Throughout
Christian history, there have been countless influences which have inevitably
shaped the direction and thought of the church. From the great schism to the
reformation, from Rome to Germany, from Christendom to Post-modernism, the
influences are as many as have formed and shaped the secular society. Many of
these influences have included or have been focused on Scriptural hermeneutic.
The Arian controversy for instance had to do with the way in which the church
understood the person of Jesus. The result of that controversy is what came to
be understood as the orthodox position on the person of Jesus, that He is both
fully man, and fully God. This paper is ultimately interested in understanding
the extent to which Scripture had a role in shaping that controversy, as well
as understanding the extent to which the controversy had a role in shaping the
Church’s understanding of Scripture.
There are ultimately two primary
areas of interest for this paper. First, is the Arian controversy. We must come
to an understanding of the controversy itself and ask what role did Scripture
play in the Arian controversy. Second, involves Athanasius' 39th Festal letter.
The 39th Festal letter is where we see Athanasius' list of canonical books.
Here we are interested in understanding if the controversies regarding Arius
played any significant role in Athanasius' list of canonical books. That is to
say, is the list of canonical books as set out in the 39th Festal Letter a
result of the Arian controversy, or rather to what degree did the Arian
controversy affect Athanasius' understanding of canon?
We should begin our work by
understanding the key characters involved in the Arian controversy, who they
were, where they were from, what schools of thought influenced their perspective
on the issue, how their perspectives clashed, and how the controversy played
out. If we are to understand exactly what we are looking for with regards to
Athanasius' perspective on the canon, we must understand why we we are looking
for it.
If we were to summarize the issue,
we might simply refer to the conflict as ‘the iota controversy.’ However, the
war of the iota obviously had greater implications than a simple Greek
character. Both parties were primarily concerned with the implications of the
matter, and as such much of the controversy consisted of the parties talking
past each other. For the Arians, championed by Eusebius of Nicomedia, the
concern at hand had to do with the roots of another controversy ultimately
going back centuries to Sabellianism. Sabellianism maintained that Father, Son,
and Spirit were the same person only functioning as different facets. This
notion was argued against in various ways, since this approach to understanding
the person of Jesus was represented in various ways. Tertullian, Hippolytus,
and Origen all had confrontations involving Sabellian theology to some degree
or another. The issue becomes even more convoluted with regards to the Arian
controversy as it appears that both sides of the issue were students derived
from Origen in one way or another. The Arian vein of the heresy in some
instances are understood as "left-wing" Origenists, whereas the
opposing side championed first by Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius are
understood to be "right-wing" Origenists.
The controversy broke out when
"Arius... clashed with his bishop, Alexander, over the manner in which the
divinity of Jesus was to be interpreted. Alexander was a 'right-wing Origenist'
who felt that the divinity of the Word incarnate in Jesus had to be preserved
at all costs."[1]
Whereas Arius, concerned with a possible laps back to Sabellian heresy, strove
to maintain the distinction between Father and Son. "...When the question
was posed as to whether the one incarnate in Jesus is divine by nature, or is a
creature that has been adopted into divinity, Arius and his followers chose the
latter option."[2]
Alexander held a synod where his various supporters colluded to condemn Arius
and his teachings. After the synod was dismissed, Arius went about collecting
the support of his colleagues, chief among them was Eusebius bishop of
Nicomedia, who granted Arius asylum and came to represent the Arian position at
an upcoming council.
It was around this time that emperor
Constantine converted to Christianity and desired to cement his empire with the
quickly spreading faith. Constantine saw a definitive threat to the
consolidation of his empire with the dissension of the various churches. He
called a council including some three-hundred bishops who met in Nicea in order
to settle this matter of the person of Jesus as well as some other debated
concerns. The result of council was the condemnation of Arius and the
banishment of Eusebius as well as a formed creed which is hence referred to as
the Nicene Creed. Despite Eusebius and Arius' exile and condemnation, there
remained a trend in the church towards Arian theology out of fear that the
Nicene declaration opened the door to Sabellianism. Eusebius also refused to
lay dormant in his exile and managed to rally around himself many supporters
including the emperor himself. Eusebius was determined in his position and
rather than attack the position of the council of Nicea spent much of his
effort on the attacking the predominant supporters of the Nicene stance.
In 328, Alexander, bishop of
Alexandria died. Enter Athanasius. Although only a deacon at the time of the
council of Nicea, Athanasius was an ardent defender of the Nicene theology and
would come to embody the opposition to Arians.[3]
It is interesting to note that at this point the controversy became mostly
politically driven. Eusebius' attempts to further the Arian position were all
political in effort signified by managing to have Athanasius, now the bishop of
Alexandria, exiled numerous times. However, in 362, Athanasius called a council
in Alexandria which set out to clarify many of the misunderstandings that were
held against the Nicene creed, namely the convolution of the Nicene position
with Sabellianism.[4]
Athanasius was ultimately successful in his attempts but was not spared the
difficulties of being exiled a couple more times before he was able to
permanently return to his see in Alexandria where he lived the rest of his days
as bishop of that city.
Now that we have understood the
controversy in and of itself, we can turn to the second section of our inquiry,
that of the 39th Festal Letter. We are interested in the nature of the letter
as well as any subsequent results of the letter's statements, including
reception and response. The Festal Letters were ultimately the way in which the
Alexandrian bishop would inform the entire church community on what day Easter
would be celebrated. One of the issues discussed at the council of Nicea was
the issue of Easter. It fell to the Alexandrian see to make the important
announcement of when Easter was to be celebrated that year, most likely because
Alexandria was famous for their astronomical talents.[5]
Of course, the letter signified the date of the Easter celebration, but the
contents often included exhortations or encouragements to the churches. For our
purposes, we are most interested in the 39th Festal letter which contains a
list of the books of the Christian canon including Old and New Testaments.
In it, Athanasius names twenty-two
books of the Old Testament. While our ultimate concern is with his counting of
NT books, there are some notes of interest that can be briefly pointed out.
First, there is the issue of how he orders the books. He places Job after Songs
of Songs. Athanasius also places the twelve minor prophets before the major
prophets placing Daniel as the book which closes the OT canon. Second,
Athanasius does not count Esther among his OT canon, but ascribes that book as
a part of a secondary canon, which he notes as being helpful for new converts
for the purposes of instruction in the word of godliness.[6]
Third, Athanasius also includes the book of Baruch along with the major
prophets between Jeremiah and Lamentations. While these are not necessarily
drastic differences to our current biblical canon, it might prove to be point
of interest later in our discussion. If this is identifiably the first place
where a complete and authoritative canon is seen in church literature, there
are question we can ask as to why there are differences between our current
understanding of canon and Athanasius'. Athanasius goes on to account for
twenty-seven NT books: the four gospels, followed by Acts, seven Catholic
epistles, fourteen Pauline epistles including Hebrews, and Revelation. Not only
does Athanasius provide for the church a list of books that are authoritative
for the church, it is important to note that Athanasius also applies the term
canon to them. And thus, we have the first instance in church history where NT
books are given the same scriptural status as OT books.
This would be the place to end the
paper if only our question was where is the first place in which we find a list
of the NT canon. However, our interest is not only in understanding the nature
of the appearance of this list, but also what caused Athanasius to state such a
thing. We finally are able to turn to our question and address our interests.
Athanasius seems to be concerned regarding how some have taken apocryphal books
and "mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture... to the end that
any one who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led him astray;
and that he who has continued steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having
these things brought to his remembrance."[7]
Initially this sounds similar to what an old crotchety evangelical might say,
until we get to the part of the letter where Athanasius gives a secondary
canon, "appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us,
and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon,
and the wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is
called the teaching of the apostles, and the Shepherd."[8]
These are most of the books which the crotchety evangelical would deem to be
apocryphal or useless for Christian reading. The question then becomes, what
books is Athanasius trying to associate with the heretic and why?
As with many matters involving
historical questions, it would have been easiest if Athanasius had simply
explained which heretics he was proposing this list against. Unfortunately, as
with many matters involving historical questions, Athanasius did not. However,
we are not left in the lurch, thankfully many of Athanasius' writings have
survived and it is to these that we now turn. There are four writings that will
be of most interest to us, the first is entitled Deposition of Arius, the
second is called Defence Against the Arians, the third being Arian History, and
the fourth and most substantial Against the Arians.
The first work that we are
interested in is the Deposition of Arius,
wherein bishop Alexander writes a rather short document listing those who have
claimed or rather he is claiming to be apart of the Arian group, as well as
outlining the general argument of the Arian position. While this document is
not from Athanasius explicitly, but Alexander, it was most likely penned by
Athanasius.[9]
Furthermore, the document utilizes NT books and refers to them as Scriptural.
Thus, while this treatise does not directly address issues of Scripture or
canon, NT books referred to and cited as Scripture stands as an indicator
towards the tradition from which Athanasius comes from and that tradition's
understanding and use of NT books. Statistically speaking, out of seventeen
scriptural references, only three of those references are concerning OT texts,
the rest are NT. While frequency of use does not necessarily signify status of
a text, it is certainly interesting to see that for Alexander, the use of NT
texts to make statements against heresies does signify a level of authority.
Especially when considering that the theological issue at hand is one regarding
divinity of our saviour, it should stand out that references to NT over OT
texts are used.
The second document of interest to
us is Athanasius' Defence Against the
Arians. This treatise is mostly concerned with, as the title suggests,
defending himself against those in the Arian party who have spoken and written
against his character. Here again we do not have any specific addresses of
Scripture, but allusions and references to NT texts. However, in a section
discussing the breaking of a Eucharistic cup. At one point there is made
reference that this cup "you have received according to the canon of the
Church."[10]
While it is difficult and perhaps impossible to conclude what canon Athanasius
is referring to here, it is perhaps referring to a text or texts that mention
the Eucharist. Later on in the document there is also reference made to the
"correcting of the irregularities which have been committed contrary to
the canon."[11]
And again shortly after, where Pope Julius exhorts the Eusebians at Antioch
that the matter should have been dealt with in a different way, "according
to the Canon of the Church, Word should have written of it to us all, that so a
just sentence might proceed from all."[12]
In this document we again are not dealing head on with exposition or exegesis
directly, but through inferred references to NT books as Scripture. The use of
the term canon regarding measure of conduct however is notable. Much of the
controversy is marked by an issue of authority rather than exegesis, that canon
in whatever form being thought of here is used as measurement of the conduct of
these Arians perhaps signifies a certain foundation of authority. So, while
Athanasius and other bishops write the church in defence of their position and
extolling the authority of the bishopric, it is ultimately understood that
their authority is based on their succession from the apostles which is found
in NT texts.
The third document we are interested
in, Arian History, recounts the
actions taken by those Arians who continuously harass Athanasius and their use
of their position with the emperor to their advantage. Ultimately, this
treatise is concerned with how the authority of these certain bishops and
presbyters is an extension of their political manoeuvring, resulting in their
political actions taken upon Athanasius and his supporters of attempted
execution and banishment. Here is where the true face of the controversy is
unveiled, that through their political capabilities, the Arians have resorted
to a type of empire wide persecution of Athanasius and his supporters.
The fourth, final, and most
significant document we are taking up is Athanasius' Against the Arians. This document is divided into 4 discourses. The
first begins with an explanation of the theological position of the Arians and
why they should be considered heretics. Throughout the document are continuous
allusions and references to NT books as Scriptural on at least an equal footing
with OT books. Most notably, Athanasius asks, "Why do ye, as 'heathens,
rage, and imagine vain phrases against the Lord and against His Christ? for no
holy Scripture has used such language of the Saviour, but rather 'always' and
'eternal' and 'coexistent' always with the Father.'[13]
Athanasius here cites the gospel according to John, Revelations, and Romans
among those Scriptures in which language is used to equate the Son with the
Father. By the eleventh chapter in the first discourse, Athanasius turns to
some of the misinterpreted Scriptures and sets out to explain them both in how
they have been so misinterpreted and how they should be properly interpreted.
Discourse two and three follows the same pattern set in chapter eleven of discourse
one so that by the time Athanasius embarks upon his fourth discourse the way is
clear to establish the proper understanding of Jesus. All throughout
Athanasius' work as he sets the exegetical work of interpreting Scripture
properly he associates NT with Scripture and interprets it along the same lines
as OT texts. bringing his understanding of NT texts on the same plain as OT
texts. Here is clear use and understanding of the level of authority and status
of books he would cite as NT canon in his 39th Festal Letter. Perhaps just as
interestingly as Athanasius' understanding of these texts being Scriptural, is
the fact that he is defending their interpretation of them against those
interpretations put forth by his opponents. Thus, not only are these texts
understood as Scripturally authoritative by Athanasius, but also by the Arians.
It is the interpretation of these texts that mark them as uniquely Nicene or
Arian utilization rather than the texts themselves being used uniquely as
authoritative by either party.
Although these four texts do not
address the issue of canon directly, the apparent status ascribed to these
various NT books, apparently by both parties, is interesting to note. We gain
glimpses of the understanding of the status of Scripture maintained by these
two parties as well as the atmosphere that no doubt was the source and topic
against which Athanasius draws his list of canon against in a.d.367. Thus we
see four primary areas of interest which might help us to understand the
context in which the canonical list had been drawn. First, we witness the
status of Scripture being equated with both Old and New Testaments.
Statistically speaking the presence of such an overwhelming amount of NT
references in support of Athanasius' position is monumental. With approximately
627 references to the Gospel according to John alone throughout the entirety of
Athanasius' works versus the total number of references to the OT being around
1100.[14]
It is obvious that the status and importance of these texts have surpassed that
of the OT by Athanasius' time. Second, we are presented with the atmosphere in
which Athanasius finds himself and that which Athanasius no doubt draws his
list of canonical books against. Third, we see the use of political leveraging
being utilized by the Arians to place themselves into positions of authority.
Time and time again, we read about how the Arians coerced, or arranged the
banishment of Athanasius and his supporters in order to arrange for themselves
dominating positions of authority. Fourth, Athanasius seems concerned with the
restoration of the authority of bishopric over and against the authority
wielded by the emperor. We read repeated accounts of how Athanasius appeals to
the decisions of the bishops concerning his return to the see in Alexandria. We
see how for Athanasius, the support and unity of the church is represented by
those who use the structure of the church to discuss matters of theological
importance, rather than resorting to the antics of power politics employed by
those who are formed by the world rather than the Word.
This is an issue that David Brakke
addresses in his 1994 journal article, Canon
Formation and Social Conflict in Fourth-Century Egypt. The article
addresses the social-political aspects that drove Athanasius to develop a
canonical list of NT books. Understanding that there has been a significant
amount of study done in analyzing the categories of Scripture that Athanasius
provides, Brakke is concerned rather for
the reasons why Athanasius felt the need to distinguish the lists. Brakke
believes that the canonical lists are directed at two groups, the Arians and
the Melitians. The first group sought to place the livelihood and center of the
church in the school-room, the second desired to place the foci on the basis of
the martyrs. This understanding of the origins of authority for the church
conflicted with Athanasius’ church authority being the bishopric and the
priesthood. By developing or limiting the canon to his specified list, it put
the authority back on the foundation of the apostles, for it was from the
apostles that these divine writings were passed down from generation to
generation. Thus, “Athanasius’ disputes with other Egyptian Christians over the
biblical canon were not struggles over lists of books alone, but reflected more
fundamental conflicts between competing modes of Christian authority,
spirituality, and social organization.”[15]
Brakke goes on to describe some of the history of the Alexandrian church as it
is, for the most part, the center of Christian theological development for much
of the early church. He expounds the way the theological culture of the academy
flourished through those who were prominent and capable teachers. Schools were
often competing with one another for rapport and in the midst of this
competition, would often resort to attacking the personal character of the
person, as we can see by the Arian’s temporarily successful attacks on
Athanasius’ character. However, as Brakke points out, “Arius was not only a
teacher; he was also a presbyter and thus suggests that, in early fourth
century, the hierarchical episcopate and the study circles were not clearly
distinguished in Alexandria.” Brakke continues, “It was the goal of Athanasius
and his predecessor as bishop, Alexander, to eliminate the academic mode of
authority and spiritual formation from their parochial system.”[16]
While this assertion is supported by
what we have covered on our own regarding the exchanges between Athanasius and
the Arian parties and we could probably end our discourse at this point, Brakke
suggests that there was another party involved in shaping Athanasius’ canonical
list. The Melitian church was a competing church that went back to the
persecution in the early fourth century. During the persecution, the bishop of
Alexandria, Peter, fled the city in order to escape martyrdom. When Peter
returned, he found a bishop Melitius had been raised up in his stead. The
tension between the two rival veins of church authority grew until Athanasius
utilized a closed canon to subvert the authority of Melitian vein, the
apocryphal books supporting the authority of the martyr cult. By limiting the
canon to the books specified in his list, Athanasius reigned the authority
claimed by the scholastics and the authority of rival veins of church lineage
managing, for the most part to centralize the authority of the church upon
books written specifically by those who had been taught by Jesus, the great and
only true ‘teacher’.
Far from the unified and peaceful
church that many would hope and expect from Alexandria under one of the
greatest theologians of Christian history, Athanasius’ Egypt was a mixed bag of
varying degrees of enmity. Although it was most definitely this respected
bishop’s list of books that ensured the closing of the canon, Brakke reminds us
that “ it would be difficult to attribute this development to Athanasius’
Festal Letter alone.”[17]
To be sure, Athanasius’ conflicts with these two groups did not stifle them in
the way that Athanasius had hoped, “these alternative forms of Christianity
survived in ways that at various times cohered and conflicted with the
hierarchical episcopate and its closed canon of scriptures.”[18]
Metzger also mentions the difficulty
with having conversation regarding Athanasius’ canonical list. He posits that
the lists differ from Greek and coptic translations. “How far, however, the
list remained authoritative for the copts is problematical. The Coptic
translation of the collection known as the Eighty-Five Apostolic Canons
concludes with a different sequence of the book of the New Testament and is
enlarged by the addition of two others.”[19]
Metzger goes on to mention that the Coptic version of the canonical list
arranges the Pauline Epistles before the Catholic Epistles and also adds the
two epistles of Clement. While this is perhaps not a drastic difference, there
remains a certain air of uncertainty regarding the difference presented in the
lists. Furthermore, Metzger does not attribute much of his book to the issue of
Athanasius’ contribution to the Christian canon. Rather, he limits his
conversation involving Athanasius only to the development of the canon in the
Coptic Egyptian church. As he and Brakke have pointed out, Athanasius
contribution to the closing of the canon is merely a step towards that ultimate
end, though a notable step to say the least.
What then can we say regarding the
aspects influencing Athanasius’ production of a canonical list of NT books?
Athanasius’ life in the church was ineffably marked by his controversies with
the Arians. Throughout his treatises there is evidence of his use of NT books
to clarify his opponents and his own theological positions. But ultimately,
what lay at the heart of these controversies was the source of authority. So
while Athanasius certainly used the books he would later define as canonical
against the Arians, canon is apparently not a primary concern for him. However,
as Brakke has clearly laid out, his interactions with the Arians was certainly
an influencing component when he addressed the issue of canon in his 39th
Festal Letter. While Athanasius’ canonical list did not prove to be the only
and final component regarding the close of the NT canon, Athanasius’
contribution to the closing of the canon cannot be overstated as being a very
important step towards such an end.
In conclusion, Athanasius continues
to stand as an important figure in the history of the church. His contribution
to the issue regarding Christ’s divinity and his marked contribution to the
closing of the NT canon stands as prominent example of a character chiseled
from lifelong perseverance and service to the Christian Church. His altercation
involving the Arians certainly did have an impact on his decision to write an
authoritative list of canonical NT books to be used by the church universal.
Indeed the fact that the Protestant Bible we use today contains, with minor
exceptions, the list set out by Athanasius in 367 is a testament to his
influence on the Church universal. I hope with great anticipation to join with
Athanasius on the other side of the resurrection in worshipping our great
saviour Jesus Christ, Light of Light, very God
of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by
whom all things were made.
Bibliography
Brakke, David. "Canon Formation and Social Conflict in
Fourth-Century Egypt : Athanasius of Alexandria's Thirty-Ninth Festal
Letter." Harvard Theological Review 87, no. 4 (October 1, 1994): 395-419.
Gonzalez, Justo. From
the Beginnings to the Council of Chalcedon, volume 1 of A History of Christian Thought. Nashville:
Abingdon press, 1987.
Metzger, Bruce M. The
Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance.
Oxford: Clarendon Paperbacks, 1987.
Schaff, Philip. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters,
series 2, volume 4 of Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library,
1885.
[1] Justo Gonzalez, From
the Beginnings to the Council of Chalcedon, vol.1 of A History of Christian Thought (Nashville: Abingdon press, 1987),
262.
[2] Gonzalez, 264.
[3] Gonzalez, 274.
[4] Gonzalez, 284.
[5] Philip Schaff, Athanasius: Select Works and Letters,
ser. 2, vol. 4 of Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers (Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1885), 1226.
[6] Schaff, 1346.
[7] Schaff, 1345.
[8] Scaff, 1346.
[9] Schaff, 336.
[10] Schaff, 405.
[11] Schaff, 424.
[12] Schaff, 426.
[13] Schaff, 831.
[14] Schaff, 1415.
[15] David Brakke,
"Canon Formation and Social Conflict in Fourth-Century Egypt : Athanasius
of Alexandria's Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter," Harvard Theological Review
87, no. 4 (October 1, 1994), 399.
[16] Brakke, 404.
[17] Brakke, 418.
[18] Brakke, 419.
[19] Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin,
Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Paperbacks, 1987), 225.
No comments:
Post a Comment