Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: Athanasius - review of heavenly witnesses references

  1. Default Disputatio Contra Arium - Response for Roger Pearse blog

    Disputatio Contra Arium - Response for Roger Pearse blog
    https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/...e-punctuation/


    First for the location and text of the Disputatio Contra Arium helpful is:

    KJVToday - Athanasius
    http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-fat...TOC-Athanasius


    Disputatio Contra Arium:

    "Τί δὲ καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀφέσεως τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν παρεκτικὸν, καὶ ζωοποιὸν, καὶ ἁγιαστικὸν λουτρὸν, οὗ χωρὶς οὐδεὶς ὄψεται τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, οὐκ ἐν τῇ τρισμακαρίᾳ ὀνομασίᾳ δίδοται τοῖς πιστοῖς; Πρὸς δὲ τούτοις πᾶσιν Ἰωάννης φάσκει· «Καὶ οἱ τρεῖς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.»"

    "But also, is not that sin-remitting, life-giving and sanctifying washing [baptism], without which, no one shall see the kingdom of heaven, given to the faithful in the Thrice-Blessed Name? In addition to all these, John affirms, 'and these three are one.'" (Translation by KJV Today)

    Which leads to a pirate url where the text is on p. 21 of 22, you can find it with a search like "Καὶ οἱ τρεῖς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν"

    The Migne master page is here:

    Patrologia Graeca - Disputatio contra Arium
    http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.e...__MGR.pdf.html

    leading to the PDF, where the section is on p. 45, although more chopped up than in pirate land.

    Disputatio contra Arium
    http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.e...Arium,_MGR.pdf
    Notice that KJVToday also includes Quaestiones Aliae but does not include the Synopsis of Scripture or the Epistle Against the Arians.

    My Athanasius page, a WIP, that includes all four writings, and more, is at:

    PureBibleForum
    Athanasius – review of heavenly witnesses references
    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?405-Athanasius-review-of-heavenly-witnesses-references

    =====

    Spurious is a funny word. With the Disputation all it means is that someone judges that it is not really by Athanasius or directly about Athanasius at the Council of Nicea. It would still be a Greek work referencing the heavenly witnesses, thus immediately refuting the idea that we do not have Greek witnesses and the verse was not used contra the Arians.

    Yet those judgements of spurious are often quite questionable, and at times appear to be circular, with the reference to the heavenly witnesses being a key part of the judgement (as in the Vulgate Prologue of Jerome.)

    You can easily see a strong non-spurious edition by reading Charles Forster on the Disputation. Perhaps some of the Athansius scholars will share their thoughts, and I am making some contact attempts.

    =====


  2. Default Annette Stockhausen - 2010 paper on the Disputation

    Annette Stockhausen

    Die pseud-athanasianische Disputatio contra Arium. Eine Auseinandersetzung mit »arianischer« Theologie in Dialogform
    Annette von Stockhausen

    Vorbemerkung

    Bereits kurz nach seinem Tod, vielleicht sogar schon in seinen letzten Lebensjahren, ist Athanasius von Alexandrien als »Säule der Orthdoxie«, als das Symbol nizänischer Orthodoxie gerühmt
    1 und als solches im Lauf der Zeit auch vorrangig wahrgenommen worden. Es überrascht daher nicht, daß eine beträchtliche Anzahl an Texten anderer Autoren, von denen zumindest einige im Verdacht standen, häretische Ansichten zu vertreten, im Corpus Athanasianum Zuflucht gefunden haben. Heute, nicht zuletzt dank der Clavis Patrum Graecorum, wissen wir von ungefähr 130 griechisch, lateinisch, koptisch, syrisch, armenisch, georgisch, altkirchenslawisch und arabisch unter dem Namen des Athanasius überlieferten, aber wohl sämtlich nicht von ihm verfaßten Texten, die in ihrer Entstehungszeit von der Lebenszeit des Athanasius bis ins Mittelalter reichen.2

    Viele der griechischen Texte, die heute für nicht authentisch gehalten werden, wurden bereits von Bemard de Montfaucon am Ende des 17. Jahrhunderts als Pseud-Athanasiana identifiziert. Für den größeren Teil dieser Texte sind die Edition Bemard de Montfaucons
    3 (bzw. ihr 1857 publizierter Nachdruck durch Jean-Paul Migne) und seine die Texte jeweils einleitenden Monita sogar bis heute Stand der Forschung. Denn das Verdikt Montfaucons, daß ein unter dem Namen des Athanasius überlieferter Text unecht ist, hat in den meisten Fällen dazu geführt, daß diese überhaupt nicht mehr herangezogen, übersetzt oder untersucht wurden,4 weil sie ja zu unseren Kenntnissen über Athanasius, sein Leben und seine Theologie offensichtlich nichts beitragen könnten.

    Nicht beachtet wird hierbei aber, daß auch pseudonyme Schriften sehr wohl unsere Kenntnisse erweitern können, und zwar über Autoren, deren Werke im Allgemeinen nur sehr schlecht überliefert oder die sonst überhaupt nicht mehr in ihren Werken greifbar sind, sowie darüber hinaus auch über die Kirchen- und Theologiegeschichte generell. Dies trifft gleichermaßen für die pseud-athanasianischen Schriften zu, die bisher noch nicht untersucht worden sind oder deren ursprünglicher Verfasser sich auch durch eine Untersuchung nicht mehr erheben läßt.


    Im folgenden soll dies an einem solchen pseud-athanasianischen Text, der Disputatio contra Arium (CPG 2250), exemplarisch vorgeführt werden.
    5

    Hinführung zum Text

    Die Synode von Nizäa war nicht nur für die Zeitgenossen im Rückblick das Ereignis der Geschichte der Kirchen im konstantinischen Zeitalter: Sie war die erste »ökumenische« Synode6, auf ihr wurde erstmals ein für die gesamte Kirche auf dem Gebiet des Imperium Romanum (und sogar darüber hinaus) geltendes Bekenntnis formuliert und nicht zuletzt auch die wichtige liturgische Frage der Berechnung des Osterfestes geklärt.7

    Waren die Beschlüsse der Synode im engeren Sinn, d.h. der Brief der Synode an die Kirche von Ägypten8, die theologische Erklärung9, die Canones10 und die (Unterschriften-)Liste der Teilnehmer11, noch schriftlich festgehalten worden,12 so galt das nicht für die Verhandlungen selbst.13 In Ermangelung von Protokollen wurden daher immer wieder Berichte von an der Synode Anwesenden bzw. Beteiligten herangezogen: Der Brief Eusebs an seine Kirche14, der sich zwar nicht als offizielles Dokument der Synode gibt, aber vielleicht noch am ehesten als Bericht über den Ablauf der Verhandlungen herangezogen werden könnte, bietet jedoch eine sehr eigenwillige Interpretation des Verhandlungsverlaufes und ist keinesfalls als wie auch immer geartetes »Protokoll« der Verhandlungen anzusehen, sondern ist eine Apologie Eusebs für seine Zustimmung zur theologischen Erklärung der Synode.15 Ebenso sind die immer wieder einmal für die Rekonstruktion des Verlaufs der Synode herangezogenen Abschnitte aus der athanasianischen Epistula ad Afros zum einen auf jeden Fall um einiges, nämlich an die 40 Jahre, später anzusetzen, vor allem aber bieten sie zum anderen überhaupt keine Schilderung der Verhandlungen auf der nizänischen Synode, sondern verdanken sich einer nachträglichen Interpretation des Nizänums von Seiten des Athanasius.16

    Zusammenfassend läßt sich feststellen, daß auf der Synode von Nizäa allem Anschein nach keine Protokolle angefertigt worden waren, an Hand derer sich der Verlauf der Diskussionen und Verhandlungen später hätte ablesen lassen können. Angesichts der im Laufe des 4. Jahrhunderts anwachsenden Bedeutung, die der Synode von Nizäa zugemessen wurde,17 verwundert es daher nicht, daß ein Bedürfnis entstand, mehr über die Verhandlungen und Diskussionen zwischen »Orthodoxen« und »Arianern« auf der Synode von Nizäa zu erfahren, und daß daher bald Legenden über den Verlauf der Synode aufkamen und über die Disputationen, die auf ihr stattgefunden hatten.


    (skip to p. 138)

    Die Disputatio contra Arium Die Überlieferung des Textes

    Da die Disputatio contra Arium33 bisher in keiner kritischen Edition vorliegt, aber auch aus inhaltlichen Gründen, für die die Überlieferungszusammenhänge wichtig sind, soll zunächst einiges zur Überlieferung der Disputatio contra Arium vorangeschickt werden:

    Die Disputatio contra Arium ist im Rahmen der sogenannten x-Sammlung, außerhalb des Kontextes der großen Athanasius-Sammlungen auch in einigen weiteren, meist späten (Sammel-)Handschriften34, in einer lateinischen35 und (allerdings nicht ganz vollständig) in einer armenischen Übersetzung36 überliefert. Eine kurze Passage, das Bekenntnis des Athanasius in Kap. 537, ist außerdem noch als singuläres Stück in einem Codex der Pariser Nationalbibliothek überliefert.38

    Über die direkte Überlieferung hinausgehend lassen sich auch geringe Spuren einer Sekundärüberlieferung der Disputatio contra Arium feststellen.39

    Bei der x-Sammlung40 handelt es sich um eine eigenständige, fest umrissene Zusammenstellung von Schriften des Athanasius, deren besonderes Kennzeichen es ist, daß ihr ein Inhaltsverzeichnis und Exzerpte aus einem Brief des Photios an seinen Bruder Tarasios über die Schriften des Athanasius vorangehen41 und daß sie außerdem in ihrer Zusammenstellung (im Gegensatz vor allem zur y-Sammlung, aber auch zur b-Tradition)42 sehr homogen überliefert ist.

    Sie enthält die folgenden 21 athanasianischen und pseud-athanasianischen43 Schriften: Oratio contra gentes (CPG 2090), Oratio de incarnatione verbi (CPG (2091), fDisputatio contra Arium (CPG 2250), Epistula ad episcopos Aegypti et Libyae (CPG 2092), Orationes contra Arianos I-III (CPG 2093), fDe incarnatione et contra Arianos (CPG 2806), Epistula encyclica (CPG 2124), Epistulae ad Serapionem /-// (CPG 2094), +Epistula catholica (CPG 2241), tRefutatio hypocriseos Meletii et Eusebii (CPG 2242), Epistula ad Epictetum (CPG 2095), tContra Apolinarem II-I (CPG 2231), In illud: qui dixerit verbum in filium (CPG 2096), fDe passione et cruce domini (CPG 2247), Epistula ad Marcellinum (CPG 2097), De virginitate (CPG 2248) und fTestimonia e scriptura (CPG 2240).


    Wie an dieser Aufzählung ersichtlich ist, steht die Disputatio contra Arium zwar nicht ganz zu Beginn der Sammlung. Indem sie aber nach (den die aria-nische Frage nicht behandelnden) Schriften Contra gentes und De incarnatione zu stehen kommt, fungiert sie gewissermaßen als Einleitung zu den »anti-arianischen« Schriften des Athanasius, die in dieser Sammlung zusammengefaßt sind,44 insofern die Dispntatio contra Arianos dadurch, daß sie eine Diskussion zwischen Athanasius und Arius auf der Synode von Nizäa selbst wiedergibt, die thematisch und chronologisch nach der Synode von Nizäa einzuordnenden Schriften des Athanasius an diese zurückbindet und die Hintergründe des Streites erhellt.

    Nun ist die Zusammenstellung des Schriftenkorpus der Ar-Sammlung wegen der Inklusion des Photios-Briefes frühestens im späten 9. Jahrhundert anzusetzen. Allerdings könnte gerade der Photios-Brief selbst eine Zeuge für eine ältere und weniger umfangreiche Sammlung antiarianischer Schriften des Athanasius sein:

    Im Brief an Tarasios und in cod. 140 der Bibliothek schreibt Photios nämlich von einer Sammlung von Werken des Athanasius, der xoctci Äpefou xcu tgäv ocutou SoYpdTcov 7revTdßißXo<;.45 Üblicherweise wird dieses »Fünfbuch gegen Arius und seine Lehren« auf die Epistula ad episcopos Aegypti et Libyae, die drei Arianerreden und die pseud-athanasianische vierte Arianerrede bezogen,46 weil in den Handschriften der y-Sammlung47 die Epistula ad episcopos Aegypti et Libyae, die drei Arianerreden und die pseud-athanasianische vierte Arianerrede als xcctoc Apctavwv Xöyoc; a-e' gezählt werden.48 Demgegenüber werden in der Ar-Sammlung nun gerade nur die drei echten Arianerreden durchnummeriert, nicht aber die Epistula ad episcopos Aegypti et Libyae in diese Zählung einbezogen.49
    The pseudo-Ashanasian disputatio contra arium. A confrontation with »Arian« theology in dialogue form
    Annette von Stockhausen

    Preliminary note

    Already shortly after his death, perhaps even in his last years, Athanasius was praised by Alexandria as a "pillar of orthodoxy," as the symbol of Nicene orthodoxy, and as such, was also given priority over time. It is therefore not surprising that a considerable number of texts by other authors, at least some of which were suspected of representing heretical views, found refuge in the Corpus Athanasianum. Today, not least thanks to the Clavis Patrum Graecorum, we know of approximately 130 Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Old Church Slavonic and Arabic under the name of Athanasius, but probably all the texts not written by him, those in their time of origin ranging from the lifetime of Athanasius to the Middle Ages.2

    Many of the Greek texts that are not considered authentic today were identified by Bemard de Montfaucon at the end of the 17th century as Pseudo-Athanasiana. For the greater part of these texts are the Edition Bemard de Montfaucons3 (or the 1857 published reprint by Jean-Paul Migne) and his introductory each Monita even to this day state of research. For the assertion of Montfaucon that a text transmitted under the name of Athanasius is unreal, has in most cases led to their being no longer used, translated, or examined, 4 because they contribute to our knowledge of Athanasius, his life, and his his theology obviously could not contribute.

    However, it does not take into account that even pseudonymous writings can very well broaden our knowledge through authors whose works are generally handed down very poorly or which are otherwise no longer tangible in their works, as well as beyond the churches. and the history of theology in general. This applies equally to the pseudo-Athanasian writings, which have not yet been examined or whose original author can no longer be raised by an investigation.

    In the following, this will be exemplarily demonstrated on such a pseudo-Athanasian text, the Disputatio contra Arium (CPG 2250).

    Introduction to the text

    In retrospect, the Synod of Nicaea was the event of the history of the churches in the Constantinian age: it was the first "ecumenical" synod6, and it was the first ever on the Roman Empire (and even above In addition, the accepted confession was formulated and, not least, the important liturgical question of the calculation of Easter was clarified.7

    Were the resolutions of the synod in the narrower sense, i. the letter from the synod to the Church of Egypt, 8 the theological statement, the canons10 and the (signature) list of the participants11, were still written down12 so that was not the case for the negotiations themselves.13 In the absence of protocols, therefore, there were repeated However, Euseb's letter to his church14, which does not exist as an official document of the Synod but could perhaps best be used as an account of the conduct of the negotiations, offers a very idiosyncratic one Interpretation of the course of the negotiations and is not to be regarded as a kind of "protocol" of the negotiations, but is an apology of Eusebs for its approval of the theological explanation of the Synod.15 Similarly, the sections used again and again for the reconstruction of the course of the Synod are from the Athanasian Epistula ad Afros for one In any case, they do not provide any description of the negotiations at the Nicene Synod, but rather owe their existence to a subsequent interpretation of the Nicene by Athanasius.16

    In summary, it can be stated that at the Synod of Nicaea, it appeared that no minutes had been drawn up by which the course of the discussions and negotiations could later be deduced. In view of the growing importance of the Synod of Nicaea in the course of the fourth century, 17 it is not surprising that there was a need to learn more about the negotiations and discussions between "Orthodox" and "Arians" at the Nizea Synod and that, therefore, legends soon arose about the course of the Synod, and about the disputations that had taken place on it.

    (skip to p. 138)

    The Disputatio contra Arium The transmission of the text

    Since the Disputatio contra Arium33 has not yet been published in a critical edition, but also for reasons of content, for which the context of tradition is important, let us begin with some information on the tradition of the Disputation against Arium:

    The Disputatio contra Arium has survived within the framework of the so-called x-collection, outside the context of the great Athanasius collections, in a few other, mostly late (collective) manuscripts, 34 in a Latin35 and (though not entirely) in an Armenian translation36. A short passage, the confession of Athanasius in Ch. 537, is still preserved as a singular piece in a Codex of the National Library of Paris.38

    Beyond the direct tradition, even small traces of a secondary tradition of the Disputatio contra Arium can be found.39

    The x-collection40 is an independent, well-defined compilation of writings of Athanasius, the distinguishing feature of which is that it precedes a table of contents and excerpts from a letter of Photius to his brother Tarasios on the writings of Athanasius, 41 and that they Moreover, in their composition (in contrast to the y-collection in particular, but also to the b-tradition) 42 is handed down very homogeneously.

    It contains the following 21 Athanasian and pseudo-Athanasian texts: Oratio contra gentes (CPG 2090), Oratio de incarnatione verbi (CPG (2091), fDisputatio contra Arium (CPG 2250), Epistula ad episcopos Aegypti et Libya (CPG 2092), Orationes contra Arianos I-III (CPG 2093), the incarnatione et contra Arianos (CPG 2806), Epistula encyclica (CPG 2124), Epistulae ad serapionem / - // (CPG 2094), + Epistula catholica (CPG 2241), tRefutatio hypocriseos Meletii et Eusebii (CPG 2242), Epistula ad Epictetum (CPG 2095), tContra Apolinarem II-I (CPG 2231), In illud: quixixerit verbum in filium (CPG 2096), the Passione et cruce domini (CPG 2247), Epistula ad Marcellinum (CPG 2097), De virginitate (CPG 2248) and fTestimonia e scriptura (CPG 2240).

    As can be seen in this list, the disputatio contra arium is not at the very beginning of the collection. But as it comes to stand in accordance with the writings of Contra gentes and De incarnatione (which does not deal with the Arian question), it functions as an introduction to the "anti-Arian" writings of Athanasius, which are summarized in this collection Dispntatio contra Arianos, in that it reproduces a discussion between Athanasius and Arius at the Synod of Nicaea itself, which binds the writings of Athanasius to be arranged thematically and chronologically according to the Synod of Nicaea, and illuminates the background of the dispute.

    Now the compilation of the corpus of the Ar collection is due to the inclusion of the Photios letter at the earliest in the late 9th Century begin. However, the Photios letter itself may be a witness to an older and less extensive collection of anti-Ananic writings by Athanasius:

    In the letter to Tarasios and cod. For in the library, Photios writes of a collection of works by Athanasius, the xoctci Apefoucu tengv ocutou SoYpdTcov 7revTssissXo <;.45 This "five-book against Arius and his doctrines" is usually applied to the epistula ad episcopos Aegypti et Libyae, the three Aryan speeches and the pseudo-Athanasian fourth Arianerrede, 46 because in the manuscripts of the y-collection47 the Epistula ad episcopos Aegypti et Libyae, the three Arianerreden and the pseudo-Ashanasian fourth Arianerrede as xcctoc Apctavwv Xöyoc; On the other hand, in the Ar collection, only the three real Aryan speeches are numbered consecutively, but the epistula ad episcopos Aegypti et Libyae is not included in this census.49
    Montfaucon and Lopin - 1698
    https://books.google.com/books?id=Qn2yp3C4GWUC&pg=PA643

  3. Default Disputation - Thomas Smith, Cheynell, Du Pin

    While Annette Stockhausen so far would actually seem to de facto support authenticity, there is this note from Louis Ellies Du Pin :

    The other Works attributed to St. Athanasius, are yet more manifestly Supposititious, and no body almost has acknowledg'd them for Genuine. The Dispute against Arius ff which is in the First Volume, is a Dialogue compos’d under the Names of St. Athanasius and Arius, by some body that liv'd long after. This is plain, and all the World is agreed in't; but ’tis not known who is the Author of it. Some have attributed it to Vigilius Tapsensis; but for my part, I rather believe that tis the Work of a Greek, than a Latin Author, and that it may well be attributed to Maximus.

    ff The Dispute against Arius.
    ’Tis evident that ’tis not a Conference-made in the Council, but only a fictitious Dialoguc made by somebody, under the Names of St. Athanasius and an Arian, and not of Arius for the Catholick says, That his Adversary is a Monster come out of the Sect of Arius. The Author of this Dialogue is so ignorant, that he thinks the Council of Nice was held in the Year 310.


    A New History of Ecclesiastical Writers (1693)
    Louis Ellies Du Pin
    https://books.google.com/books?id=FL...AJ&pg=RA2-PA36
    Du Pin and the Synopsis of Scrpture - the Style is Athanasius

    As David Martin points out about Louis Ellies Du Pin supports the authenticity of the Synopsis of Scripture:

    A Critical Dissertation Upon the Seventh Verse of the Fifth
    By David Martin
    https://books.google.com/books?id=4tlbAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA77

    Mr. Du Pin thinks it is, and defends it in his Bibliotheque of Ecclesiastical Writers; however all agree that ’tis very ancient.
    This would be good to find in Du Pin. However, so far there is only this reference:
    https://books.google.com/books?id=FL...AJ&pg=RA2-PA36
    "the Author of the Synopsis, attributed to St. Athanasius..."
    and on p. 31
    "and the Author of the Abridgement of Scripture, attributed to St. Athanasius"
    this type of reference is there 3x on the discussion of the Authors of the Bible

    Here on a later p. 36

    A Book of the Abridgment of the Holy Scripture, p. 55. All these Works, whereof some are cited by the Ancients, agree well enough with the Style of St. Athanasius, and they contain nothing in my Opinion, which gives just caule to suspect them of forgery.
    Next we go to Thomas Smith.

    A sermon of the credibility of the mysteries of the Christian religion preached before a learned audience (1675)
    Thomas Smith
    https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/a6...1752;view=text

    ... two Writings, which pass under the name of Athanasius, where this Verse is cited, because it is not to be met with in those larger works of his, which are acknow∣ledged genuine, the one is an account of a dis∣putation, according to the title, had with Arius in the Council of Nice; but the title is faulty, as appears from the Discourse it self; nor was A∣rius the Person disputed with there, but one of his followers; and the reason of the mistake of the title may be ascrib'd to an ignorant Libra∣rius, putting down Arius for Arianus, and the Dialogue not real, but supposed, as was usual a∣mongst the Fathers, introducing the Hereticks pleading their Cause, and the Orthodox refuting their Cavils and defending the Truth. And if this may pass for likely, there can be no great reason to suspect the Authenticalness of it, the Deitate Trinitatis ad Theophilum, dicente Joanne Evangelistâ in Epistolà sua, tres sunt, qui testimoni∣um dicunt in Coelo, Pater, & Verbum, & Spiritus. But this piece, I confess, is very justly rejected as none of his, though perchance wrote not ma∣ny years after his time.
    Francis Cheynell
    https://books.google.com/books?id=gQE3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PP15

    Interpretationes paradoxae quatuor Evangeliorum
    Christopher Sand
    https://books.google.com/books?id=yqBAAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA381

    Sand references the Disputation being Athanasius from Baronio, Sculteto, Riveto. And "Dubia eft Bellarraino", and adds a quote from Thomas Cajetanus
    Here we learn about doubts about the Disputation in the 1500s. This also means, perhaps, that it should have been available to Erasmus, and some checking could be done in his works.

    Thomas Cajetan - (1469-1534) - unclear
    Caesar Baronius - (1538–1607) - spurious
    Bartolomeo Sculteto (1540-1614) - spurious
    Robert Bellarmine - (1542-1621) - undecided
    André Rivet (1572-1651) - spurious

    Sand p. 381

    Deinde Disputatio cum Ario in Concilio Nicaeno (quae sub Athanasii etiam nomine circumsertur) supposititia probatur a Baronio, Sculteto, Riveto. Dubia est Bellarmino.

    Thomas de Vio Cajetanus : Si haec, inquit , verba sunt de textu asseruntur ad manifestandurm, quod dictum est, quoniam Spiritus est veritas. Dixi autem si sunt de textu , quoniam non invenientur in omnibus codicibus, sed in aliquibus.

    Vide Lorinum ? ...




  4. Default Cave and Montfaucon

    Since Cave and Monfaucon are often the base for future judgements, it is good to go back to both of them on any of these Athanasius writings, to see if they give reasons.

    For William Cave declaring the work of a later century, you can find that here:

    Scriptorum ecclesiasticorum historia literaria
    https://books.google.com/books?id=SQlFAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA194

    Montfaucon and Lopin - 1698
    https://books.google.com/books?id=Qn2yp3C4GWUC&pg=PA643

    (more to add)

    Montfaucon - 1777 edition
    https://books.google.com/books?id=7TCVU-WUjp4C&pg=PR5 - Synopsis of Scripture
    https://books.google.com/books?id=7TCVU-WUjp4C&pg=PR6 - Disputation


    Plus we have seen that Du Pin gives a solid English followup. His support of the Synopsis while questioning the Disputation seems to give a solid perspective.

    Montfaucon quote from Robinson (rough)
    https://archive.org/stream/textsands.../n363/mode/2up

    Ne omittamus ea quae de codice, unde haec Synopsis prodiit, habet Felckmannus. Usae sunt operae, inquit, textu huius Synopseos Graces descripto ex uetusto et miris ductibus constante codice, quem ex Bibliotheca uiri clarissimi Petri Neueleti Doschii curauit uir Ampliss. D. Bongarsius, quern, cum non in omnibus descriptor assequutus sit, quidquid erit discrepantiae notandum duxi. Quamquam essent non pauca, quae de interpretation moneri poterant: imo locorum quoque nonnullorum in ipso ueteri codice coniecturae possent afferri, qxiae tamen omnia breuitatis causa, et quod docti per se ipsi in hoc longe optimi monitores sibi erunt omitto. Quorsum autem euaserit codex ille memoratus a Felkmanno ignoratur. Codicem Synopseos aliquem nec uidi, nec alicubi exstare didici 1.

  5. Default

    The various possibilities for the Disputation.
    If the internal words say that this is to an Arian supporter, then #1 and #3 can be removed.


    A writing of Athanasius about the disputation with Arius.
    A writing of Athanasius about a disputation with an Arian supporter.

    A 4th century contemporaneous report of the disputation with Arius.
    A 4th century contemporaneous report of the disputation with an Arian supporter.
    None of these should be called spurious. The work does not say "written by Athanasius." The scholars do not seem to have a good way to handle #3 and #4. A historical report about an Athanasius event should be a highly respected writing. Negative connotations like "spurious" and "Pseudo-" should be avoided, unless a clear explanation is given.


    A "doating monk", much later, 7th century
    Maximus the Confessor, much later

    Negative


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •