Paul M. Nguyen Patristics, A.

Orlando October 23, 2012 On the Greek Philosophical Tradition in Athanasius' On the Incarnation In Athanasius' On the Incarnation, as background for the discussion of the Son taking flesh, we read a discourse on some relevant divine attributes, explained concisely using Greek philosophical principles. And when it comes time to defend what was taught regarding the Incarnation, we again read a string of arguments refuting opponents using Greek philosophical terminology and a form not unlike what Augustine would claim in the century following (credo ut intelligam) and sharing a great deal of Aquinas' approach a thousand years in the future, letting our faith be supported where possible by rational explanations. In the Prologue,1 Athanasius discusses the Incarnation itself, providing background with which to understand its fittingness and the reasonability of the rich Christological teaching of the Church surrounding it. As noted in the editor's introductory remarks, Athanasius' Neo-Platonic subscription is evident in his discussion of God. He argues that God must have created the material world out of nothing lest it be the case that something other than God participated with him in creation, diminishing his power (23). And having created all things and lastly man in his image (here, Athanasius relies on the Genesis accounts and the corpus of Christian revelation), God established an ethic (secured the grace given them by a law) whose transgression would merit what could only be permanent death, without the chance of resurrection or reincarnation (3). As Athanasius notes within the text itself, he is constructing the a priori fittingness of the Incarnation by first presenting principles on which to build the balance of his argument (4); this method is certainly well established among the writings of the Greeks. Athanasius departs, however, from some threads of Greek thought, and claims that the
1 Paragraphs 13 in our edition.

Nguyen 2 absent creator who leaves creation to its devices cannot be, that for Him to neglect what He made is a weakness (violates omnipotence) and maleficence that cannot be said of God (6). But in good Greek form, Athanasius must consider the balance: being true to what was ordained for life, he must account for death. What is the just consequence for man's transgression of the law of grace? Surely it is persistent death, and to maintain his integrity, God must hold man to it, unless He should send a redeemer to perfect humanity again and account for man's fall (7). And Athanasius lays out clearly (though without using the terms themselves of substance and accidents) how an accidental redemption (a covering up) could be made, but how much more fitting it is that the impassible God should Himself take on corruption in the flesh and then renew and restore it from within, a substantial redemption and conversion (9). His later natural argument also contributes, claiming that God could not have redeemed mankind from without, but necessarily entered into his existence (44). In this way, while using the forms introduced by the Greeks, Athanasius presents the faith as both understandable and fitting within their system. Athanasius not only describes the fittingness of the Incarnation but also the manner of existence of Jesus among us. He maintains that even though the spirit of the Son of God was certainly present, animating Jesus' body (very Thomistic), he was nonetheless not localized simply there, but the entire time also without inconsistency, quickening the universe as well, and was in every process of nature, according to Platonic immanence (17). Athanasius also maintains a thread of a posteriori reasoning toward the end of this section. He claims that the works of the God-made-man should be seen to effect the purpose of His advent, and that having seen how He came to be, and the works that He accomplished over humanity and over nature as a whole, men should be convinced of His divinity: for did he show himself to be any other than the very Lord whose providence is over all things? (16, 18).