Notes
Letter Three
{formerly known as Letter Four}
Introduction [3.1.1–3.1.3]
3.1.1. {4.1} I have read the letter recently written by Your Reverence. I am so flabbergasted at the shamelessness of the heretics that I have come to realize that nothing can be adequately said about them except what the Apostle enjoined: After a first and a second admonition, you should avoid someone who is a heretic, knowing that such a person is corrupt and sinful, being self-condemned [Titus 3.10–11]. Because the mind of a heretic is perverse, he inquires, not so that he may hear and be persuaded, not so that he many learn and repent, but simply on behalf of those he has deceived, so that they won’t condemn him for his silence.
3.1.2. So then, what has already been said should have been sufficient. It would have been sufficient if after receiving such proofs our opponents had stopped blaspheming the Holy Spirit. But it was not sufficient for them. Once again, by their shamelessness they show that, having formerly trained themselves to fight against the Word, they are now fighting against the Spirit. Soon they will be dead in their irrationality. 3.1.3. Indeed, even if someone were to answer their most recent questions, they will nonetheless be fabricators of evil things [Rom 1.30]. For they seek but have no interest in finding, and they hear but have no interest in understanding.
On the Correct Understanding of Father-Son Language [3.1.3–3.6.7]
The insolent questions of the Tropikoi
What sort of clever questions do they ask? “If the Holy Spirit is not a creature,” they say, “then is he a son? Aren’t he and the Word two brothers?” Then, as you write, they add: “If the Spirit shall receive from [Jn 16.14] the Son, and is given from him (for so it is written),” they immediately draw the conclusion: “then is the Father a grandfather, and the Spirit his grandson?” 3.2.1. {4.2} Who can hear such things and still think that they are Christians and not Greeks? For the Greeks say such things against us in conversation among themselves. Who would want to respond to such foolishness on their part?
The fitting response to such questions
As for myself, after conducting an extensive search for a response that would be appropriate for our opponents, I have found none except the one made to the Pharisees long ago. 3.2.2. For when the Pharisees asked a question out of malice, the Savior asked them a question in return so that they might realize their own malice. Likewise, when these men ask such questions, let them tell us, or rather, let them answer questions asked of them which are just like the questions they ask us. For if, when they speak, they do not understand their own fabrications, perhaps, when they listen, they will realize their own foolishness. 3.2.3. If the Holy Spirit is not a creature (as has been shown in our previous letters) but is in God and is given from God, then is he a son, and are there two brothers, the Spirit and the Word? And if the Spirit belongs to the Son, and if the Spirit receives all things from the Son (as he himself said), and if the Son gave the Spirit to his disciples after he breathed on them [Jn 20.22] (for you yourselves even confess such things), then is the Father a grandfather and the Spirit his grandson?
Now it is only fair that you be asked, based on the same Scriptures, the same questions as you asked us. 3.2.4. So then, if you deny what is said in the Scriptures, you can no longer be called Christians, and it is only fair that you ask us questions since we are Christians. But if you read the same Scriptures as we do, we must ask you questions about these same Scriptures. 3.2.5. So tell us, and do not hesitate: is the Spirit a son and the Father a grandfather? Now if, like the Pharisees long ago, you ponder the matter and say to each other: “If we say, ‘He is a son,’ then we will hear the question, ‘Where is that written?’ But if we say, ‘He is not a son,’ then we are afraid they will say to us, ‘How then can it be written: We have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit that comes from God [1 Cor 2.12].” 3.2.6. But if, when you debate such matters among yourselves, you say, “We don’t know [Mt 25.27],” then the person whom you have asked the questions must keep silent, in obedience to the one who says: Give no answer to a fool according to his foolishness lest you become like him; rather, give an answer to a fool according to his foolishness lest he seem wise in his own estimation [Prov 26.4–5]. Silence is the answer that is especially appropriate for you, so that you may realize your ignorance.
Similar insolent questions reveal the absurdity of the Tropikoi’s questions
3.3.1. {4.3} So then, again, it is only fair that you be asked questions based on the questions you have asked us. If the Prophets speak in the Spirit of God, and if the Holy Spirit prophesies in Isaiah (as has been shown in our previous letters), then is the Spirit a Word of God, and are there two Words, the Spirit and the Son? 3.3.2. For it was when the Word of God came to them that the Prophets used to prophesy. And in addition to these points, if all things came to be through the Word and without him not one thing came to be [Jn 1.3], and God by his Wisdom founded the earth [Prov 3.19] and made all things by his Wisdom [Ps 103.24], and if it is written (as has been shown in our previous letters): You send forth your Spirit, and they are created [Ps 103.30], then is the Spirit the Word, or did God make all things by two agents, that is, by his Wisdom and by his Spirit? And why does Paul say: There is one God, from whom are all things, and one Lord, through whom are all things [1 Cor 8.6]? 3.3.3. And again, if the Son is the Image of the invisible Father [Col 1.15], and if the Spirit is the Image of the Son (for it is written: Those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the Image of his Son [Rom 8.29]), then in light of these facts is the Father a grandfather? And if the Son comes in the name of the Father, and if, as the Son says, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name [Jn 14.26], then even in this way is the Father a grandfather?
3.3.4. What is your response to these questions, even though every word you speak is cavalier? What are you thinking among yourselves? Or is it the case that you find fault with such questions, now that you realize you are at a loss? But here’s what you need to do: Blame yourselves first, since it is you who used to ask such questions. Be obedient to the Scriptures, and when you are at a loss for words, become their disciples at long last.
What the Scriptures say about the Son and the Spirit
In the Scriptures the Spirit is not called son but Holy Spirit and Spirit of God. Just as the Spirit is not called son, so too it is not written that the Son is the Holy Spirit. 3.3.5. So then, if the Spirit is not called son, nor is it said that the Son is the Spirit, does the faith diverge from the truth? God forbid! On the contrary, each of the above mentioned names has its own distinct meaning. The Son is the offspring proper to the substance and the nature of the Father: this is what the name signifies. The Spirit, who is said to be of God and is in God, is foreign neither to the nature of the Son nor to the divinity of the Father. Thus there is in the Trinity—in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Spirit himself—one divinity, and in the same Trinity there is one baptism and one faith. 3.3.6. Indeed, when the Father sends the Spirit, it is the Son who breathes upon his disciples and gives the Spirit to them. For all that the Father has is the Son’s [Jn 16.15]. It was when the Word came to the Prophets that they used to prophesy in the Spirit, as is written and has been shown. And: By the Word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the Spirit of his mouth all their power [Ps 32.6].
3.4.1. {4.4} Thus the Spirit is not a creature but is said to be proper to the substance of the Word and proper to God and in God. I’ll say it again: one must not hesitate to affirm the same things. Even if the Holy Spirit is not called son, yet he is not external to the Son. For he is called the Spirit of adopted sonship [Rom 8.15]. And since Christ is the Power of God and the Wisdom of God [1 Cor 1.24], it is logical to say that the Spirit is the Spirit of Wisdom [Is 11.2] and the Spirit of Power [Wis 5.23 and 11.20]. 3.4.2. When we participate in the Spirit, we possess the Son, and when we possess the Son, we possess the Spirit, as Paul said, crying out in our hearts: Abba, Father [Gal 4.6]. But if the Spirit is of God, and if it is written that he is in God (No one knows the things that belong to God except the Spirit of God who is in him [1 Cor 2.11]), and if the Son said: I am in the Father and the Father in me [Jn 14.10], why isn’t the same name given to the one and the other, but the one is called Son and the other Spirit? 3.4.3. If anyone were to ask this question, he would have to be crazy. For such a person is scrutinizing the inscrutable and disregarding the Apostle when he says: For who has known the mind of the Lord? Who has been his counselor? [Rom 11.34]. In addition, who would dare to rename what God has named? Let him name what belongs to the created order! Let our opponents tell us, when the created order came into existence by one and the same command, why one thing is the sun, and another thing the heaven, the earth, the sea, and air? 3.4.4. But if the fools cannot do this since each thing remains as it was brought into being, then so much more does what transcends the created order have eternal permanence. It is not otherwise than tht the Father is Father and not grandfather, and the Son is the Son of God and not the father of the Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is Holy Spirit and not grandson of the Father nor the brother of the Son.
One should believe the Scriptures, not speculate about them or alter what they say
3.5.1. {4.5} With these points thus demonstrated, a person would have to be crazy to ask: “Is the Spirit also a son?” Let no one, simply because this is not written in the Scriptures, remove the Spirit from the nature of God and annul the way in which he belongs to God. Rather, as it is written, so should one believe and not say, “Why are things this way and not that way?” If someone were to mull over such questions, he may begin to get the idea to ask, “Where is God? How does God exist?” And thus in the end he may hear the words: The fool has said in his heart: “There is no God” [Ps 13.1]. 3.5.2. The traditions handed down by faith cannot be known by futile investigations.
Indeed, when the disciples heard the words: Baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit [Mt 28.19], they did not futilely investigate why the Son comes second and the Spirit third, or why the whole is a Trinity. Rather, as they heard, so they believed. And they did not ask questions like you: “Is the Spirit a son?” Nor, when the Lord mentioned the Spirit after the Son, did they ask: “Is the Father a grandfather?” For they did not hear the words “in the name of the grandfather,” but in the name of the Father. And this is the faith which they preached everywhere, having drawn the correct conclusions about it. 3.5.3. For the faith was not to be stated otherwise than as the Savior stated it, that he is the Son and the other is the Spirit, nor was it right to change the manner in which they have been ranked together. And as for the Father, just as it is not permitted to speak of him otherwise than that he is Father, so too it is impious to ask whether the Spirit is a son or the Son is the Spirit. Sabellius was judged to be a stranger to the Church because he dared to apply the name ‘Son’ to the Father and the name ‘Father’ to the Son.
3.5.4. So then, after all this, will anyone still dare to say, when he hears Son and Spirit, “Is the Father a grandfather? Is the Spirit a son?” Yes, some will dare, the Eunomiuses, and the Eudoxiuses, and the Eusebiuses. For having once professed the Arian heresy, they cannot keep their tongue from impiety. Who indeed has handed on such things to them? Who taught it? Rest assured, no one taught them this from the Divine Scriptures! It was from the surfeit of their own heart [Mt 12.34; Lk 6.45] that they belched up such nonsense.
3.6.1. {4.6} Now if you ask, “Is the Spirit a son?” because we have shown that the Spirit is not a creature, is it time to ask, “Is the Son a father?” because you have learned that the Son is not a creature? For it is through him that the creatures come into existence. Or you may put it this way: “Is the Spirit the Son, and the Son himself the Holy Spirit?” 3.6.2. But those who think such things will be external to the Holy Trinity and considered godless. For they change the names of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, transposing them at will on the analogy of human generation, calling them grandsons and grandfathers, and refashioning for themselves the cosmogony of the Greeks. 3.6.3. Yet this is not the faith of the Church. On the contrary, as the Savior himself said, our faith is in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit: the Father who cannot be called grandfather, the Son who cannot be called father, and the Holy Spirit who is given no other name than the one he has. 3.6.4. It is not permitted to exchange the names of this faith: the Father is always Father, and the Son always Son, and the Holy Spirit is and is said to be always Holy Spirit.
On the correct understanding of the analogy of human begetting
Now in the case of human relations, this is not so, even if the Arians delude themselves that it is. For just as it is written: God is not like a human being [Num 23.19], so too one might say, “human beings are not like God.” 3.6.5. In the case of human relations, a father is not always a father nor a son always a son. The same man becomes the father of a son while being the son of another; and a son, while being the son of a father, can himself become the father of another. For example, Abraham, while being the son of Nahor, became the father of Isaac; and Isaac, while being the son of Abraham, became the father of Jacob. Even though each was a part of his parent and is begotten as a son, each in his turn became the father of another.
But in the case of the divinity, this is not so, since God is not like a human being [Num 23.19]. 3.6.6. For example, the Father is not from a father; accordingly, he does not beget someone who will become the father of another. Nor is the Son a part of the Father; accordingly, he is not something begotten in order to beget a son. Hence in the case of the divinity alone, the Father is and was and always is Father because he is Father in the proper sense and only Father. And the Son is Son in the proper sense and only Son. In these cases, it is certain that the Father is and is said to be always Father and that the Son is and is said to be always Son. And the Holy Spirit is always Holy Spirit. And we have come to believe that he is of God and that he is given from the Father through the Son. 3.6.7. For thus the Holy Trinity remains immutable, known in the one divinity. Therefore, whoever asks, “Is the Spirit a son?” as if the name could be changed, is self-deluded and beset with insanity. And whoever invents a name for the Father and asks, “Is the Father a grandfather?” goes astray in his heart [Ps 94.10; Heb 3.10]. So then, it is not safe to continue to respond to the shamelessness of the heretics. For this would be to fight against the Apostle’s exhortation. Rather, we would do well to offer advice, as he himself commanded.
Conclusion [3.7]
3.7.1. {4.7} These considerations are sufficient for the refutation of your foolish talk. No longer ridicule the divinity. For it is a trait of those who ridicule to ask questions about what is not written in the Scripture and say, “Isn’t the Spirit a son? Isn’t the Father a grandfather?” Such are the mockeries of the bishop of Caesarea and the bishop of Scythopolis. 3.7.2. It is sufficient for you to believe that the Spirit is not a creature, but rather that the Spirit is of God and in him there is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And there is no need to call the Son by the name Father, nor is it permitted to say that the Spirit is the Son, or that the Son is the Holy Spirit. On the contrary, they are precisely what they are said to be. And in the Trinity there is one divinity, and there is one faith and one baptism, which is given in the Trinity, and one baptismal initiation into our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom and with whom be glory and might to the Father along with the Spirit for ever and ever. Amen. [1 Pet 4.11].
Notes
Athanasius addresses Serapion with a title of courtesy, a common feature in fourth-century epistolary writing. Letter One is transmitted in the mss. with the following title: “Bishop St. Athanasius of Alexandria’s Letter to Bishop Serapion on the Holy Spirit.”
Thus there are two elements of the Tropikoi’s heretical teaching on the Spirit, that the Holy Spirit is a creature and that he has angelic status. Athanasius traces the first to the Tropikoi’s misinterpretation of Am 4.13 and refutes this in Serap. 1.3.1–1.10.3, and the second to their misinterpretation of 1 Tim 5.21, refuting this in Serap. 1.10.4–1.14.7.
See 1 Jn 2.22–23.
Throughout the letter Athanasius adopts the polemical strategy of assimilating the views of the Tropikoi to those of the Arians.
Athanasius maintains that his anti-Arian writings should suffice for the refutation of the Tropikoi, whose views, he claims, are fundamentally similar to those of the Arians.
Athanasius uses the label “Tropikoi” (see Serap. 1.10.4) for his opponents in his letters to Serapion, which seems to be derived from the fact that they employ a fallacious “mode of exegesis” (tropos).
See Acts 7.51.
See 1 Jn 2.23.
That is, Christ’s displays of weakness, which according to Athanasius the Arians interpreted as precluding him from truly being God.
Gr. τρόπος. See n. 6 above.
See Didymus, Spir. 8, 73, and 246.
For the present moment Athanasius suggests leaving aside two sets of scriptural texts which employ the term “spirit” without any further qualification: (1) those which mention recipients of the Holy Spirit that have already been mentioned, and (2) those in which it is clear from the context that the reference is to the Holy Spirit. In the examples that follow, those from Paul correspond to the first set, whereas those from the Gospels to the second set.
See Acts 8.17–18.
That is, Am 4.13.
Gr. τρόπος. See n. 6 above.
The LXX reads into which he went. One family of mss. corrects the text of Athanasius here.
I.e. in Am 4.12–13.
I.e. Am 4.12–13.
See Jn 1.3.
See Jn 1.14.
See 2 Tim 2.11.
See Heb 12.28.
Gk. τρόπους. See n. 6 above.
The second-century theologian and exegete Valentinus was born and educated in Alexandria but taught in Rome. His doctrines were condemned by certain of his contemporaries as Gnostic, and by the fourth century a charge of imitating Valentinus was a common polemical jab.
Athanasius’s description of Valentinus’s teaching here appears to be based on Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 1.4.5: “Christ, having returned to the Pleroma, probably because he shrank from a second descent, sent her [sc. the mother of Achamoth] the Paraclete, that is, the Savior, whom the Father endowed with all his power. . . . The Paraclete was sent to her together with the angels who were his contemporaries.”
See Jn 14.16, 14.26, 15.26, 16.27.
See Rom 8.15.
See Rom 1.4.
See e.g. Mt 3.16.
See Rom 8.9 and 1 Pet 1.11.
Cf. 1 Tim 4.13.
I.e., 1 Tim 5.21.
See Lk 3.22.
See Lk 3.21.
See Jn 16.14.
The adjective “irrational” (τῶν ἀλόγων), also implies “deprived of the Word.”
See Serap. 3.5.4.
See Titus 3.10. See Serap. 3.1.1 and 3.6.7.
Athanasius uses the same tactic in Serap. 3.5–6.
Here we read τούτου instead of τούτων (PG 26.568b; AW I/1.491), following some mss. and Shapland (98 n. 1513).
See Is 43.10.
We read Ναχώρ with some mss. and Shapland (102 n. 16) instead of Montfaucon’s corrective emendation Θάρρου (PG 29.569a) or the Θάρρα of Wyrwa and Savvidis (AW I/1.492). Note however that Athanasius is mistaken here: Nahor was Abraham’s grandfather; Terah the son of Nahor was Abraham’s father (see Gen 11.24–28). As Athanasius makes the same mistake in Serap. 3.6.5 this is the correct reading here.
Gk. ὁμοία ἑαυτῇ, lit. “like itself.” See Serap. 1.28.2.
See Serap. 2.1.2.
For a similar argument, see Serap. 2.1.3; Basil, Against Eunomius 1.12 and 3.6; and Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 31.8.
See Gen 1.10.
Here we prefer to read the “discover” (εὑρεῖν) found in several important mss. rather than “say” (λέγειν) (Serap. 1.18.3, 10; AW I/1.497).
See Serap. 1.27.1 and 3.4.1.
Gr. υἱοθεσία. The word literally means “adopting as a son” (υἱός), a nuance that the normal English translation, “adoption,” does not capture. For Athanasius and many other Greek fathers, the title “Spirit of adopted sonship” shows Spirit’s intimate connection with the Father’s adoption of sons in Christ.
Gk. ἀνόμοιον καὶ ἑτεροφυῆ.
Gk. ἀλλοτριοούσιον.
From the context it is clear that the subject of the verse is “the Spirit of Truth.”
See Jn 5.43.
I.e. Am 4.13 and 1 Tim 5.21.
This common aphorism referring to the skill of distinguishing the good from the bad or the true from the false is based on the opinion that a good banker was skilled at distinguishing genuine from counterfeit coinage.
See Ps 13.1.
Here the word “heirs” is missing from the best mss., but we include it since the meaning of the sentence is obscure without it.
Here some mss. continue the quotation: and you renew the face of the earth.
See Serap. 1.9.6.
See Serap. 1.15.1–2.
Here some mss. continue the quotation: but rather has perceived some perversity in his angels.
See Deut 32.8; Acts 17.26.
See Serap. 1.19.3 and 3.4.1.
Gk. μεθεκτόν. See Didymus, Spir. 265.
See Gen 1.14.
This is the only passage in Serap. where Athanasius applies the term homoousios to the Holy Spirit.
Gk. ὁμοία ἑαυτῇ, lit. “like itself.” See Serap. 1.17.1.
For Athanasius’s view of Sabellius, see Serap. 3.5.3.
See Rom 1.15.
Gr. οὐκ ἀνόμοιος, lit. “not unlike [itself].”
See Eph 4.5.
See Jn 16.15.
This is a frequent formula: e.g. Jer 1.4 and Ezek 16.1.
Athanasius understands the “Power of the Most High” in Lk 1.35 as a reference to the Son; see Serap. 1.11.1 and 2.15.2.
I.e. of Jesus.
See Serap. 2.9.2.
That is, the Scriptures.
See n. 36 above on the connotations of “irrationality.”
Gk. πνευματομαχοῦντες. Athanasius’s description of the Tropikoi here will later evolve into a label for those who deny the divinity of the Holy Spirit: οἱ πνευματομάχοι, the “Pneumatomachians” or “Spirit-fighters.”
See 1 Cor 2.14–15.
The ancient Armenian translation expands this sentence considerably: “Therefore, in imitation of true worshippers they must confess, and by the grace of the Lord and through meditation upon the Holy Scriptures you must become very capable of refuting the heretics and make the full and complete word of Truth clear to those who are willing, so that it may be fulfilled, and perhaps even at some point later on they themselves will realize this and turn away from falsehood and side with the Truth.”
I.e., eternal life.
See Mk 3.22; Mt 12.24–27; Lk 11.15–19.
See Mk 3.29; Mt 12.31; Lk 12.10.
See Serap. 1.1.4; 1.33.1. The first part of Letter Two (2.1.1–2.9.4) is transmitted in the mss. with the following title: “[Letter] of the same [Athanasius] to the same Bishop Serapion against those who claim the Son is a creature.” The second part of Letter Two (2.10.1–2.16.4) is transmitted in the mss. with the following title: “Letter of the same [Athanasius] to the same Bishop Serapion on the Holy Spirit.”
The sense is not “mere human reasoning,” but “reasoning rooted in human experiences.” Athanasius holds that the Arians have misinterpreted the Father-Son relationship as described in Scripture because of their misapplication of the notions of human fatherhood and sonship to the divine order.
See Gen 2.7.
See 1 Cor 15.42, 53–54.
At this point the ancient Armenian translation inserts the following words: “and lest God be Father by changing.”
See Jn 17.10.
See Heb. 1.2.
Athanasius attributed this slogan to Arius as a kind of encapsulation of his entire theology; see Orationes contra Arianos 1.11–13.
See Jn 14.10.
See Serap. 2.2.3.
See Jude 1.6.
See Lk 10.18.
See Gen 3.
See Serap. 2.2.2; also 1.28.3.
See Heb 1.2.
See Jn 14.10.
The Nicene Creed reads: “We believe . . . in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father as the Only-Begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten, not made, the same as the Father in substance . . . ”
Gk. τὰ ἴδια.
I.e., the last section which discussed the Son’s unlikeness to creatures and his possession of the distinguishing marks of God.
See Ex 26.1–2.
It is not clear what these “many passages” are: these are not scriptural passages since “same in substance” (ὁμοούσιος) is not used there. Presumably Athanasius is referring to the whole of Serap. 2.1.2–2.6.3.
See Dan 3.25.
See 2 Tim 1.10.
See Col 3.1.
See Jn 14.10–11.
At this point the ancient Armenian translation inserts the following words: “and all heretics.”
In both cases, “he meant it as a reference to his humanity” translates ἀνθρωπίνως εἴρηκεν.
On several other occasions Athanasius attributes “bursting” to his enemies; see De decretis 17; Orationes contra Arianos 2.23 and 2.64; De synodis 34 and 54. In this, he may be subtly comparing his enemies to Judas Iscariot, who in Acts 1.18 is said to have “burst open in the middle” when he hanged himself.
See Serap. 1.20, 1.30, etc.
See the citation of 1 Cor 2.10–11 in Serap. 2.10.3.
See 1 Cor 2.12.
See Heb 1.3.
See Jn 12.45.
See Serap. 1.22.1–2.
See 1 Cor 2.12
See Jn 14.9.
See Jn 14.11.
See Jn 1.14, 1.18, 3.16, and 3.18.
See Serap. 1.27.3; 2.4.3.
See Jn 14.11.
See Gen 1.14.
See Jn 14.11.
See Serap. 1.22–31 (esp. 26.1–27.4); 2.11.1–13.3.
See Serap. 1.24.5–6.
See Zech 1.1.
See Jn 14.23.
Gk. ἀνόμοιος ἑαυτῇ, lit. “unlike itself.”
An allusion to the slogan attributed by Athanasius to Arius; see n. 92 above.
Letter Three is transmitted in the mss. with the following title: “Letter of the same [Athanasius] to the same Serapion likewise on the Holy Spirit.”
See Serap. 1.15.3 and 3.6.7.
See Mt 17.17.
Gk. Λογομαχεῖν. See De synodis 54. Athanasius may be adapting 1 Tim 6.4 and 2 Tim 2.14.
Gk. πνευματομαχοῦντες. See n. 79 above.
On “irrationality,” see n. 36 above.
See Mk 11.27–33.
See Serap. 1.15.4.
See Mt 21.25–27.
See Serap. 1.31.5–12; 2.14.2–4.
See e.g. Jer 1.1; Jon 1.1.
See Serap. 1.22.5.
Gk. ἐν δυσί, lit. “by two.”
See Serap. 1.24.7–8.
Here we prefer to read ὁ υἱός instead of υἱός (PG 26.641; AW I/1.570), following Shapland (183 n. 3).
See Eph 4.5.
See Jn 14.26.
Jn 20.22.
See Serap. 1.31.5–12; 2.14.2–4; 3.3.1–2.
See Serap. 1.19.3 and 1.27.1.
This is possibly an allusion to Heb 11.6.
See also Serap. 1.28.4. Sabellius was thought to have taught that the Father and the Son were merely different modes of the single divine reality known as the υἱοπάτωρ, “the Son-Father.” Here Athanasius attempts to score debating points by comparing his opponents’ view that the Son becomes the father of the Spirit with the Sabellian view. Note that Athanasius’s polemical strategy here differs from that which represents orthodoxy as the middle ground between the extremes of Arianism and Sabellianism.
Gk. Εὐνόμιοι καὶ Εὐδόξιοι καὶ Εὐσέβιοι. Note that Athanasius does not say “Eunomians, Eudoxians, and Eusebians.” Eudoxius, formerly bishop of Germanica, became bishop of Antioch in late 357 or early 358. He soon emerged as a staunch advocate of the Sirmium Confession of 357, which had condemned the use of all ousia language when speaking about God, and publicly supported the Heteroousian teaching of Aetius. Though soon deposed through the machinations of the emergent Homoiousians, Eudoxius managed to be re-instated by the Council of Seleucia in the fall of 359, and shortly after the Council of Constantinople in January, 360, he became bishop of Constantinople. At this same council Eunomius, a disciple of Aetius, emerged as an eloquent spokesman for the Heteroousians, and was made bishop of Cyzicus. Athanasius, by polemically linking his present opponents, the Eudoxians and the Eunomians, with his purported opponents from the 330s and 340s, the Eusebians, implies a continuity between them that is hard to demonstrate.
See Serap. 1.15.1.
See Serap. 1.24.5–6.
See Serap. 1.30.1–3.
Gk. ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων, lit. “with regard to human things.”
Athanasius is mistaken here: Nahor was Abraham’s grandfather; Terah the son of Nahor was Abraham’s father (see Gen 11.24–28). He makes the same mistake in Serap. 1.16.4.
Gk. κυρίως.
See Titus 3.10; see also Serap. 1.15.3; 3.1.1.
That is, Acacius of Caesarea in Palestine and Patrophilus of Scythopolis, both of whom at the time when Athanasius wrote his letters to Serapion were among the most prominent Homoians.