Subject: Theological tendencies of Athanasius

From: "Mark Arvid Johnson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 07:43:34 -0500

To Bart Ehrman and TC-List,

Does anyone else have more information on the theological tendencies of
Athanasius and how they affected his use of the text of scripture?
Frederick Nolan, in his _Inquiry Into the Integrity of the Received Text_,
1815, claimed:

"That St. Athanasius was accused of favoring the destruction of the Arian
Bibles; that he revised the sacred text immediately after the death of
Eusebius; that his prologue, as explanatory of Ps. ii. is directed against
the errors of Arius."  p. 135

Can anyone help me document and substantiate these charges? What is the
reference for John Brogan's study of Athanasius? I would be most
interested in any further information anyone could provide.

Mark Arvid Johnson

------------------------------

From: Bart Ehrman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 18:03:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Qualifications, Classifications, and Progress

Ulrich,

   Yeah, actually this particular point (as opposed to the other two, I
think) *may* be more of a matter of my simply seeing things from where I
sit, since this is in fact the area that I happen to be most interested
in. But there *have* been some important and interesting studies. I'd say
that Eldon Epp's study of Theological Tendencies was groundbreaking and
got things rolling (though he had significant predecessors, of course); 
about the time I was writing there appeared important articles by Peter
Head and Mikeal Parsons (whose book on the ascension tradition in
Luke-Acts dealt with related issues as well) and even Bruce Metzger's
little piece on MSS of the Fourth Gospel with Hermeneia.  More recently
(just now, in fact) there have been two very interesting dissertations
that I'm aware of, Kim Haines-Eitzen's study of the social location of
early Christian scribes (not completed yet, but includes, e.g., a chapter
on women scribes in the Greco-Roman world) and John Brogan's study of
Athanasius, which argues for specific instances of the trinitarian
controversies affecting his text, and further for some instances in which
Athanasius's theologically related modifications entered into the MS
tradition, specifically with some of the corrections in Codex Sinaiticus
(both Kim and John, I think, are on this list). 

[ rest deleted to save space ]

- -- Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

------------------------------

---

From: "John Brogan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 23:03:58 EST5EDT

On Friday, April 18, 1997, Mark Arvid Johnson requested...

> interested in any further information anyone could provide.

Mark,

Please see my previous post for further information on my study of
Athanasius.  I am interested in Nolan's claim about Athanasius
destroying "Arian Bibles."  I am not aware of any charges (or
praises) that Athanasius was involved in such activities.  Do you
know if Nolan cited any primary evidence to support this claim?  I
am also unaware of any claims that Athanasius was responsible for a
"revision" of the biblical text.  Finally, to what "prologue" is Nolan
referring?  I would appreciate any info from you or others on the
list concerning these matters...

Thanks,

John

====================================
John J. Brogan
Assistant Professor of Religion
Department of Religion and Theology
Calvin College
(616) 957-6322

---

From: "John Brogan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 23:21:21 EST5EDT

On Fri, 18 Apr 97, Ulrich Schmid wrote...

> Athanasius was accused for a lot of things, among others for
> murdering a meletianic bishop named Arsenius, who, in fact, was
> found alive (c.f. Apologia secunda 65-67). Athanasius was accused,
> presumably more substantiated, for having oppressed meletianic
> groups (e.g., for destroying an eucharistic cup). Maybe in the
> course of some riots of Athanasius' monks and clergy-men against
> schismatic groups even a meletianic Bible was destroyed (I don't
> recall all of the charges from off the top of my head; it has to
> be found in Sozomenos, hist. eccl. II, 25). However, I would
> seriously question charges of having favoured the destruction of
> Arian Bibles. Most likely Arian Bibles did not differ from any
> other Bible. 

I agree with Ulrich on this matter.  Athanasius was accused of many
attrocities (some of which were most likely true!), but never for
Bible burning (as far as I know)...

> As far as I am aware of the discussions around Arius and the
> struggles after Nicea, the charge of relying on a different, even
> corrupted text of the Bible or on different (non-canonical) books
> was not brought forth from one or the other side, at least, it was
> not considered decisive. The debates were basically on the exegesis
> of various texts and not on different readings. BTW-- Equipped with
> most sensitive exegetical and hermeneutical tools (typology,
> allegory, etc.), noone really had to alter conciously a biblical
> passage to make it fit to whatever was required.  

Exactly...  Athanasius had little concern over the actual words of
scripture.  He was not trained in philological concerns like Origen
was.  He makes no arguments for one reading over another.  Instead,
Athanasius was much more concerned about what he called the "sense"
of scripture. For this reason, he could accuse the Arians of using
"non-scriptural words," and then turn around in the next sentence and
defend the Nicene's use of the non-scriptural word "homoousios"
because it contained the "sense of scripture."  

I would argue further that Athanasius' "cavalier" treatment of
scripture was the norm rather than the exception in the early church.
The corruptions made by church fathers such as Athanasius eventually
found their way into the stream of transmission of the NT text.

> Maybe John Brogan should carry on...

Thanks for the invitation.  I guess I've put in more than my "two 
cents" worth tonight, so its back to more mundane matters...

John Brogan