No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
In an earlier article in the Scottish Journal of Theology I have argued that Athanasius did not deny Christ's fear. A question which then naturally arises is, did Athanasius recognise Christ's courage? This question is made all the more pointed given G. C. Stead's view that Athanasius ‘is noticeably reticent about ascribing to [Christ] any positive constancy: the Lord “undergoes” (ὑπoμ⋯νει) the brutalities of the passion, but is not credited with ὑπoμoν⋯, still less with ⋯νδρε⋯α'. These conclusions drawn from the two inaugurals and the controversial works of Athanasius do, however, seem to require some qualification.
1 Pettersen, A. L.. ‘Did Athanasius deny Christ's fear?’ SJT Vol. 39 (1986), pp. 327–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 G. C. Stead. ‘The freedom of the will and the Arian Controversy’ in H. D. Blume & F. Mann (ed.) Platonismus und Christentum. Festschrift für Heinrich Dörrie. Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum. Ergänzungsband 10. (1983) p. 255.
3 C.Ar. 3.54.6ff.
4 Ibid., 3.54.15ff.
5 Cf. Macquarrie, J. on ‘hope’ in The Humility of God. London, 1978, p. 9ff.Google Scholar
6 Stead, op. cit. 255.
7 Cf. C.Ar. 3.53 passim and Commentary on the Psalms 15.5; 21.26; 56.6; 68.6; 87.19 and 109.7 (LXX). To expect from the former a more elaborate exposition of Christ's obedience unto death would seem to expect more than the parameters of the anti-Arian arguments were then seen to demand. The latter include positive references to the example of Christ's obedience unto death.
8 Cf. Grillmeier, A.. Christ in Christian Tradition. Revised edition. London, 1975, p. 313.Google Scholar
9 C.Ar. 3.54.15ff.
10 Ibid., 57.2–4.
11 Ibid., 57.34–40. The italics are mine.
12 De Fuga Sua 14.16ff.
13 Ibid., 15.10ff.
14 Ibid., 11.9.
15 Ibid., 12.10ff.
16 De Vita Antonii 74.22–24. Cf. ibid., 75.3–4: μ⋯ πι⋯σσειη τ⋯ν ὅπως δ⋯πoτε θάνατoν ⋯παγ⋯μενoν.
17 Cf. Maclntyre, A.. After Virtue: a study in moral theory. London. 1981. p. 128ff.Google Scholar
18 De Fuga Sua 14.18–20. Cf. C.Ar. 3.57.36ff.
19 This form of thinking finds parallels in both secular and sacred thinking. Cf. Seneca Ep. 107, after Epictetus: agunl voluntem fata, nolemem trahunt. Origen De Princ. 1 Praef. 5. non nos necessitati esse subiectos, ut omni modo, etiamsi nolimus, vet mala vel bona agere cogamur.
20 De Fuga Sua 14.23ff.
21 C.Ar. 3.57.9–13.
22 Cf. Cicero De Fato 30; Origen Contra Celsum 2.20.
23 De Fuga Sua 17 passim.
24 Young, F. M.. ‘A reconsideration of Alexandrian Christology’. JEH 22. (1971), p. 112f.Google Scholar
25 De Fuga Sua 15.1Off.
26 Ibid., 15.38ff.
27 Ibid., 16.35ff.
28 Ibid., 17.14–16.
29 Ibid., 14.19–20.
30 Cf. Contra Gentes 30ff.; also A. MacIntyre. op. cit. 140ff.
31 Vid. Pollard, T. E.. Johannine Christology and the early Church. Cambridge. 1970 p. 184ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. for the role that the filial motif plays in Athanasius' debate with the Arians.
32 C.Ar. 3.20.23ff. The italics are mine.
33 G. C. Stead,op. cit. 255.
34 C.Ar. 3.20.19–23.
35 Ibid., 3.20.17.
36 Ibid., 3.20.14f.
37 Ibid., 3.20.19ff.
38 Vid. Torjesen, K. J.. ‘The teaching function of the Logos: Athanasius, De Incarnatione 20–32’, in Gregg, R. C. (ed.) Arianism: historical and theological reassessments. Philadelphia, 1985, pp. 213ff.Google Scholar
39 C.Ar. 3.19.2–3. 
⋯νθρώπων.
40 Ibid., 3.57.6.
41 Ibid., 3.57.6–7.
42 Ibid., 3.57.7ff.
43 Cf. Grillmeier op. cit. 31Off.
44 De Incarnatione 24.12ff.
45 Stead, op. cit. 255.
46 K. J. Torjesen, op. cit. 213ff.
47 De Incarnatione 27 passim.
48 Cf. ibid., 22.43ff. Also Frend, W. H. C.. The rise of Christianity. London, 1984, p. 417.Google Scholar