will demonstrate the complexity of literature and how
early Christians appealed to various forms of writing to promote beliefs. After many
years of trials and tribulations, Athanasius knew he had to appeal to a larger audience,
therefore, he turned from dogmatics to literature. Following Athanasius’ Christology, Life
of Antony presents the author’s effort to demonstrate how the Divine Christ transforms
Christian life. Considering Athanasius’ historical context and the rhetorical force of the
bios genre, this thesis demonstrates that Life of Antony is worthy of an in-depth
interpretative method, such as socio-rhetorical Interpretation, to find the hidden layers of
Athanasius’ Christology within the text.
2
CHAPTER 1: ATHANASIUS’ LIFE
AND CHRISTOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
Many people overlook how the pillars of Christian faith developed. To
contemporary Christians, it may seem absurd to ask whether Christ is God. However,
before the tradition familiar to today’s church developed, the question sparked an outcry
of voices. During the fourth century, many explanations regarding the divinity of Christ
entered Christian discourse, thereby causing the Arian Controversy to erupt. Since the
answer to the question of Christ’s divinity would drastically shape the faith, it was
important to handle the matter appropriately. The Council of Nicæa gathered to settle the
debates, and Athanasius of Alexandria became the defender of the outcome in the years
to follow. The context of his time, the debates in which he actively participated, and the
influence of the people around him shaped how Athanasius developed his Christology.
These fourth-century debates, which Athanasius further developed and defended, became
the bedrock upon which the church founded its doctrine of Christ. Athanasius’ defense of
the full divinity of Christ in the Arian Controversy heavily influenced his Christology,
which resulted in a wide reception of his work in both the Eastern and Western traditions.
LIFE AND CONTEXT OF ATHANASIUS
The Roman Empire reached distant corners of the Mediterranean and included
many diverse cultures. These cultures, usually separated by distance, tended to mingle at
large port cities. One of these port cities was Alexandria, drawing a variety of Egyptians,
3
Greeks, and Jews, as well as different philosophies including Stoicism and Platonism.2
This mix of diverse cultures was not always peaceful. Khaled Anatolios notes that
Alexandria’s history is full of many revolts and persecutions, which also led to “relations
between the local populace and the Roman authorities [being] strained and sometimes
bloody.”3 Born between 295–299 C.E. to pagan parents who later converted to
Christianity, this type of environment is what Athanasius entered.4 There is no record that
Athanasius had any sort of formal education, but it is known that he was an apprentice to
Alexander the Bishop of Alexandria.5 Even without a formal education, it is apparent that
Alexander handed down a wealth of knowledge to Athanasius. Evident in his writings,
Athanasius is quite fluent in various forms of philosophy, familiar with scripture, and
trained in the use of rhetoric. Anatolios points out that:
Especially his early writing displays at least a colloquial familiarity with
philosophical concepts of the various schools, in particular a Stoic
cosmology which is employed to speak of the Word as the principle of
harmony in the cosmos, and a Middle Platonic ontology in which God is
characterized as true being…. His use of classical rhetorical techniques
has also been noted. The reference to Athanasius’ familiarity with and
2
Thomas G. Weinandy and Daniel A. Keating, Athanasius and His Legacy (Minneapolis:
Augsburg Fortress, 2017), 2.
3
Khaled Anatolios, Athanasius (New York: Routledge, 2004), 2.
4
Anatolios, Athanasius, 3–4.
5
Anatolios, Athanasius, 4.
4
study of the Scriptures represent an enduring portrait of Athanasius as a
theologian steeped in the Scriptures.6
Athanasius imbues his knowledge of philosophy, rhetoric, and scripture throughout his
works. All three areas of knowledge help to put words to his ideas about Christ and
salvation.
While Athanasius was a deacon to Alexander, he attended the one council that
would forever change his life, the First Council of Nicæa (325 C.E.). The Council began
with what may seem like a simple question: What is Christ’s relationship to God? The
question raised many voices within the Egyptian church (starting around 318–320 C.E.)
and eventually spread throughout the Empire.7 Deemed the Arian Controversy, the debate
drew many theologians who presented different ways of describing Christ. The
beginnings of the controversy can be traced to three Alexandrian theologians before it
bloomed into an empire-wide debate.
Arian Controversy
The first contribution, which certainly influenced the others to come, was made
by Origen, the great theologian of Alexandria (ca. 185– ca. 251 C.E.). Origen may have
been far removed from the controversy,8 but his theology laid the foundation for the later
debates. Anatolios explains that “Origen taught that the Son was eternally generated by
the Father,” but he also “maintained subordinationist language … that while the Son
6
7
8
5
transcends creation, he is himself transcended by the Father.”9 Therefore, Christ is
generated by God and not from God, supporting the hierarchical structure.
Another theologian was Dionysius (mid-third century) whose theology did
address the concept of creation. Anatolios describes his theology as “the Son [was]
‘something made (poiēma) which came into being (genēton)’ and ‘not belonging (idios)
by nature but alien in being (ousia) from the Father.’”10 God brought Christ into
existence (created/begotten), but Christ remains distinct from God, a different essence
(substance). Once again, Christ is made by God and not from God, but now Christ's
creation is distinguished.
A third voice in the early discussion was Theognostus, who also addressed the
issue of creation, but took a different direction than Dionysius. Anatolios summarizes
Theognostus’ theory as “the being of the Son is not ‘external’ and not procured from non-
existence but is from the Father’s being,” but “Theognostus spoke of the Son as a
creature, ktisma.”11 Both Dionysius and Theognostus believed that Christ was created,
but Dionysius grouped Christ with all of creation, which was created from nothing, while
Theognostus claimed that Christ was created from the very being of God.
These early voices produced great debates among the Egyptian churches. The
debates brewed for many years before they expanded to the point that religious authority
could not ignore them anymore. When the time came, the surviving theories were
9
10
11
6
narrowed down to those of two main opponents: Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, and
Arius, a priest in Alexandria.
Drawing from the roots of previous debates and from the scriptures, both
Alexander and Arius insisted on the fullness of the Godhead, but fiercely debated how
Christ related to God. Demonstrating both of their influences from Origen, Anatolios
summarizes, “Alexander emphasized especially Origen’s doctrine of the eternal
generation of the Son and of the Son’s being a perfect ‘Image’ of the Father.” On the
other side, “Arius radicalized a subordinationist streak that could also base itself on one
tendency in Origen’s theology, now viewed from the perspective of a doctrine of
creation.”12 Alexander insisted on God and Christ being one in all aspects while Arius
supported a hierarchical structure within the Godhead with Christ being distinct from
God in having a created nature. The debate between the two men led to the Council of
Nicæa and, as Alexander’s apprentice, Athanasius continued the battle after Alexander’s
death, building a Christology rooted in Alexander’s. Therefore, a fuller and more in-
depth examination of both sides of the Council of Nicæa is needed to fully understand
Athanasius’ Christology.
Arius’ Christology
Little is known about Arius’s life or education, but what is known comes from the
public accounts of his affairs.13 And, much like his life story, Arius’ Christology becomes
known mostly through his opponents.14 Even though there seems to be an air of mystery
12
13
See Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy & Tradition (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 82.
14
Weinandy and Keating, Athanasius and His Legacy, 10.
7
surrounding Arius, there survives a nuanced and foundational understanding to his
Christology. In a broad sense, his Christology focuses on two aspects of theology: the
transcendence of God and the humanness of Christ. Arius could not reconcile the two.
Thomas Weinandy and Daniel Keating explain that “for Arius, God is transcendent in
that [God] is not only other than all else, but also far removed from all else,” therefore, to
say Christ is God is to speak of “two ingenerate beings, one dependent upon the other,
[which] would be a contradiction of terms and would destroy the unique ingenerate
oneness of God.”15 Not only does the claim that Christ is God contradict Arius’ belief
that God is unique, but it also contradicts the total transcendence of God. God being
utterly unique and transcendent makes God separate from creation. Therefore, God could
not become part of the created world, otherwise it would contradict God’s transcendent
nature. Arius might deny Christ’s divinity, but he never denied that Christ was sent to do
God’s work. He asserted that Christ came from God, but was created (i.e., was part of
creation). Weinandy and Keating state that “while the Father created the Son, the Son
created all else that existed, thus becoming the protective shield between the transcendent
God and all finite reality.”16 Arius places the created Christ as a mediator between the
utterly transcendent God and all of creation. Christ is still unique in that his creation was
for a special purpose, to aid in God’s work of creation and mediate God’s will to creation,
but he still was a created reality. This concept is where Arius’ so-called slogan grew
from, “there was a ‘when’ when the son was not.”17 If Christ is created then Christ was
15
16
17
William Harmless, Desert Christians: An Introduction to the Literature of Early Monasticism
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 27.
8
not always with God; thus, there is a gap in time between God and Christ. Christ would
have a beginning whereas God has no beginning. To summarize the first part of Arius’
argument: God is alone eternal; Christ is not. God has no beginning, but Christ does have
a beginning. God is uncreated; Christ is created and, like the rest of creation, he is created
from nothing.18
Arius’ second point focuses on the humanity of Christ. As Robert Gregg and
Dennis Groh point out, “Arius’ concern for doctrine [was] based in exegesis of
scripture.”19 What Arius refused to ignore was the human characteristics of Christ present
in scripture. Specifically, he “emphasized the suffering and creaturely characteristics to
be drawn from the ministry of Jesus on earth.”20 For Arius, it was very obvious that
Christ was a human and what came with being human was limitations—bodily,
emotional, and spiritual. Gregg and Groh quote Arius’ followers as asking: “How is he
able to be Logos or God who slept as a man, wept, and had to learn by inquiry?”21 Christ
displayed human qualities throughout scriptures, such as weeping when Lazarus died
(John 11:35), sleeping during his travels with his disciples (Matt 8:23–24; Mark 4:38;
Luke 8:23), and questioning God’s plan concerning his death (Luke 22:39–46;
Matt 27:46), which demonstrates the changeability of creatures, not God. Weinandy and
Keating explain, “in becoming human, the Son would undergo a change, and as a human
18
Based on Harmless’ more detailed summary of Arius’ argument; see Harmless, Desert
Christians, 27.
19
Robert C. Gregg and Dennis E. Groh, Early Arianism: A View of Salvation (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1981), 3.
20
Gregg and Groh, Early Arianism, 2.
21
9
being he could suffer and die.”22 Even further, it displays the creaturely limitations of
knowledge and understanding. Athanasius quotes Arius as saying:
If the Son were, according to your interpretation, eternally existent with
God, he would not have been ignorant of the [last] day, but would have
known it as Word; nor would he have been forsaken [Mark 15:34] who
was coexistent … for being the Word, he needed nothing. But since he is a
creature and one of the things originated, therefore he spoke in this way,
and needed what he did not have, for it is proper to creatures to require
and need what they do not possess.23
As Arius states in the first part of his argument, God is utterly transcendent from all else;
therefore, God is separate from (transcendent) all created order. God does not possess the
qualities of creation, but Christ does possess these qualities, which leads to Arius
conclusion that Christ was not divine; he was a creature. Alexander’s response to Arius’
claims are represented in the outcome of the Council of Nicæa and are carried into
Athanasius’ own Christology.
The Council of Nicæa
The Council of Nicæa, whose impact is still present today, aimed to define
doctrine crucial to the faith. In 325 C.E., 318 bishops came together in Nicæa at the order
of the Emperor Constantine to put an end to the now very public debate over Christ’s
divinity.24 Athanasius was just a deacon at the time he attended the Council with Bishop
22
23
24
10
Alexander and recorded the events. According to Athanasius’ notes, the Council became
a game of words. Anatolios explains, “as recounted by Athanasius, the main challenge for
those who wanted to decisively refute Arius’s doctrine was to find a way to articulate the
relationship between the Son and the Father that could not be co-opted by Arius.”25 The
Council then defined two words that became important to addressing the question of
Christ’s divinity, monogenēs and homoousios. Unlike Arius, the Council wanted to make
note that “originated” (γίνομαι) and “begotten” (γεννάω) were two different terms.
Weinandy and Keating specify that “what is begotten is always of the same nature as the
begetter…. God the Father created the world and so all creatures are of a different nature
than God, but he begot his Son and so the Son shares in [God’s] very divine nature.”26 To
be “originated” is to be made or created, while to be begotten is to be of the same
nature.27 Homoousios (“of one essence/being”), a unique term not found in scripture, was
brought into the discussion, alongside begotten, to further emphasize that Christ and God
are of the same essence.28 These two terms are then used within the response refuting
each of Arius’ claims.
Arius followed a methodological chain of ideas to derive his claim that Christ was
not divine. To summarize them once again, Arius claimed that “the father alone is God,
the son was made, the son was from nothingness, and ‘there was a ‘when’ when the son
was not.’”29 The Council of Nicæa, in its response, directly refuted each of these claims.
25
26
27
This specification becomes important while refuting Arius, which will be examined shortly.
28
29
Harmless, Desert Christians, 27.
11
For the first, the Council determined that “the Father is transcendent in that he exists in a
singular manner distinct from all else, but he does not exist such that he is infinitely
removed from all else.”30 Instead of Arius’ view of God and creation, utterly separate
with a great, unbridgeable gap between the two, the Council affirmed divine immanence
in the Creation. As for the second, the council asserted that “the Father, being almighty,
created all things and he did so by creating all things through his eternal Son.”31 Christ
was not created, but participated in the action of creation with God. A creature, with all
its limitation, cannot create at the level of God; therefore, Christ is not a creature. The
third point is addressed when the council states that “as the only begotten Son, the Son is
not ontologically a different kind of being from the Father, a creature, but he is begotten
from the very same being or nature as the Father.”32 If Christ is not a creature (a part of
creation), then Christ is not from nothingness. Instead, Christ is begotten and shares the
same nature (essence) as God. To address the final point, the council made it clear that
“there was never a ‘time/when’ God was not the Father, and so there never was a ‘time/
when’ the Son was not.”33 Christ was always with God, for he is one-in-being with God.
Therefore, it is impossible for God the Father to exist at any point without Christ.
The Nicene Creed presents these four points, the official dogmatic statement
produced by the council. A section of the Nicene Creed reads: “I believe in one Lord
Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from
30
31
32
33
12
God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial
(homoousion) with the Father; through him all things were made.”34 Athanasius’
Christology further nuanced the doctrine of the Nicene Creed, but the creed did not put an
end to debates as the council had hoped. Alexander died shortly after the council (328
C.E.) and Athanasius succeeded as Bishop of Alexandria.35 From his new position,
Athanasius continued to defend the doctrine of Nicæa. Unfortunately, ten years after the
beginning of the Council of Nicæa, another council subverted the doctrine: The Council
of Tyre affirmed Arian Orthodoxies, charged Athanasius with crimes, and exiled him.36
This is not the only conciliar reversal or exile that Athanasius will have to overcome in
his lifetime. Athanasius was bishop for forty-five years and spent fifteen of them in exile,
the time divided among five total exiles.37 Along with the exiles, thirteen various councils
were held, most notably the Council of Antioch and the Council of Constantinople, even
further debating the nature of Christ’s divinity, and all were heavily influenced by
surviving Arian theologians and political figures of the time.38 However, over these years
of councils and exiles, Athanasius did not sit idly. Athanasius continued to write and
produce some of his most famous works, such as Life of Antony and Orations against the
34
English translation from “What We Believe,” United States Conference of Catholic Bishops,
accessed November 26, 2018, http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe. Greek word
added by me, from the Greek text in Geddes MacGregor, The Nicene Creed: Illuminated by Modern
Thought (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980), ix.
35
36
37
38
A summary of the various councils can be found in Anatolios, Athanasius, 15–30.
13
Arians.39 The ever-present threat of Arianism is noticeable in his works, and his writings
staunchly defended the Nicene Christology.
ATHANASIUS’ CHRISTOLOGY
Constantly on the defense, Athanasius develops his Christology with Arianism
always on his mind. Drawing from the influences of his past, including Platonic thought
and Alexander’s Nicene teachings, Athanasius constructs a Christology heavily focused
on the divinity of Christ. Although Athanasius penned numerous pieces concerning
Christ and the Trinity, this section of the study will focus on his major work constructed
shortly after the Council of Nicæa: Contra Gentes — De Incarnatione.
Contra Gentes — De Incarnatione (c. 328 C.E.) had two goals, to reassert the
transcendent nature of God and to proclaim that Christ’s divinity mediates the
transcendent nature of God.40 In the first part of his argument, Athanasius draws on his
Platonic heritage. J. Rebecca Lyman notes that “he uses the metaphysical commonplaces
of divine transcendence from contemporary Platonism: ὅ ύπερ πάσης οὐσίας, ὅ
δημιουργός, ἀόρατος, ἀσώματος, ἄτρεπτος, ἅπλοῦς” (the one above all beings, the
creator, unseen, without body, unchangeable, simple/single).41 Athanasius does not deny
Arius’ claims that God is utterly transcendent and distinct (or different) from all else. He
acknowledged that there was a complete and full separation of God from the Creation.
39
For a summary of Athanasius’ exiles and the works produced see Harmless, Desert Christians,
33–36.
40
See David M. Gwynn, Athanasius of Alexandria: Bishop, Theologian, Ascetic, Father (New
York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 66.
41
J. Rebecca Lyman, Christology and Cosmology: Models of Divine Activity in Origen, Eusebius,
and Athanasius (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 132. Greek translation done with help from
Dr. Gwendolyn Compton-Engle.
14
David Gwynn explains that “the Godhead, eternal and immutable, is utterly separate by
ousia (essence) and physis (nature) from the created order, brought into existence in time
and mutable.”42 The term ousia is brought back into the discussion to distinguish the
essence (or being) of God from that of the created world.
What differentiated Athanasius from Arius was that Athanasius believed
the gap between God and creation could be bridged. Athanasius states in
Contra Gentes: For God, the creator of the universe and king of all, who is
beyond all being and human thought, since He is good and bountiful, has
made humanity in His own image through His own Word, our Savior
Jesus Christ; and He also made humanity perceptive and understanding of
reality through its similarity to Him, giving it also a conception and
knowledge of its own eternity, so that as long as it kept this likeness, it
might never abandon its concept of God.43
God may be “beyond all being,” but God did not create to leave creation totally on its
own. God planted the seeds for humanity to know and understand its Creator. As Gwynn
summarizes, “God did not abandon humanity, and through His love humanity could still
seek to know God. The likeness of God remained visible within human souls, and [God]
was revealed through creation itself.”44 Humans need only to turn to themselves to know
and understand God, for humanity is created in God’s own image. Human nature reflects
God’s nature in the created world; this concept will flow through the rest of Athanasius’
42
Gwynn, Athanasius of Alexandria, 67.
43
44
15
Christology. The key point from this passage is God “made humanity in [God’s] own
image through [God’s] own Word, our Savior Jesus Christ.”45 Christ, the Divine Word,
bridges the gap between God and creation. Which is why “it is the Word who binds all
creation together.”46 It was through Christ that creation was made, enabling humans to be
made in God’s image. However, because of humanity’s Fall, sin blinds humans.
Therefore, as Gwynn explains, “for it was in order to rescue humanity from its errors that
the Word Himself took on a created form. Therefore, ‘although He is incorporeal by
nature … through the mercy and goodness of His Father He appeared to us in a human
body for our salvation.’”47
Now, the idea of God “taking on” a human body raised concerns for Arius
because it meant that the essence of God was subject to change. Athanasius counters this
claim precisely with his immanent God argument. Harmless summarizes that, if Christ
(and God) are everywhere in creation precisely because of the creative relationship, then
“just as God can be present everywhere in a changing material universe without its
impairing [God’s] own unchangeability, so Christ as God Incarnate could become present
in a human body without its impairing his unchangeability.”48 Athanasius did not see the
human body as the dominant being in the reality of Christ. Harmless quotes Athanasius
as stating that Christ “also being in a human body and giving it life himself, he
accordingly gives life to everything, and was both in all and outside all…. For he was not
45
Emphasis added.
46
47
48
Harmless, Desert Christians, 88–89.
16
bound to the body, but rather he controlled it, and was only at rest in the Father.”49 Since
Christ is present in all of creation, it is Christ who has control over the body and not the
other way around. This view of the relationship between Christ and the human body has
its weaknesses, which this chapter later examines. Athanasius’ discussion in Contra
Gentes explains how and why the Divine entered into the Creation in Christ, but De
Incarnatione explains the significance of the incarnation.
Athanasius claimed that the divine Christ had to entered into the Creation so that
the bridge between God and the Creation could close and the errors of humanity could be
corrected. In De Incarnatione, Athanasius explains how this could be done and what
would be the result of it. He insists that Christ must be divine to complete this plan.
Gwynn explains that “only through the incarnation of the divine Son and Word,
Athanasius maintains, could salvation and revelation be received by humanity.”50
Humans erred by sinning and turning away from God, and God corrected it in a two-fold
way: The Word became Christ to die and to restore the divine image in humanity. Gwynn
quotes Athanasius’ explanation:
For since the Word realized the human corruption would not be abolished
in any other way except by everyone dying — but the Word was not able
to die, being immortal and the Son of the Father — therefore, He took to
Himself a body which could die, in order that, since this participated in the
Word who is above all, it might suffice for death on behalf of all, and
because of the Word who was dwelling in it, it might remain incorruptible,
49
50
17
and so corruption might cease from all humanity by the grace of the
resurrection.51
Death was the inevitable result of human sin, but God does not wish that humanity should
die; in fact, God had promised that would never happen again (Gen 8:21). Therefore, God
sent one who “might suffice for death,” the one-in-being uncreated Son, for God (and
Christ) is able to act on behalf of all creation. Not only does the incarnation provide the
avenue for the atonement of death, it also transforms humanity. As Athanasius states
above, “because of the Word who was dwelling in it, it might remain incorruptible, and
so corruption might cease from all humanity.” The Word reminded humans of what
humanity was meant to be, what the right relationship between God and Creation was to
look like, through the incarnate Christ. Gwynn explains that “through participation with
the divine Word, made possible by the incarnation, humanity could be made perfect and
free from sin and preserve the knowledge and unity with God that was lost when men and
women turned away into error.”52 The death of Christ on the cross and his resurrection
may have overcome death; but final salvation, liberation from sin, comes from the act of
the incarnation itself. In a passage that Gwynn calls “perhaps the most famous lines
Athanasius ever wrote,” Athanasius describes salvation as such: “through death
immortality has come to all, and through the Incarnation of the Word the universal
providence and its leader and creator the Word of God Himself have been made known.
For He became human that we might become divine; and He revealed Himself through a
51
52
Gwynn, Athanasius of Alexandria, 69–70.
18
body that we might receive an idea of the invisible Father.”53 The famous line “He
became human that we might become divine,” which appears in different ways in
Athanasius’ other works,54 does not mean humans can actually become God. Instead,
Athanasius is speaking of a renewal of spirit. As Harmless explains the concept:
When Athanasius says the Word assumed a human body, he means that
God climbed into human skin, so to speak, and renewed it from the inside,
restoring it to immortal life. This was like a new creation, as dramatic as
the creation that created the human race in the first place. Only this time,
Christ as God recreated us from inside, renewing that which is vulnerable
to death — the body — and recharging it with divine life, that it not
corrupt, die, and drift back into the nothingness from which it was made.55
Christ demonstrated the potential for humans to return to the image in which they were
born. This process is called “’deification’ or ‘divinization.’”56 As Athanasius had
discussed in Contra Gentes, God is good and, if God made human creatures in God’s
image, then the Creation is good as well. The problem was humanity chose to turn away
from God, turn away from goodness. Christ came to renew humanity and make divine
life possible for all.
Fitting to Athanasius’ context, the divinity of Christ was essential for his
Christology. Without it, the whole concept fell apart. Therefore, Gwynn explains that
53
54
See Harmless, Desert Christians, 90.
55
56
19
“the one who became incarnate for our sakes had to be the eternal and true Son and Word
of the Father. None could bridge the ontological divide of God and humanity except a
mediator who was Himself divine by nature.”57 No matter how elevated a human is, no
mere human death can make up for the death of all humanity and no mere human can
recreate the human image. Only God has the ability to implement the salvation that
Athanasius proclaims. Therefore, Athanasius continuously writes against the Arians.
Gwynn notes that “the great danger that Athanasius saw in ‘Arianism’ was precisely the
separation of the Son from the Father to an extent that he believed made the Son’s saving
work impossible.”58
However, Arius had a different view of salvation that did not need a divine Christ.
In fact, Christ as human is what made Arius’ theory of salvation work. Gregg and Groh
summarize that “salvation for Arianism is effected by the Son’s identity with the
creatures — that which links Christ and creatures to God is conformity of will.”59 Unlike
Athanasius, Arius’ soteriology relied on a link between Christ and humanity. Using
“Stoic-influenced ethical theory,” the creature Christ “could not be considered sophos,”
which meant he lacked “certain knowledge of his own or his Father’s essence.”60 Christ
may not have been wise, but that lack of knowledge demonstrated another human
characteristic, the ability to grow and improve.61 The key to improvement was making
the choice to improve for the good. Arius, along with other philosophers, stressed
57
58
59
60
61
20
“progress toward perfection.”62 As a creature, Christ had free will to make his own
choices. For Arius, Christ made choices that followed the path towards perfection (cf.
Luke 2:52). As Gregg and Groh summarize, “the early Arians put forward a picture of the
Christ remarkably like [a Stoic hero] …, who possessed the requisite aspiration to
perfection and virtue though lacking in perfected knowledge and complete control of his
emotions.”63 Therefore, salvation for Arius was demonstrated in Christ’s actions. As the
previous quote states, salvation comes from “conformity of will.” By conforming to the
will of God (developing virtue), Christ and humanity find salvation.
Whether it was consciously a direct attack on Arianism or just a product of
Alexander’s teachings, Athanasius’ Christology took the opposite extreme of Arius.
Though his Christology may have succeeded in being the opposite of every aspect of
Arianism and simultaneously defended and built upon the winning Nicene theology,
Athanasius’ Christology does come with some faults. One that is notable, but does not
become a concern until after Athanasius’ time, is described by Gwynn as “‘spacesuit’
Christology.”64 This critique charges that Athanasius presents the human body as “merely
the tool of the Word”; “the divine Word puts on His body like a suit and does not share in
the body’s human experiences.”65 Athanasius’ prime focus on the divinity of Christ left
the human reality of Christ with little examination. Maybe it was done out of fear of
giving the Arians any resources to discredit his Christology; but, based on his context,
62
63
64
65
21
Athanasius seemed to be more concerned with protecting the divinity of Christ. Even
then, Gwynn notes that Athanasius did not abandon the human body totally. Gwynn
quotes Athanasius discussing Christ’s need for eating, drinking, and his birth: “But these
things are said of Him, because the body which ate and was born and suffered was no one
else’s but the Lord’s; and since He became human, it was right for these things to be said
of Him as a man, that He might be shown to have a true, not a phantasmal body.”66
Athanasius does address the fact that Christ did indeed have a real body. That would be
important for his Christology: For one, there needs to be a real body so that it may die.
Therefore, Christ did experience some human experiences such as hunger, thirst, and
suffering. Despite any weaknesses, Athanasius’ Christology and his incredible defense of
the Nicene Creed was widely received in both the Eastern and Western Church.
RECEPTION OF ATHANASIUS’ CHRISTOLOGY
Athanasius was awarded the epithet of “contra mundum (against the world)” for a
reason.67 Even though the Council of Nicæa had issued a creed defining the divinity of
Christ, it did not put an end to the disagreements. Athanasius used his position as bishop
to defend the divinity of Christ; however, his opponents’ determination to promote their
anti-Nicene beliefs did not waiver. Athanasius faced many battles against his anti-Nicene
opposition for many years. Anatolios dedicates a large portion of the first chapter in his
book on Athanasius to detailing the long and complicated timeline of the reception of
Athanasius’ Nicene Christology.68 For purposes of this essay, the remainder of this
66
67
68
Earlier parts of this chapter have referred to Anatolios’ first chapter concerning Athanasius’ life.
For full citation of Anatolios’ book see previous footnotes.
22
chapter will summarize Anatolios’ examination while attempting to emphasize the many
people involved and the immense influence of different political figures.
As mentioned previously, Athanasius became Bishop of Alexandria in 328 C.E.
He spent most of his early career travelling and visiting supporters.69 However, this was
also a time when his opponents worked to consolidate their own position. Eusebius of
Nicomedia and the Egyptian Melitians formed an alliance to bring charges against
Athanasius to the Emperor Constantine. They accused Athanasius of threatening a
Melitian priest, organizing the murder of another bishop, and illegally arranging his
election. Athanasius had the opportunity to defend himself before the Emperor at the
Council of Tyre, but it is speculated that Constantine wished to have unity and peace in
the area and therefore affirmed Arian theology and exiled Athanasius to Gaul.70 This was
the first of many exiles Athanasius experienced during his lifetime at the hands of an
emperor. Constantine died in 337 C.E. and Constantius took power, allowing the exiled
bishops to return. However, Eusebius wasted no time in organizing another group against
Athanasius. When accusations again came out against him, Athanasius went on a
campaign to gain support that won over the current Pope Julius. Nonetheless, several
bishops (including ones who were present at Tyre) gathered another council in Antioch in
339, which revived the previous charges and added new ones. They accused Athanasius
of inciting violence in Egypt and returning to Alexandria illegally. With Constantine
[SEM1]present, the Council deposed Athanasius and appointed a replacement bishop. The
replacement, Gregory of Cappadocia, forcibly took the seat in Alexandria, compelling
69
70
23
Athanasius to flee to Rome.71 This began Athanasius’ second exile. During his exile,
Athanasius found refuge with Pope Julius, who attempted to help him gain support.
However, Julius’ actions further escalated the problem.
In 341 C.E., Julius tried to convene a council to reinstate Athanasius and allow
him back into Alexandria, but the Eastern bishops were not happy with a Roman
intervention in the matter. This started a division between the Eastern and Western
church. Instead, the Eastern bishops held their own councils without the Pope. When
Julius appealed to the Western Emperor Constans, they held the Council of Sardica in
343 C.E., inviting the Eastern bishops. However, the Eastern bishops objected to the
accused (Athanasius) being present during the council, so they left. When they entered
Eastern church territory, they had their own meeting with the Eastern Emperor
Constantius and excommunicated Athanasius and Julius, among others.72 In an attempt to
gain unity, the Western Emperor Constans appealed to Constantius. They held yet
another council in Antioch in 344 C.E., which came to sort of a compromise in theology.
Simply put, it rejected the “non-being” of the Son, but still affirmed the Son as
“‘subordinate’ to the Father.”73 After the conclusion of the council, Alexandria welcomed
back Athanasius and initiated the “longest period of uninterrupted residency” for him.74
Athanasius remained in Alexandria for ten years from 346 to 356 C.E. As
Anatolios notes, this is referred to as “The Golden Decade.”75 Even though it seemed like
71
72
73
74
75
24
the situation was improving for Athanasius, his opponents were still working against him.
Constans was assassinated in 350 C.E., which meant Constantius no longer felt pressure
from his brother to maintain unity, and he went back to promoting the anti-Nicene
supporters. He held various councils (Council of Arles 353 C.E. and Council of Milan
355 C.E.) mandating Athanasius’ deposition and the exile of Athanasius and his
supporters. When Constantius ordered his arrest, Athanasius fled into hiding, initiating
his third exile.76 During this third exile, the Christological debate became more
complicated as others entered the fray. Aetius and Eunomius proposed differing positions
of the Son being “‘unlike’ the Father” and the Son being “‘like’ the Father,”
respectively.77 Several more councils were held to try to calm the situation, but
Constantius had become worn down. He held another ecumenical council as an attempt to
settle the debate; this conclave decided to avoid the ousia language by changing “one-in-
being” to “like in every way” in the creed.78 The Western bishops were unhappy about
the change and persistently appealed to the emperor. Finally, another compromise was
made to remove “in all respects” and the Council of Constantinople ratified a new creed
in 360 C.E.79 Throughout this process, Athanasius was still in exile hiding among the
monks. During this period, Athanasius wrote Life of Antony. However, not long after the
council in Constantinople, Constantius died and Athanasius returned to Alexandria.80
76
Harmless, Desert Christians, 58–59. Also see, Anatolios, Athanasius, 24–26.
77
78
79
80
25
Emperor Julian succeeded Constantius and allowed exiled bishops to return to
Alexandria, but not to their previous seats and only as civilians. However, Athanasius’
supporters rejoiced in his return and he began to gain power unofficially among the
people. Julian, who was an apostate, did not want to see the rise of Christianity and
viewed the rising fame of Athanasius as a threat. Therefore, Julian exiled Athanasius later
in the same year he had returned to Alexandria (362 C.E.). Athanasius’ fourth exile did
not last long, for Julian was killed about a year later and Jovian became emperor. Jovian
was a supporter of Athanasius and allowed him to return.81 However, Athanasius’ time in
Alexandria again was short-lived. In 364 C.E., Jovian died, and Valens took over the
Eastern empire. Being an anti-Nicene, Valens demanded that those who returned under
Jovian must go back into exile. Therefore, Athanasius entered his fifth exile. Once again,
his exile was short-lived; protesters objected to Valens’ order and he reversed his
declaration.82 Athanasius again returned to Alexandria in 364 C.E. after only a few
months in exile. He remained there as bishop until his death in 373 C.E.83 Athanasius’
reception at the time of the Arian controversy could be described as rocky at best. As
Anatolios notes, “he had spent 17 of his 46 years as bishop in exile.”84 His election to
bishop was disputed from the beginning85 and, even though Nicæa had made its mark,
81
82
83
84
85
The Melitian Schism not only began with a disagreement with the then Bishop of Alexandria,
Peter, but the Nicene Creed also affirmed that Melitian clergy could continue to practice only under the
authority of the Bishop of Alexandria. Therefore, they had an unpleasant history with the seat in Alexandria
and, when a non-Melitian Christian was selected to replace Alexander, the group felt even more alienated
and began to fracture. For more information, see Anatolios, Athanasius, 5–6.
26
less than ten years later anti-Nicene supporters made a move to gain the majority.
Athanasius was elected into a church already unsteady and ready to fight. Fortunately,
Athanasius was not one to back down easily. He endured battles with six emperors, and
survived at least eight councils and five exiles; all were attempts to keep this Nicene
Christian out of power. However, while the opposition became battle-worn or died, the
Council of Constantinople (which gave us the official creed of the Church today)
supported Nicene theology, paving the way for Athanasius’ success. After remaining
steadfast against many enemies, Anatolios explains “Athanasius would be looked upon
henceforth as a standard of orthodoxy.”86
CONCLUSION
Athanasius was born into a world full of turmoil and continued to experience the
chaos throughout his life. From the beginning, great minds surrounded him and he was
introduced to diverse schools of religion and philosophical thought. This diversity not
only provided a well-rounded education for Athanasius, but it also supplied a foundation
for many debates and controversies. While studying under Alexander, the Bishop of
Alexandria, Athanasius became an immediate player in the Arian Controversy — a fact
that would influence the rest of his career. His Christology continuously became an
avenue to refute the claims made by Arians and to proclaim the full divinity of Christ.
Although it took many councils and exiles, Athanasius’ Nicene theology eventually was
accepted by the wider church. Athanasius further developed this Christology to set
standards for the monastic movements of the time, presenting Antony of the desert as a
86
27
symbol of what is possible in the process of deification. Athanasius’ Christology also
became the foundation other theologians referenced to support their own theologies,
which eventually influenced the outcomes of the Iconoclastic and Filioque Controversies
in the West. Athanasius went from the label of contra mundum to becoming a Father of
the Church through his persistence and well-defended Christology.
28
CHAPTER 2: THE GREEK
BIOGRAPHY
INTRODUCTION
It was not uncommon for rhetoric to occupy much of the written and oral sphere
of public discourse in antiquity. Rhetoric is an umbrella that covers many different genres
and styles that branch in many directions depending on the different circumstances and
intentions of the writing. The Greek biography (bios) genre developed out of turmoil
suggesting how society should function or how one should live their lives. The genre
contains many characteristics that authors use to present their idea of the good. Some of
the characteristics include the use of a nonfictional subject, exaggerated virtues, and
dismissal of competing ideas. First seen with political figures, the genre eventually
entered the fields of philosophy and religion. The subjects then became holy sages who
illustrated these characteristics as well as performing miracles, understanding the divine
will, and having extraordinary wisdom.
Athanasius’ Life of Antony contains the various elements of the Greek bios.
Depicting the life of an Egyptian monk, Life of Antony presents a holy philosopher who
emulates Athanasius’ Christology in the form of asceticism. During a time of his own
turmoil, Athanasius developed a Christology viewed as controversial. Even though the
Council of Nicæa had made its creedal statement, many Arians still held positions of
power and rejected the Nicene theology. Therefore, Athanasius was put into a position
where he had to defend his ideology. To do so, he produced a large body of writings,
including the Life of Antony, in which the protagonist holds beliefs similar to Athanasius.
29
Athanasius may not state outright that Antony followed his Christology, but he is
clear about his intentions in writing his story: he calls for the emulation of Antony.87
With such a purpose, Athanasius draws on the genre of the Greek bios. Through an
examination of the development of the Greek bios, it can be demonstrated that
Athanasius’ Life of Antony illustrates the characteristics of this genre.
HISTORY AND CONTEXT
The fourth century B.C.E. marked a turning point in Greek history. It began with
the fall of Athens in 404, which “left Greece with an unstable [political] system.”88 In its
vulnerable state, control of Greece shifted among different ruling powers (including
Sparta, Thebes, and Persia), leaving Athenian citizens disenchanted about their ideal
polis.89 Greek identity began to change when their current reality did not match their
previously thought potential. The Greek state was no longer holding the power and
suddenly their culture was not the only option. With the shift in public thought came a
shift in Greek culture. Albrecht Dihle explains that there were “increasing attempts to
solve as many problems as possible by rational means, resulting in prose becoming the
suitable vehicle for discursive thought.”90 Much of intellectual life focused on resolving
questions of the natural world through reason. The problems they were now facing were
tangible and concrete, which left people seeking answers that were not idealistic but
pragmatic. This shift resulted in dramatic literature being an inadequate form of
87
V. Ant. Introduction; V. Ant. 94:1–4.
88
Albrecht Dihle, A History of Greek Literature: From Homer to the Hellenistic Period, trans.
Clare Krojzl (New York: Routledge, 1994), 173.
89
Dihle, History of Greek Literature, 173.
90
30
communication, ushering in an era that saw a significant decline in poetry and an increase
in prose as well as the sales of books.91 Simile and metaphor may have remained, without
the meter, in prose, but writing styles moved in a direction that could demonstrate
complex ideas. Plato used dialogues to convey ideas in a dialectical form, but Aristotle,
Plato’s student, ushered in the form of rhetorical prose.92
Still recovering from the downfall of Athens, writers employed Aristotle’s
technique of eliciting “reactions of the psyche” in an attempt to persuade the readers.93
Xenophon (430–354 B.C.E.) began to use rhetoric in areas outside the explanation of
philosophical concepts. Introducing rhetoric into history, Xenophon wrote Cyropaedia,
“a biographical legend” about Cyrus of Persia, to demonstrate the life of an “ideal
ruler.”94 Xenophon’s hope was to build upon historical events to present a well-known
figure exemplifying an ideal. As Dihle explains, it is “not intended to be read for the sake
of historical instruction, however, but rather to reveal how a just ruler should be brought
up, how he should treat friends, foes, soldiers, adviser and subjects, … and so on.”95 At a
time when leadership in Greece was unstable and far from satisfactory, Xenophon wanted
to proffer a possible solution to the problem by presenting the conduct of a proper leader.
This method of presenting history develops over time into a genre of its own, the bios.
Patricia Cox notes that “in antiquity, biography was not simply a subgenre of history. It
had its own unique characteristics, and sustained historical veracity was not one of
91
92
See Dihle, History of Greek Literature, 175–76.
93
94
95
31
them.”96 Just as Xenophon’s Cyropaedia was not meant to be read as unadulterated
history, the bios genre developed from the genre of history and held its own as something
unique and different.
EARLY STRUCTURE OF THE BIOS
Starting with its early beginning, Isocrates followed a particular framework that
caught on with other biographers. Cox explains that “the organizational scheme that
Isocrates used, while basically chronological, was punctuated with descriptions of the
hero’s virtues apart from his acts.” In particular, Isocrates maintained a “bipartite division
of the biography into praxeis, a chronological account of the life, and ēthos, a systematic
treatment of character.”97 It was clear that specific actions by the subject were not a
concern to Isocrates unless they supported important claims he was trying to make.
Isocrates’ basic point was to emphasize a certain quality, virtue, and/or noble character.
Others, like Aristoxenus of Tarento (c. 360–300 B.C.E.), picked up the schema to
encourage other thoughts alongside their idea of excellent virtues. Cox demonstrates that
Aristoxenus’ innovation was to “[capitalize] upon the Hellenistic habit of composing
derogatory books on rival philosophical schools by using biography for this purpose.”98
A shift occurred where one of the virtues the subject possessed was the ability to
recognize right from wrong, promoting the right schools of thought and degrading the
wrong schools. This structure continued under the Roman Empire and other authors
adopted the use of the bios for this purpose.
96
Patricia Cox, Biography in Late Antiquity (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California
Press, 1983), 5.
97
Cox, Biography in Late Antiquity, 8.
98
32
One element of the bios genre that holds strong throughout its development is its
use in conflict. The bios pieces routinely extolled certain philosophies and devalued
others, demonstrating a period of conflict in philosophical thought. Eventually the bios
entered the religious sphere where the same method of promoting one belief over another
continued. Cox explains that the genre was “involved in religious controversy and so
attempted to sway not mere opinion but belief. We shall see that the nature of this
struggle led to a new standard for biographical idealization, the ‘divine sage,’ a literary
type that became a major influence on the portrayal of the character of philosophers in
Late Antiquity.”99 The authors of the bios began to blend philosophy and religion,
presenting the subjects as holy exemplars.
SHIFT TO THE HOLY
Religious controversy spurred discussions on topics like the nature of truth,
proper practice, and correct belief in God. As the polemic increased, theologians adopted
the rhetorical use of the bios, opening the conversation to a wider audience. As Cox
describes, “the image of the philosopher” now included “‘holy’ embellishments,” such as
“miracle- and magic- working, prophecy, and the more usual business of superior
intellection,” inviting all to what she calls “the new holy personality cult.”100 The subjects
of the biographies transformed from virtuous citizens (or political figures) to holy
philosophers. While vices and virtues still measured their character, now they also
exemplified spiritual life; they demonstrated the holy man’s perfect relationship with
God. Christian thinkers debated what this perfect relationship looked like, how it was
99
100
Cox, Biography in Late Antiquity, 19–20.
33
acted out. Therefore, much like the use of the bios within the philosophical schools, the
author’s theology drives the character of the holy man. Cox details the general
characteristics authors would follow to present their holy men. These will be examined in
the following pages and then used to demonstrate how Athanasius’ Life of Antony fits the
bios genre.
Shifting to the characteristics presented by Cox, the first trait of the holy
philosopher is wisdom. She states that “chief among [the] characteristics is wisdom.
Generally [the philosopher] is shown to possess superior gifts of perception and
understanding from a very early age.”101 Much like the infancy narratives of antiquity,
stories of childhood were written in hindsight to present the unique attributes and
upbringings that led to the subject becoming someone significant in adulthood.102 Cox
explains that, “in portraits of divine philosophers, there is more than simply a hint of
future grandeur in the child; rather his wisdom is already fully developed.”103 The child
philosopher’s unique circumstance was possessing incredible intelligence from the very
beginning. This meant their vast knowledge did not come from education, but rather was
innate. However, education was not entirely absent from the philosopher’s life. Samuel
Rubenson explains that education became a literary device; it did “not add anything, [but]
simply confirmed inherent and divine wisdom and established the language of the holy
man.”104 The young philosopher’s encounter with education was an opportunity to
101
102
See Margaret Nutting Ralph, And God Said What? An Introduction to Biblical Literary Forms
(Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 2003), 172.
103
104
Samuel Rubenson, “Philosophy and Simplicity: The Problem of Classical Education in Early
Christian Biography,” in Greek Biography and Panegyric in Late Antiquity, ed. Tomas Hägg, Philip
34
demonstrate the innate wisdom already given to the philosopher. Furthermore, Cox
argues that depicting the educational process “highlights the two sides of the
philosopher’s nature, which are sometimes difficult to reconcile: his superiority to other
men, which is due in part to his great wisdom, and his humanity, which suggests that he
must have passed through the various stages of life like other men.”105 Despite the young
philosopher’s unique circumstances, he was still human experiencing a human life. The
philosopher’s wisdom may present itself as something unattainable, but the philosopher’s
actions should be attainable by humans. Otherwise, the audience would not be able to
mimic the virtues of the philosopher. From his profound wisdom, the holy philosopher
gained knowledge about certain aspects of life. This knowledge became crucial to the
holy man when putting his superior wisdom to practical use.
The philosophers' extraordinary wisdom was not meant to be stored within the
mind, but was to help others. Another feature Cox notes demonstrates this quality. The
holy philosopher possessed “insight into human nature” which gave him “real sympathy
and concern for the welfare of his fellows.”106 The philosophers use their wisdom to help
others, but how the philosophers knew what to do came from a divinely instituted insight.
Much like how Antony attributed his healing miracles to God,107 the philosophers
attributed their insight to the divine. Cox explains that “the emphasis that biographers
Rousseau, and Christian Høgel (Berkeley and Los Angeles: Regents of the University of California, 2000),
114.
105
106
107
V. Ant. 56:12–13.
35
place on their heroes’ wondrous insight is intended to point to divinity.”108 Quoting from
Philostratus’ Vita Apollonii, an Asclepian priest explains the difference between God and
human beings: “for the latter, because of their frailty, do not understand their own
concerns, whereas the gods have the privilege of understanding the affairs of both
[humans] and themselves.”109 A divine being understands the nature of all things,
including what causes grief and happiness.
Biographers are not presenting the philosophers as divine beings, but as humans
who have been gifted by God. These characteristics placed the ideal philosophers with
one foot in the realm of the divine and the other in humanity. This provided them with the
means to demonstrate translation of divine will into human action Therefore, acting on
this tension, the authors of biographies noted the subjects for their immense kindness
towards their fellows. Cox notes a couple stories, including Origen, who provided
comfort to Christian martyrs, and Pythagoras, who took pride in giving comfort to his
disciples through medicinal means.110 The philosophers’ insight into human nature
provided them with the deeper knowledge of the struggles of the soul, giving them the
urge to care and provide.
Though the philosophers taught and demonstrated virtues through words and
actions, their teachings would die with them if not for disciples to pick up where they left
off. Therefore, Cox notes that another feature of the holy philosopher “[was the] desire to
108
109
Philostratus Vita Apollonii 1.11; cited in Cox, Biography in Late Antiquity, 23.
110
36
communicate [wisdom].”111 The presentation of the philosopher as a teacher played yet
another vital role in the efficacy of the bios as a “recruitment” tool. Cox explains that
“divine philosophers are proselytizers, and their teaching not only touches but changes
the lives of their disciples.”112 The philosophers’ ability to communicate and demonstrate
their insight and wisdom led to their acquisition of followers. This gathering of disciples
around the philosopher demonstrates a key purpose of the bios: to persuade the audience
that the philosopher is worthy of imitation. Origen “remarked in his Against Celsus that
the real defense of the holy man lies in the lives of his genuine disciples. … Biographers
agreed [that] one of the important measures of a philosopher’s stature was the quality and
quantity of his disciples.”113 Not only did the number of followers represent the
popularity of the philosopher’s teaching but also, just like the saying “a student is only as
good as the teacher,” the effective application of the teaching in the disciples’ lives is
evidence of an effective teacher. The philosopher’s wisdom is “successfully embodied”
by the followers and carried on after death.114 The gathering of disciples demonstrated
that the philosopher’s teachings were practical, worthy of spreading, and the
philosopher’s life worthy of imitation. Cox paints the picture thus: “the biographers’ [sic]
conception of the divine philosopher and his circle of disciples resembles a universe in
miniature, with the philosopher at the center radiating the light of wisdom in the form of
111
112
113
114
37
faithful followers.”115 The philosopher becomes known through his teaching and
consequently through his disciples.
A final characteristic of the holy philosopher accentuates the philosopher’s
wisdom and virtue. Cox states that “the trait that complements the philosopher’s wisdom
is his devotion to an ascetic lifestyle” because “asceticism was, in effect, a salvation from
the body”; the “philosopher is united to God by his abstinence .”116 During a time when
most people had a dualistic worldview, the virtuous philosopher had to maintain a
perfectly good (holy) nature. The optimal way to achieve this was through asceticism.
Cox quotes Apollonius saying, “hard as it is to know oneself, I myself consider it still
harder for the sage to remain always himself; for he cannot ever reform evil natures and
person…. A man who is really a man will never alter his nature.”117 A philosopher
remained in an unchanging state through ascetic practices, which provided practical
guidelines to produce a stable nature. Through an austere lifestyle of minimal food,
clothing, and shelter, the body became subservient to the soul. As Plotinus explained, “it
is absurd to maintain that well-being extends as far as the living body, since well-being is
the good life, which is concerned with the soul and is an activity of the soul.”118 A good
life is one that perfects the soul, and producing a good soul requires removing one’s focus
from the body. The ascetic community followed a “counterpoise” view that any pleasure
provided to the body detracted from the development of a good soul.119 The ascetic
115
116
117
Philostratus Vita Apollonii 6.35; cited in Cox, Biography in Late Antiquity, 25.
118
Plotinus Enneads 1.4.14; cited in Cox, Biography in Late Antiquity, 27.
119
Plotinus Enneads 1.4.14; cited in Cox, Biography in Late Antiquity, 27.
38
lifestyle may have given a practical guideline to follow, but it also made a statement
within (and against) society. An ascetic stood out in a crowd by his/her appearance: an
emaciated frame, distinctive aroma due to lack of hygiene, and austere clothing (often
nothing), among other things. For the biographers, this was an opportunity to highlight
their ideology as a counterpoint to the wider culture. Cox explains:
But the sage’s physical withdrawal from the ways of the world is not just
for the purpose of public relations; it is also a sign of his freedom. The
more he retreats from the society around him, the freer he is from the
passions that bog down and befuddle lesser minds. His spirit is liberated,
and this gives him the rare ability to exercise his wisdom in
communication with the gods. This idea points to the other, interior or
spiritual aspect of the divine sage’s asceticism, because the sage’s physical
withdrawal is simply the outer manifestation of certain philosophical
convictions.120
The philosopher’s outward behaviors represented the inner virtues the biographer deemed
important. Cox warns that this is not to be viewed as pure “manipulation of [the] material
merely for objective, sociopolitical ends”; rather, the work is more “a reflection of the
author’s deep sense of himself.”121 The holy man presented within the pages reflects the
not only the author’s theology but also the author himself. This self-reflection of the
author becomes important in the development of the Greek bios as it became a new
literary genre.
120
121
39
THE GREEK BIOS
With its divergence from history, the framework typically did not follow a strict
chronology and historical events were only pertinent if they highlighted a virtue of the
subject. Cox notes that the only common theme is an informal “structural framework”
that is “quite uncomplicated, resting simply on an account of events in a man’s life.”122
Each bios had its own unique subject that built a framework suited for that specific
subject depending on their teachings and deeds. Therefore, as Cox further explains, “each
act, whether it is an actual physical deed or a verbal act, is a star in the hero’s personal
constellation; it illumines an aspect of the ideal that his life represents in the
biography.”123 Each virtuous deed serves as a landmark along the holy journey of the
subject.
Similar features were present in ancient panegyrics. Panegyric and biography are
two genres that employ the rhetoric of praise and glorification. However, while both
genres took on written form, their mode of communication remained different. Hägg and
Rousseau explain that the panegyric was an epideictic speech that maintained “a number
of constant topoi and strategies,” whereas, biographies were “more versatile and
elusive.”124[SEM2] Panegyrics follow a similar structure that takes on the form of a speech.
The bios is more of a literary form, which allows more room for adaptation but also a
sense of privacy. Contrasting the different forms, Hägg and Rousseau explain that, with a
panegyric, “a speaker addresses an audience, and he is standing in person before the
122
123
124
Hägg and Rousseau, “Introduction,” 2.
40
audience. His own reputation is palpably at stake,” whereas “the writer of a biography
may hide behind his text.”125 Without direct exposure, the author may feel free to express
ideas and concerns without the fear of repercussions, allowing for stronger ideals and
word-choice to come out. Another result of this freedom was the author having the
opportunity to convey information in a way that embeds personal opinions within the
biographical information. As Hägg and Rousseau explain, “the biographical subject often
[merged] with the biographer’s own persona and agenda.” ⁠126 The result of this merger
was the life story of an influential person wrapped in the convictions or ideology of the
biographer. As Cox explains, “biographies were personal statements, statements which,
though couched in religious and philosophical terms, addressed sociopolitical and
cultural concerns as well.”127 The author used the exemplary life of a person as a vehicle
to present the biographer’s ideas on how one should live a virtuous life or build a faithful
community.
Following Cox’s note about being born out of controversy, “the writers of
biographies of holy men were also engaged in a battle, yet theirs involved not only
philosophical conviction but religious belief as well. We could say that their heroes had
become emblems in a holy war.”128 Cox is careful with her wording here, referring to the
subject as “emblems” because the subjects of these biographies are not just pawns in a
game played by the author. Biographers did not arbitrarily select their subjects and mold
125
126
127
Cox, Biography in Late Antiquity, 135. Emphasis added.
128
41
them to portray whatever the authors wanted. The subjects were chosen because they
already idealized what the authors wanted. The biographer did not consciously
manipulate the material.129 Rather, “the prism-wielding biographer … dictates the active
mission of his hero, [so] it is actually the biographer whose activity we are
emphasizing.”130 This calls into question how the reader can distinguish what is
historically accurate concerning the subject and what represents the author’s worldview.
The blending of author and subject, and the resulting difficulty in separating them,
becomes apparent in the Life of Antony where Antony’s actions and words tend to fit into
the schema of Athanasius’ theology. In fact, many of the characteristics of the bios are
present in that text. The rest of this examination revisits these defining marks of the bios
and demonstrates their appearances within the Life of Antony.
LIFE OF ANTONY AS A GREEK BIOS
The examination thus far has revealed common trends within the genre of the
Greek bios. Biographies depicting holy philosophers tend to follow two arcs of
characteristics: (1) the standard layout of the Greek bios established by the earlier models
and (2) the schema of the holy. The two interweave creating an expansion of divine
wisdom into the rhetorical and philosophical foundation. Athanasius’ Life of Antony
employs this expanded foundation to present a model for his Christology. Going forward,
this examination will identify the common characteristics in the context of Life of Antony
to show that the Life has a rightful place within the bios genre.
129
130
42
Early Characteristics of the Bios The Paradigm of the Holy Philosopher
• Balance of Praxeis and Ethos • Extraordinary Wisdom
• Exaggeration of Vices and Virtues • Insight to Human Nature
• Born out of Controversy • Communication/Teaching
• Ascetic Lifestyle
Although the structure of the Greek bios is rather informal, what brought various works
together under one genre was the presentation of extraordinary, virtuous lives.
Athanasius’ Life of Antony presents the extraordinary life of Antony of the Desert, the
exemplar of the ascetic lifestyle. Athanasius is clear about his intentions for he introduces
his work by saying, “I know that even in hearing, along with marveling at the man, you
will want also to emulate his purpose, for Antony’s way of life provides monks with a
sufficient picture for ascetic practice.”131 The usual landmarks that constructed the
journey of a holy philosopher filled Antony’s life so that Athanasius could defend his
claim of emulation.
Cox suggests three foundational literary characteristics of all biographies: (1) a
balance of praxeis and ethos, (2) an exaggeration of vices and virtues, and (3) a story
born among controversy. Biographies made a point to demonstrate both the praxeis, the
“chronological account of the life,” and the ethos, the “systematic treatment of character”
of the subject.132 Both served key purposes in the bios: one described a very human life,
131
V. Ant. Introduction.
132
43
while the other described a human who possessed something extraordinary. The elements
of praxeis “demythologized” the subject, creating a person not drastically different from
the audience, while ethos compiled a set of virtues to emulate.133
From beginning to end, Athanasius presents a balance between the two practices.
Antony’s life began and ended in normal human fashion: having been born and raised in
typical family life,134 he eventually fell ill and died many years later.135 At the same time,
Athanasius has many tales about Antony’s virtuous deeds. For example, Antony wins
battles against the devil, defeating “foul thoughts” with prayer,136 and discerns between
good and evil spirits.137 Athanasius illustrates that Antony not only had a humble
beginning and ending but also lived a virtuous life. These demonstrate Antony’s
humanity, but also demonstrate the possibility to grow virtuous from those human
qualities.
The exaggeration of vices and virtues highlights historical fact taking a backseat
to the character of the subject. Cox explains that the “biography does not aim to give
exhaustive historical reporting. It succeeds in its portrayal of character by a careful
selection of whatever actions serve best to illustrate it. This ‘pars pro toto’ technique was
well suited to the perpetuation of political and moral ideals.”138 This exaggeration of
character over history is evident in Athanasius’ writing. In one notable scene from the
133
See Cox, Biography in Late Antiquity, 8–9 and 58.
134
V. Ant. 1–2.
135
V. Ant. 91–93.
136
V. Ant. 5:23.
137
V. Ant. 35–37.
138
44
Life of Antony, Athanasius presents a miracle that defies historical accuracy to
demonstrate a virtuous Antony. Athanasius describes a scene where Antony shuts himself
in a fortress for “nearly twenty years,” but emerges with “his body [having] maintained
its former condition, neither fat from lack of exercise, nor emaciated from fasting.”139
Because “the state of his soul was one of purity, … he maintained utter equilibrium, like
one guided by reason and steadfast in that which accords with nature.”140 The historical
expectations concerning Antony’s body are outweighed by his virtuous deeds of
equilibrium. Another example would be the layout of the Life of Antony itself, for the
bios follows a somewhat chronological order of events in Antony’s life with two
exceptions. Towards the middle of the book, a twenty-seven-chapter explanation about
discerning demons v. good spirits breaks the chronology while a twenty-one-chapter
interlude describes Antony’s virtues.141 Antony’s insight and virtues were not only
worthy of dedicating so much time and space to describe, but also worthy of breaking the
chronological order.
The third foundational characteristic for Greek bios is the work being born out of
controversy. Cox explains that the “biography was from its inception a genre that found
its home in controversy … [with] both apologetic and polemical aims.”142 As explored in
the first chapter of this study, Athanasius was not unfamiliar with religious controversy.
A staunch defender of the Council of Nicæa, Athanasius fled arrest, was exiled, and
139
V. Ant. 14:11–12.
140
V. Ant. 14:14–20.
141
See Table 3.1 in Harmless, Desert Christians, 61.
142
45
defended his faith through literature multiple times during the Arian Controversy.143 Not
only does the Life of Antony evidence the three basic characteristics of the bios form but,
because the text derived from a religious controversy, it also takes on the paradigm of the
holy philosopher.
Early Characteristics The Paradigm of the Holy Antony as a Bios Subject
of the Bios Philosopher
• Balance of • Extraordinary Wisdom • Theodidaktos (God-taught)
Praxeis and • Insight to Human Nature • Inside Knowledge about
Ethos • Communication/Teaching the Soul and Body
• Exaggeration of • Ascetic Lifestyle • Noted for Having Many
Vices and Virtues Followers
• Born out of • Promotes the Ascetic
Controversy Lifestyle
Described above, Cox lays out four main characteristics of holy philosophers:
extraordinary wisdom, insight into human nature, a desire to communicate their wisdom,
and asceticism. Athanasius places his subject among the holy philosophers by presenting
Antony with all the standard characteristics in Life of Antony. Antony is known for his
wisdom, but what makes him different from this model presented by Cox is that Antony
is considered illiterate. Harmless notes that, “according to Athanasius, Antony’s wisdom
stemmed from more than shrewd native intelligence. It came from mysterious
143
See Harmless, Desert Christians, 58–59.
46
illuminations he received while in his mountain solitude. This [demonstrates an] image of
Antony as the wise illiterate, the ‘God-taught’ (theodidaktos).”144 Antony is presented as
someone without formal education but who possesses great intelligence as a gift from
God.145 However, as discussed previously, the childhood of the holy philosopher
provided a glimpse at the successful adulthood. Cox states that the “idea that the
greatness of the man must have been already evident in the child was a popular
biographical convention.”146 Although Antony’s God-taught wisdom was not present
from childhood, Antony still had an upbringing that hinted at his extraordinary life. When
considering this element, Antony’s childhood presented the perfect upbringing for an
ascetic leader. Life of Antony notes that, as a child, Antony “was obedient,” “not
frivolous,” focused on the value of scripture, and did not “seek the pleasures associated
with food.”147 As a young child, Antony was already exhibiting the gift of an ascetic.
Even though illiteracy deviated from the usual structure, Athanasius’ portrayal of
Antony as God-taught illustrated his Christology, which was Athanasius’ intention in
writing the Life of Antony. Whether fact or fiction, Athanasius needed Antony to be
uneducated. An unlearned man with vast knowledge about the intricacies of the world
and God not only further demonstrates the model of a theodidaktos, it also discredits the
intense education of the philosophers. Antony routinely discredits the wisdom of
philosopher by demonstrating how their logic leads them away from God, demonstrating
144
145
Cf. the portrayal of the youthful Jesus in the Temple, where everyone was “amazed at his
understanding and his answers” (Luke 2:47),
146
147
V. Ant. 1:11–19.
47
Athanasius’ views on Arius’ logical conclusion.148 Athanasius presents a long dialogue
between Antony and some philosophers where he portrays Antony chastising the
philosophers for dedicating their lives to the material world rather than to God.149
Furthermore, Antony critiques the goal of their education:
And you by your syllogisms and sophisms do not convert people from
Christianity to Hellenism, but we, by teaching faith in Christ, strip you of
superstition, since all recognize that Christ is God, and Son of God. By
your beautiful language you do not impede the teaching of Christ, but we,
calling on the name of Christ crucified, chase away all the demons you
fear as gods.150
Antony argues here that explanations of the world are false if they do not lead back to
Christ as God. The philosopher’s words are meaningless, no matter how eloquent or
beautiful they are, if they do not recognize Christ as God and as Creator. Harmless notes
that Antony is accusing them for “confusing verbal dexterity with wisdom.”151 Humans
obtain wisdom through Christ taking on human nature and unlocking a new potential for
human beings. It is a gift, as Harmless notes, that “humans deified by Christ come to
share by grace what Christ is by nature;”152 renewal and knowledge of creation. For
Athanasius (presented through the voice of Antony), true wisdom is found in the awe and
power of Christ as God, not in formal education and syllogistic logic. Athanasius might
148
The next chapter will discuss this topic further.
149
V. Ant. 73–80.
150
V. Ant. 78:10–17.
151
152
48
have portrayed Antony without any formal education or human wisdom, but this
characterization was precisely what Athanasius needed to demonstrate Antony’s success
as a God-taught, holy philosopher.
Alongside wisdom, the holy philosopher has incredible insight into human nature
and the relationship between body and soul, which makes the person sympathetic towards
others. Athanasius presents Antony as knowing and actualizing the true nature of
humanity, and he aims to teach this insight to all for the sake of Christ. The Life of
Antony conveys that the balance of soul and body contains the truth of human nature. The
natural state of the soul is “utter equilibrium,” which exists when a person is “guided by
reason.”153 Antony’s wisdom into how the body and soul interact with each other leads
him to teach how one reaches the natural state of the soul. If one focuses on the pleasures
of the body, the soul suffers; to avoid this, the body must become “subservient to the
soul.”154
This is where the fourth characteristic — asceticism — is utilized in the Life of
Antony. Antony’s insight into human nature brings him to the conclusion that asceticism
provides the path to the perfection of human nature, utter equilibrium. To be an ascetic
was to be “withdrawn from the world,” which removed the ascetic from created reality.155
The created world only served the body when all attention should focus on the soul.
Therefore, Athanasius links asceticism and equilibrium in Antony, whose soul is
“perfectly straight,” not turning in any direction away from God. Passion is what turns
153
V. Ant. 14:19–20.
154
V. Ant. 45:20.
155
49
the soul.156 Passions of the body upset the body-soul equilibrium, and asceticism is the
path to correct this imbalance.
These two characteristics are present in Athanasius’ Christology about the
“unchanging Logos,”157 which was examined in the first chapter of this essay. In brief,
the unchanging Logos, or Christ as unchanging, is passion free, not affected by the body.
The Incarnate Christ gave humanity the potential for an unchanging nature and proper
asceticism allows one to reach this potential.158 Not only did Antony show how
Athanasius’ Christology plays out in human life, he also taught it to others.
Turning to the remaining characteristic, Antony displays a desire to communicate
his teachings. Athanasius portrays Antony as successful in this endeavor. Besides the
many times we hear of Antony’s disciples (or brothers who follow him),159 the middle
section of the Vita (chapters 15–48) consists of a long speech by Antony to his brother
monks, teaching the rigors of the ascetic life. Twenty-seven of these chapters comprise a
long monologue on the discernment of spirits. Antony is deemed the “father of monks,”
although there were earlier ascetics, because he is presented as the one who inspired
many to venture into the depths of the desert.160 Antony “persuaded many to take up the
solitary life. And so, from then on, there were monasteries in the mountains and the
desert was made a city by monks, who left their own people and registered themselves for
156
V. Ant. 14, 20, and 45.
157
158
See Harmless, Desert Christians, 88–91.
159
See Gregg, Vita, 15, 17, 51, 54, & 56.
160
50
the citizenship in the heavens.”161 Once the desert became inhabited, Antony did not
abandon his disciples. He continued to care for and instruct them “through regular
conversation” where “he strengthened the resolve of those who were already monks and
stirred most of the others to a desire for the discipline, and before long, by the attraction
of his speech, a great many monasteries came into being, and like a father he guided them
all.”162
Athanasius presents Antony not only having the desire to communicate his way of
life, but also as tremendously effective. Antony’s speeches about asceticism and the
power of Christ are effective enough to draw others to the desert to follow Antony.
Antony continues to communicate his values throughout his life, so much so that even
Antony’s last words to his disciples was a “teaching moment” to remind them of their
practices. After telling his disciples that he is dying, Antony states: “be watchful and do
not destroy your lengthy discipline, … paying heed to yourselves and remembering what
you heard from my preaching.”163 In his last words, Antony wanted his disciples to
remember his teachings and to maintain the practice.
The Greek bios’ characteristic of communication was the foundation to all of
Antony’s teaching moments in the Life of Antony. The holy philosopher’s desire to
communicate was to build a new movement based on the philosopher’s ideologies.
Therefore, each teaching moment was an opportunity to proselytize and add to the
growing movement. This characteristic provided Athanasius with the opportunity to
161
V. Ant. 14:29–33.
162
V. Ant. 15:6–10.
163
V. Ant. 91:10–17.
51
present Antony as a proselytizer and teacher both to draw in disciples and to build the
growing ascetic movement.
CONCLUSION
The bios genre provided an outline for writers to promote a person to imitate
while simultaneously promoting an idea or teaching as the truth for a meaningful life.
The genre’s loosely structured format allowed for a focus on the virtues of the subject
while leaving chronology in the background. The subject presented many virtues so as to
deem the person worthy of teaching and emulating, thereby promoting a specific
ideology. This chapter aimed to outline the various characteristics of the bios genre and
how they function to transmit an ideology. When the genre entered the realm of
philosophy and religion, the key characteristics of the bios shifted from an emphasis on
virtuous words and actions to a focus on wisdom and knowledge. Thus, the subject
became the holy philosopher.
The Arian controversy, which dominated the period after the Council of Nicæa,
caused hard times for Athanasius, but he remained steady in his beliefs and used the bios
form to promote his stance. In the Life of Antony, Athanasius paints a picture of Antony
the holy man, the ideal ascetic, who professes Athanasius’ beliefs and Christology. We
cannot know whether Antony truly held the same ideas as Athanasius. Rather, the point
of this examination is to understand Athanasius’ intentions during this time of religious
conflict. As Cox explains, “when we imagine that it is the prism-wielding biographer
who dictates the active mission of his hero, it is actually the biographer whose activity we
52
are emphasizing.”164 It may be possible to get a glimpse of Antony himself through the
Life of Antony, but there is also quite a bit of Athanasius present as well. Through the
words of Athanasius, Antony takes on a life dedicated to emulating Christ and, after
achieving total spiritual development, accepts the task of teaching others by promoting an
Athanasian Christology.
With an understanding of the context and development of the Greek bios and
having established the Life of Antony within the genre, this study will conclude with an
in-depth exploration of the text itself to examine specific rhetorical motifs Athanasius
used promote his Christology through the Life of Antony.
164
53
CHAPTER 3: SOCIO-RHETORICAL
ANALYSIS OF THE LIFE OF ANTONY
INTRODUCTION
So far, this examination has focused on the specifics of the Greek bios genre and
the context of Athanasius’ life providing the framework for discussing the text Life of
Antony. This concluding chapter will turn inward toward the text and examine a select
portion of its content. To do so, this chapter will explore various attributes of an
interpretive method called socio-rhetorical interpretation, or SRI. As defined by Roy Jeal,
SRI is “a range of heuristic analytics that analyzes and interprets texts using features of
rhetorical, social, and cognitive reasoning to help commentators learn how the texts under
examination function to influence thinking and behavior.”165 It is a form of interpretation
that not only considers the text itself but also the wider context that produced and
distributed the text. Demonstrated in its name, “socio-rhetorical criticism integrates the
ways people use language with the ways they live in the world.”166 The previous chapters
explored the world surrounding the text (its social features), while this chapter will
explore its rhetorical features.
When looking at the rhetorical features, SRI recognizes that texts contain multiple
layers. Vernon Robbins describes the text as “an intricately woven tapestry … [that]
contains complex patterns and images. Looked at only one way, a text exhibits a very
165
Roy R. Jeal, Exploring Philemon: Freedom, Brotherhood, and Partnership in the New Society,
Rhetoric of Religious Antiquity 2 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015), xxvii.
166
Vernon K. Robbins, Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation
(New York: Bloomsbury, 1996), 1.
54
limited range of its texture.”167 SRI provides the means to examine these various textures
and how they come together to convey meaning and information. SRI separates these
textures into different categories depending on how they function: inner texture for
features within the text, intertexture for features outside of the text, and social and
cultural texture for features that “exhibit resources for changing people or social
practices.”168 The purpose of this chapter is present the groundwork for completing a full
SRI analysis. It will demonstrate what textures are present in the text and how SRI would
begin to handle those textures to build a cohesive rhetorical theme. Therefore, this
chapter will be broken up into sections as such as detailing where the selected pericope
exists within the text, proposing and define what textures are present, and then explaining
their significance in relation to this overall study of Athanasius’ Christology presented
through the bios genre.
167
Robbins, Exploring the Texture, 2.
168
See Robbins, Exploring the Texture, 3–4; also Jeal, Exploring Philemon, 12–13.
55
Ἔπειτα τί βέλτιόν ἐστι, λέγειν, ὅτι ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ Again, which is preferable, to say that the
Λόγος οὐκ ἐτράπη [ἐπλανήθη]· ἀλλ’ ὁ αὐτὸς Word of God was not changed, but remaining
ὢν, ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ καὶ εὐεργεσίᾳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων the same he assumed a human body for the
ἀνείληφε σῶμα ἀνθρώπινον, salvation and benefit of humankind
ἵνα, τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ γενέσει κοινωνήσας, — so that sharing in the human birth he might
ποιήσῃ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους κοινωνῆσαι θείας καὶ enable humankind to share the divine and
νοερᾶς φύσεως· intellectual nature —
ἢ ἐν ἀλόγοις ἐξομοιοῦν τὸ Θεῖον, καὶ διὰ or to make the divine very much like the
τοῦτο σέβειν τετράποδα, καὶ ἑρπετὰ, καὶ irrational beings, and on account of this
ἀνθρώπων εἰκόνας; worship four-footed creatures and creeping
Ταῦτα γὰρ ὑμῶν ἐστι τῶν σοφῶν τὰ things and human images?
σεβάσματα. For these are the objects of worship for you
who are wise!169
The primary pericope — Antony discusses with Greek philosophers at the outer mountain
to describing him has “also extremely wise.”170 This grouping continues to demonstrate
Antony’s wisdom by retelling his encounters with Greek philosophers. The first set of
philosophers come to “test” Antony, but he turns their efforts back at them by pointing
out that their arduous travels to meet with Antony illustrate that his teachings are
169
All references to the English translation of the text will be my own translation based off of
Robert Gregg’s translation found in: Robert C. Gregg, Athanasius: The Life of Antony and The Letter to
Marcellinus, The Classics of Western Spirituality (Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist, 1980), 84; Athanasius V.
Ant. 74:13–20.
170
V. Ant. 72:1.
56
important to them.171 Each encounter Antony has with others in this section continues the
theme of people meeting with him to reveal his ignorance only to be met with Antony
subverting their arguments. What follows is another small section of unnamed “others”
coming to “ridicule” him, yet Antony amazes them with his wisdom.172 This group of
chapters concludes Antony’s rebuttal against Greek philosophers, which defends the
Christian faith while pointing out the flaws and weaknesses in the Greeks’ beliefs. He
criticizes their views of the soul and mind as one, and then he defends the adoration of
the cross; goes on to explain that their gods are actually creatures, and then denounces
their way of justifying faith through logic and reason.173
However, the pericope of focus for this examination is the beginning of Antony’s
rebuttal against them, which follows the defending-Christ-and-critiquing-Pagans format.
Specifically, Antony is arguing against the Greeks’ claim that God would have to change
when becoming human. He refutes this claim by comparing the belief in a Divine Christ
to the pagan worship of creatures, asking which seems more reasonable for a wise person
to believe.174
171
V. Ant. 72:7.
172
V. Ant. 73:1–3.
173
V. Ant. 74:30–38; 75; 76; 77–78.
174
V. Ant. 74:13–20.
57
“Which is better — to “Again, which is preferable, to say “How dare you
confess a cross, or to that the Word of God was not ridicule us for
attribute acts of changed, but remaining the same he saying that Christ
adultery and pederasty assumed a human body for the has appeared as a
to those whom you salvation and benefit of humankind — human, when you,
call gods? For that so that sharing in the human birth he separating the soul
which is stated by us might enable humankind to share the from heaven, say
is a signal of courage, divine and intellectual nature — or to that it has wandered
and evidence of make the divine very much like the and fallen from the
disdain for death, irrational beings, and on account of this vault of the heavens
while your doctrines worship four-footed creatures and into a body….”
have to do with creeping things and human images? (74:21–39)
incidents of lewdness” For these are the objects of worship
(74:8–12) for you who are wise!” (74:13–20)
Focus Pericope in Context — cohesive line of argumentation
demonstrated in blue and differing contents in green.
Part of the SRI process is to demonstrate that a focus pericope functions as a
stand-alone argumentative piece. By doing so, the process will be able to function
without the interruption of unrelated information. One way to demonstrate that this
particular pericope is a cohesive unit is to note that the subject of the argument is
different from the immediately prior and following sections. As stated previously, this
58
pericope concerns the Word of God, while the preceding unit discusses the cross,175 and
afterwards Athanasius shifts his argument to the soul and mind.176 Another way we can
see that this pericope stands as a cohesive unit is because it forms one complete question
(“which is preferable, to say…”) and its answer. After raising the rhetorical question,
Antony provides his own answer, which this chapter will explores further in the later
sections. Using this cohesive unit, this examination will demonstrate the potential SRI
can bring to analyzing the rhetorical force within the Life of Antony. Specifically, it will
highlight Athanasius’ Christology of restoration.177
SOCIO-RHETORICAL INTERPRETATION PROCESS
As mentioned above, the purpose of this chapter is to create the groundwork for a
full SRI analysis. Therefore, the process taken here will focus on lifting out the various
layers in the text and demonstrate how these layers function within the rhetorical
argument. Whereas a complete SRI analysis would fully integrate the social and cultural
context, as well as outside texts, this example will confine itself to highlighting where
such outside sources will be useful. The focus here will rest heavily on the text itself.
Among the many other textures that may be present, this examination will discuss three
aspects or “textures” identified by SRI: rhetography, argumentative texture, and
rhetorolects.
175
V. Ant. 74:8–12.
176
V. Ant. 74:21–39.
177
Athanasius’ Christology of restoration will be explained further in the rhetography section.
Through the incarnation, the Divine Christ unlocked the potential for humanity to be restored to its original
divine image. This is was referred to as deification in chapter one.
59
Rhetography
Rhetography serves as a starting point for textual analysis. What rhetography aims
to do is “[indicate] the interrelationship and function of the visual and the persuasive
features of texts.”178 It looks for elements within the text that appeal to the senses in a
variety of ways. This includes words that elicit images in the mind of the reader or words
that draw the ear of the reader when read aloud. What rhetography does is demonstrate
how “words are able to portray the inanimate in an animated way,” to such an extent that
“things are seen in the imagination to be energized, working, functioning, active.”179
Anyone who has been immersed in a world-building fantasy novel knows that words can
easily create images, sounds, and emotions. The human imagination is able to capture
these visuals and construct a particular point of view. As Jeal explains, “rhetoric, words,
and literature elicit visual images in the mind that are linked, indeed necessary, to
understanding (belief) and action (behavior).”180 Rhetography aims to pull out these
visuals elicited by the text and discuss what the author is attempting to portray by using
them in sensory-aesthetic texture. Jeal explains that this texture “is revealed in the
features that indicate, reflect, or evoke things discerned through visual, oral, aural,
olfactory, tactile … sensibilities.”181 Rhetography is the process of identifying the
images, while analysis of sensory-aesthetic texture explores the use of the image within
178
Jeal, Exploring Philemon, 9.
179
180
181
60
the text. How the author uses the images will demonstrate what the author was trying to
convey to the reader and the point of view the author was trying to shape.
The first image a reader encounters in the pericope is one that introduces the
restorative Christology. This image is the action of assumption [ἀνάλημφις], or also
defined as repair, take up again, or restore.182 This is a fair interpretation since Athanasius
has mentioned the concept of restoration in his other work. Within the context of the text,
Athanasius presents ἀνάλημφις as an action of the Word of God: the logos “assumed a
human body for the salvation and benefit of humankind.”183 That is, the logos, for the
sake of humanity, took up the human body so as to restore human nature. In On the
Incarnation (c. 318 C.E.), Athanasius states:
You know what happens when a portrait that has been painted on a panel
becomes obliterated through external stains. The artist does not throw way
the panel, but the subject of the portrait has to come and sit for it again,
and then the likeness is re-drawn on the same material. Even so was it
with the All-holy Son of God. He, the Image of the Father, came and
dwelt in our midst, in order that He might renew [hu]mankind made after
himself.184
182
Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, “ἀναλαμβάνω,” in An Intermediate Greek-English
Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1889); retrieved from http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc
=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3Da)nalamba%2Fnw on April 19, 2019; converted to
digital text with support from the Annenberg CPB/Project.
183
V. Ant. 74:14–15.
184
On the Incarnation: The Treatise De Incarnatione Verbi Dei, Popular Patristics Series, ed. John
Behr (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir Seminary Press, 1977), 41–42; Athanasius De Incarnatione Verbi Dei
14:1–8.
61
What Athanasius describes here is the renewal of a damaged image by both the creator
and the subject. Both parties come together again to bring the image back to its glory.
This process is not an easy task. Working little by little, the creator and the subject sit
together through hours of detailed work to strip and add to the piece revealing the
original image. Considering his Christology, Athanasius is demonstrating here that the
divine image of humanity is so concealed by sin and corruption that it takes work from
both parties, the creator and the subject, to uncover it again. The section on rhetorolects
will examine the role humans play in the restoration. Within this context, Antony is
presenting this concept to stress the unchanging logos. As Athanasius describes in On the
Incarnation, the human Jesus could not have changed natures because only the divine
could come to restore the divine image within humans. It was with divine nature (the
logos) that humanity was created, therefore, it is this nature that returns to restore it so
that it may experience salvation.
This same concept of restoration is present in another image from this pericope.
Shortly after his discussion of Christ’s assumption of the human body, Athanasius
specifies that Christ partook in a human birth. Birth [γίνομαι] presents a strong image in
this passage. Unlike the imagery of a painted panel, “birth” does not elicit beautiful
imagery. Birth is painful, messy, and sanguinary, but it also the act of bringing new life.
The Greek word used here for birth, γενέσει, is a conjugated form of the Greek word for
creation or origin, γένεσις.185 Just as birth overlays pain and blood with creation, so does
185
Liddell and Scott, “γένεσις,” in An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0058:entry=ge/nesis&highlight=creati
on on April 19, 2019; converted to digital text with support from the Annenberg CPB/Project.
62
the crucifixion. In the scene from John 19, Jesus is pierced with a spear and blood and
water come flowing from his side (v. 34). As Jesus dies on the cross, both the blood of
death and the water of life flow from him. Jesus’ death represents the rebirth of humanity
in the resurrection. Athanasius discusses this concept in On the Incarnation: “The
supreme object of His coming was to bring about that resurrection of the body. This was
to be the monument to His victory over death, the assurance to all that He had Himself
conquered corruption and that their own bodies also would eventually be incorrupt.”186
Jesus died and was raised that humanity may share in his resurrection; this re-birth will
transform the human body and raise it to new life. As he says in On the Incarnation,
within this section of the Vita Athanasius specifies that Jesus experienced these painful,
bloody human experiences (birth and death) so that humanity could share in the divine
nature; be re-birthed into an uncorrupt nature. The imagery of this passage elicits Christ’s
birth and crucifixion to emphasize that Christ shared in human experience, which opened
the possibility for humanity to be restored to the divine image.
Athanasius is clever with his words, continuing this theme of Christ’s renewal of
humanity through repetition of the word human. Just in this short passage, forms of the
Greek word ἄνθρωπος appear five times (ἀνθρώπων, ἀνθρώπινον, ἀνθρωπίνῃ,
ἀνθρώπους, ἀνθρώπων). Not only does repetition cause an auditory sensation for the
audience (confronted with the concept of humanity), the repetition also presents a form of
progressive texture. Robbins notes that “progressive texture resides in sequences
(progressions) or words and phrases throughout the unit” and “emerges out of
186
On the Incarnation 52; Athanasius De Incarnatione Verbi Dei 22:23–27.
63
repetition.”187 How the author handles a repetitive word demonstrates the progression of
the argument. So, as the audience is hearing the text read aloud, they would hear the
repetitive words building to the main argumentative point. In this context, ἄνθρωπος
links together with κοινωνέω, which translates as “to do or have in common, to take part
in or share.”188
Which is preferable
to say …
assumed a human
body … benefit of
humankind …
so that …
sharing in the human birth
he might enable humankind
to share the divine …
or to …
make the divine
very much like …
human images
Repetitive nature of ἄνθρωπος and κοινωνέω following the argumentative structure.
187
Robbins, Exploring the Texture, 9–10.
188
Liddell and Scott, “κοινωνέω,” in An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aalphabetic+letter%3
D*k%3Aentry+group%3D42%3Aentry%3Dkoinwne%2Fw on April 19, 2019; converted to digital text
with support from the Annenberg CPB/Project.
64
By dividing the passage according to its argumentative structure, we can see that the
word ἄνθρωπος occurs more frequently in the beginning half of the argument with only
one occurrence in the later half. The first half of the argument attributes ἄνθρωπος to the
body and humankind, whereas the one occurrence in the later half attributes ἄνθρωπος to
“images.” Athanasius is trying to demonstrate that this “preferable” argument concerns
the whole of humanity, whereas the “not preferable” argument concerns images and
idolatry. Furthermore, this divine concern for humanity is beneficial for humans, for it
enables the restoration of humanity.
The interplay of κοινωνέω and ἄνθρωπος presents its own form of progressive
texture. It presents the divine (Word of God) sharing (κοινωνέω) in humanity
(ἄνθρωπος), so that humanity (ἄνθρωπος) may share (κοινωνέω) in the divine. The word
order is important here because it demonstrates the progression of Athanasius’
Christology. He presents an A=B, therefore B=A argument: Divinity shares humanity, so
humanity shares divinity. For humanity to be restored to its original nature, Christ had to
be divine. This line of argumentation becomes invalid when the divine becomes a
creature. In the second half of the argument, Athanasius does even use the term “share,”
but instead says “make.” For Athanasius, the divine would not become a creature, for
there is no benefit to do so. A full SRI analysis would further develop this form of
argumentation, but for now it will suffice to highlight Athanasius’ use of repetition and
progressive word order to present his main argument.
65
Again, which First Choice:
is preferable, that the Word of God was not changed, but remaining the same he assumed a
to say … human body for the salvation and benefit of humankind
–so that sharing in the human birth he might enable humankind to share the
divine and intellectual nature –
or Second Choice:
to make the divine very much like the irrational beings, and on account of this
worship four-footed creatures and creeping things and human images?
Logical Conclusion of Second Choice:
For these are the objects of worship for you who are wise!
Elements of rhetography presented in argumentative structure.

Positive images in green and negative images in red.
Argumentative Texture
Before now, this study has hinted at another texture present in this text.
Argumentative texture highlights precisely how the author aims to persuade the audience
through the various steps in the argumentation. As Robbins describes, it is to “investigate
multiple kinds of inner reasoning in the discourse,” which “presents assertions and
supports them with reasons, clarifies them through opposites and contraries, and possibly
presents short or elaborate counter arguments.”189 This study has hinted at this texture
every time it mentioned the argumentative structure of “which is preferable, to say … or
…, for these are….” Athanasius structures his argument by posing a question of two
189
Robbins, Exploring the Texture, 21.
66
choices where he places the preferable (or obvious) choice first and follows it with an
objectionable one. So far, the study has focused primarily on the first half of the question.
Athanasius uses divine and human imagery to build a nuanced argument for the
preferable choice. The images are key for demonstrating Athanasius’ Christology.
However, the second half of the argument also uses imagery, but the images shift to
images of animals and idols. These images demonstrate Athanasius’ claim against the
Arian argument.
Following the “or” phrase in the passage, Athanasius present four images: “four-
footed creatures” [τετράποδα], “creeping things” [ἑρπετὰ], “human images” [ἀνθρώπων
εἰκόνας], and “objects of worship” [τὰ σεβάσματα]. Compared to the human and divine
imagery in the first half of the argument, these latter images represent non-human
creatures and created idols. Both the four-footed creatures and the creeping things may
represent Egyptian gods, which Athanasius and his readers would recognize from
statuary and images they would have seen in public and cultic spaces.190 The mention of
human images and objects of worship represent idols, which the Bible forbids Christians
to worship.191 Therefore, with his argumentative structure, Athanasius is presenting a
choice between the worship of the divine being (Christ) or worship of forbidden idols.
Harmless notes that this was a common argument of Athanasius, specifically in Life of
Antony. He states that “Antony even repeats one of Athanasius’s favorite arguments that
if the Son were a creature, as the Arians said, then Christian worship of the Son would be
190
For instance, Sakhmet the lioness-goddess and Sobek the crocodile-god both worshiped by the
Egyptians. See, George Hart, “Sakhmet,” in Routledge Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses, 2d ed.
(New York: Routledge, 2005), 138–39; see also Hart, “Sobek,” 148.
191
See, e.g., Mark 12:13–17; Acts 14:15; 1 Cor. 12:2; 2 Cor. 6:16; 1 Thess. 1:9.
67
the worship of a creature — in other words, it would be doing exactly what pagans do:
worship creatures.”192 The argumentative structure demonstrates that, if readers were to
take the second choice, then they would be proclaiming pagan and not Christian belief.
For Athanasius, there was no in-between. One either worshiped the Divine Christ or it
was pagan worship. Interestingly, Athanasius follows the question with an answer: a
mocking statement about how the second choice is illogical. The Greek philosophers
consider themselves wise, yet they worship creatures and idols. This statement will be
examined in the next section regarding rhetorolects.
Rhetorolects
SRI’s recognition that communities shape language to produce understanding and
action led to its recognition of “emergent discourse.” Jeal defines emergent discourse as
discourse that “became identifiable by its distinctive rhetorical dialects or modes of
speaking.”193 These identifiable groups of dialects are what SRI calls rhetorolects. They
are defined “on the basis of distinctive configuration of themes, topics, reasonings, and
argumentations.”194 This specific passage highlights the wisdom rhetorolect. This
rhetorolect has its own themes that aim for a specific goal. Robbins explains that “the
goal of wisdom rhetorolects is to create people who produce good and righteous action,
thought, will, and speech with the aid of God’s wisdom.”195 Therefore, the wisdom
192
193
194
Vernon Robbins, “Socio-rhetorical Interpretation,” in The Blackwell Companion to the New
Testament, ed. David E. Aune (Oxford: Blackwell, 2010), 192–219; quoted in Jeal, Exploring Philemon, 5.
195
Vernon Robbins, The Invention of Christian Discourse, vol. 1, Rhetoric of Religious Antiquity
Series (Dorset, UK: Deo, 2009), 121.
68
rhetorolect looks at how the author used these “distinctive configurations” to form a new
way of teaching early Christian believers to live a righteous life.
This passage may exhibit many different themes or topics that present wisdom
rhetorolects; for purposes of illustration of how SRI works, this study will focus on the
one wisdom rhetorolect concerning the irrational versus the wise. Throughout this
dialogue, we see a distinction between those who are wise and those who are irrational.
Before this passage, the author refers to Antony as wise, whereas the Greek philosophers,
who "are considered wise," are now considered ignorant by Antony.196 Athanasius sets up
the dichotomy of ignorant and wise by presenting the actors in the dialogue as one or the
other. Antony, being wise, now has the upper hand over the Greek philosophers,
furthering validating what he is about to say. One key phrase in this passage is the line
that states: “so that sharing in the human birth he might enable [humankind] to share the
divine and [intellectual] nature.” As previously discussed, Christ’s sharing in a human
birth initiated a restoration of human nature towards the divine, but this line also
demonstrates that restoration also occurs for the “intellectual nature” (νοερᾶς φύσεως).
This study has already examined how Athanasius explains Christ’s part in the restoration
through rhetography. As the wisdom rhetorolect aims to show, Athanasius also calls for
action on the part of humans towards restoration. Returning to the image of restoring the
painted panel detail-by-detail, Athanasius claims restoration comes from the time-
consuming, patient, and hard work of asceticism. Asceticism not an easy lifestyle; it
required rigorous work. Much of the work put the human body to the test with limited
196
V. Ant. 72:1; 74:1–7.
69
eating and sleeping, constant prayer, and manual labor.197 All of this discipline was
designed to reorient humanity towards salvation through conforming the person to Christ
and uncovering the passionless, obedient divine image. As Harmless describes,
Athanasius presented Antony as a clear example of this salvific process. Discussing
Antony’s equilibrium and “calm” nature, like Christ, “Antony’s steadfast calm of soul
was ‘natural.’ It was human nature as it was made to be.”198 Christ came to allow the
subject (the human person) to partake in the process of restoring the divine image, which
required difficult and painstaking work.199
To choose Antony’s first option in his question is to acknowledge restoration
through asceticism. Otherwise, contrary to original human nature, humans remain
ignorant and “irrational beings” who pretend to be wise.200 That is what Antony is
demonstrating in the second half of his argument. Those who act according to the second
choice are not acting as Christians should. Harmless notes that Athanasius purposefully
uses ἀλόγος (irrational) to show that Arians were not acting as Christians. He states that
“Antony invokes one of Athanasius’s favorite puns: that the Arians are [ἄλογοι]
(“mindless”) because they reject that Christ the Logos (“Word”) is truly God.”201 The last
line in this passage further demonstrates Antony’s mockery of their ἀλόγος behavior by
pointing out that they call themselves wise.202 They claim they are wise, but they have yet
197
198
199
This is Athanasius’ theology of deification, which the first chapter explores further.
200
V. Ant. 74:18.
201
202
See V. Ant. 74:2.
70
to realize that their behavior is contrary to the reason of God (the Λόγος). Therefore,
returning to the goal of wisdom rhetorolects, the passage calls Christians not to act like
Arians, but to work like the ascetics instead.
CONCLUSION
Socio-rhetorical interpretation is a unique method of analyzing texts that
recognizes that pieces of literature comprise complex teaching tools. SRI aims to
demonstrate that each text is born out of a specific milieu and written to produce specific
beliefs, behaviors, and actions. It demonstrates this by employing many tools to tease
apart the various layers that build upon each other to comprise the whole text. This study
highlighted only a few of the layers (or textures) to introduce what the method can
illuminate from a passage of the Life of Antony. A full and complete SRI analysis would
require a much larger project than this essay can provide. This chapter introduced some
of the textures that SRI would uncover in a text and highlighted parts of the passage that
would be significant to those textures. A full SRI analysis would consider other texts that
use similar language, images, argumentative strategies, and so on. It would also further
draw on studies such as the previous chapters presented here to demonstrate the influence
of the social and cultural environment. It would consider what the audience is bringing to
the text and how that effects interpretation, future directions for the rhetorical themes (the
“emergent discourse”), and several other related issues. This study provides a sample of
how SRI can uncover the rhetorical force of texts, demonstrating how Athanasius aimed
to persuade the reader to adopt his Christology, which is presented through the words of
Antony. The rhetography demonstrated how the imagery sets up a theme of human
restoration through Christ within the dialogue. The argumentative texture then showed
71
how the layout of the argument effectively used the imagery to drive home the
importance of divine worship for that human restoration. Finally, the wisdom rhetorolect
presented how the text persuades the audience to live a Christian life by contrasting
irrational versus wise beings. Highlighting the potential of a socio-rhetorical interpretive
approach to this text not only demonstrates the utility of this interpretive strategy for non-
biblical texts, but also to lay the groundwork for further SRI studies on Athanasius’ Life
of Antony
72
CONCLUSION
Though Athanasius remained a prolific writer during his times in exile, most of
his writings were letters, theologically and philosophically heavy writings directly
rebuking groups and individuals. Life of Antony deviated from this kind of writing
because Athanasius there took up a narrative form. However, this did not mean that the
Life lacked the same force of rebuking the Arians and promoting Athanasius’
Christology. Athanasius changed the genre of his writing to widen his audience.
As chapter two of this study demonstrated, the bios genre was a form of
entertainment. The grandiose tales of the nonfictional subjects made for a fun read,
attracting the attention of a wider audience so that the author may impart to many the
ideas embedded in the tale. Because of Athanasius’ situation (hiding in exile), using the
bios genre would have been an efficient way of making his voice heard. Athanasius
certainly drew on the rhetorical power of the bios by portraying Antony as the holy
philosopher and following the paradigm of blending history and fiction. This way
Athanasius was able to present a virtuous life, conformed to the Divine Christ, which the
audience could mimic. This thesis aimed to demonstrate how Athanasius used this genre
to embed his Christology in a popular narrative form.
The first chapter introduced Athanasius’ own life and the circumstances out of
which his Christology was born. It then detailed his Christology, including a comparison
to that of Arius, demonstrating how the debate affected Athanasius’ communication of
his beliefs. When Athanasius presents his Christology, he does so by comparing it to
Arius’ and demonstrating his as correct and beneficial. The second chapter then
examined the development of the bios genre and how it provided a structure to transmit
73
ideas meant to provoke action. It then presented how Life of Antony followed this
structure to transmit Athanasius’ Christology. Antony took on the role as the holy
philosopher to portray a virtuous Christian life according to the Divine Christ. The third
and final chapter explored some of the ways Athanasius’ Christology was woven into the
text with the aim of provoking action and belief. To do so, this thesis turned to a method
of interpretation that considers different ways an author may weave various forms of
rhetoric: socio-rhetorical interpretation. While this study does not complete a full SRI
analysis, it introduces the process to the text so that a full consideration may take place in
the future. For now, it highlights key aspects of the Life of Antony that would be
important for completion of the process.
This thesis aimed to demonstrate the complexity of literature. Early Christians
relied on this complexity to transmit beliefs throughout their communities. Athanasius
saw the advantage of the bios genre and its ability to transmit beliefs in a relevant and
entertaining way. Thus, Life of Antony became a Christological work with Antony as the
virtuous Christian demonstrating a restored humanity possible only through the Divine
Christ. Athanasius’ admiration of the monastic movement is evident as he describes
Antony’s life and teachings. Through the use of literature, Athanasius rebutted the Arians
by presenting his Christology of restoration through ascetic practice.
74
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anatolios, Khaled. Athanasius. New York: Routledge, 2004.
Athanasius The Life of Antony and The Letter to Marcellinus. Edited and translated by
Robert C. Gregg. The Classics of Western Spirituality. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist,
1980); Athanasius Vita Antonii.
__________ On the Incarnation: The Treatise De Incarnatione Verbi Dei. Popular
Patristics Series. Edited by John Behr. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir
Seminary Press, 1977); Athanasius De Incarnatione Verbi Dei.
Cox, Patricia. Biography in Late Antiquity. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press, 1983.
Dihle, Albrecht. A History of Greek Literature: From Homer to the Hellenistic Period.
Translated by Clare Krojzl. New York: Routledge, 1994.
Gregg, Robert C., and Dennis E. Groh. Early Arianism: A View of Salvation.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981.
Gwynn, David M. Athanasius of Alexandria: Bishop, Theologian, Ascetic, Father. New
York: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Tomas Hägg and Philip Rousseau, "Introduction: Biography and Panegyric," in Greek
Biography and Panegyric in Late Antiquity, ed. Tomas Hägg, Philip Rousseau,
and Christian Høgel (Berkeley and Los Angeles: Regents of the University of
California, 2000).
Harmless, William, S.J. Desert Christians: An Introduction to the Literature of Early
Monasticism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
75
Jeal, Roy R. Exploring Philemon: Freedom, Brotherhood, and Partnership in the New
Society. Rhetoric of Religious Antiquity 2. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015.
Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1889. Converted to digital text with support from the
Annenberg CPB/Project.
Lyman, J. Rebecca. Christology and Cosmology: Models of Divine Activity in Origen,
Eusebius, and Athanasius. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
MacGregor, Geddes. The Nicene Creed: Illuminated by Modern Thought. Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 1980.
Robbins, Vernon K. Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical
Interpretation. New York: Bloomsbury, 1996.
__________. The Invention of Christian Discourse, Volume 1. Rhetoric of Religious
Antiquity Series. Dorset, UK: Deo, 2009.
Rubenson, Samuel. “Philosophy and Simplicity: The Problem of Classical Education in
Early Christian Biography.” In Greek Biography and Panegyric in Late Antiquity.
Edited by Tomas Hägg, Philip Rousseau, and Christian Høgel. Berkeley and Los
Angeles: Regents of the University of California, 2000.
Weinandy, Thomas G. and Daniel A. Keating. Athanasius and His Legacy. Minneapolis:
Augsburg Fortress, 2017.
“What We Believe.” United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Accessed November
26, 2018. http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe.
Williams, Rowan. Arius: Heresy & Tradition. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002.
76

The Convincing Biographer: The Use of Genre in Athanasius' Christology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Convincing Biographer: The Use of Genre in Athanasius' Christology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Convincing Biographer: The Use of Genre in Athanasius' Christology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

John Carroll University

THE CONVINCING BIOGRAPHER: THE

Follow this and additional works at: https://collected.jcu.edu/masterstheses

A Thesis Submitted to the

CHAPTER 1: ATHANASIUS’ LIFE AND CHRISTOLOGY .......................................... 3

CHAPTER 2: THE GREEK BIOGRAPHY ..................................................................... 29

CHAPTER 3: SOCIO-RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LIFE OF ANTONY ......... 54

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................. 75

which Athanasius used to promulgate his Christology.

highlight the potential of SRI’s contribution to understanding Athanasius’ Christology

within the text.

therefore, he turned from dogmatics to literature. Following Athanasius’ Christology, Life

interpretative method, such as socio-rhetorical Interpretation, to find the hidden layers of

Athanasius’ Christology within the text.

Many people overlook how the pillars of Christian faith developed. To

LIFE AND CONTEXT OF ATHANASIUS

Alexander handed down a wealth of knowledge to Athanasius. Evident in his writings,

trained in the use of rhetoric. Anatolios points out that:

Especially his early writing displays at least a colloquial familiarity with

philosophical concepts of the various schools, in particular a Stoic

cosmology which is employed to speak of the Word as the principle of

harmony in the cosmos, and a Middle Platonic ontology in which God is

characterized as true being…. His use of classical rhetorical techniques

theologian steeped in the Scriptures.6

beginnings of the controversy can be traced to three Alexandrian theologians before it

bloomed into an empire-wide debate.

Another theologian was Dionysius (mid-third century) whose theology did

Arius, a priest in Alexandria.

summarizes, “Alexander emphasized especially Origen’s doctrine of the eternal

tendency in Origen’s theology, now viewed from the perspective of a doctrine of

in scripture. Specifically, he “emphasized the suffering and creaturely characteristics to

knowledge and understanding. Athanasius quotes Arius as saying:

If the Son were, according to your interpretation, eternally existent with

and need what they do not possess.23

Athanasius’ own Christology.

The Council of Nicæa

be “originated” is to be made or created, while to be begotten is to be of the same

each of Arius’ claims.

staunchly defended the Nicene Christology.

Constantly on the defense, Athanasius develops his Christology with Arianism

and Alexander’s Nicene teachings, Athanasius constructs a Christology heavily focused

on the divinity of Christ. Although Athanasius penned numerous pieces concerning

shortly after the Council of Nicæa: Contra Gentes — De Incarnatione.

of divine transcendence from contemporary Platonism: ὅ ύπερ πάσης οὐσίας, ὅ

essence (or being) of God from that of the created world.

What differentiated Athanasius from Arius was that Athanasius believed

Jesus Christ; and He also made humanity perceptive and understanding of

reality through its similarity to Him, giving it also a conception and

knowledge of its own eternity, so that as long as it kept this likeness, it

might never abandon its concept of God.43

the Word Himself took on a created form. Therefore, ‘although He is incorporeal by

body for our salvation.’”47

Incarnatione explains the significance of the incarnation.

Athanasius maintains, could salvation and revelation be received by humanity.”50

quotes Athanasius’ explanation:

Athanasius ever wrote,” Athanasius describes salvation as such: “through death

Athanasius is speaking of a renewal of spirit. As Harmless explains the concept:

restoring it to immortal life. This was like a new creation, as dramatic as

Christ as God recreated us from inside, renewing that which is vulnerable