Against the Heathen

by Athanasius of Alexandria

Athanasius of Alexandria (circa 296-298) - d. 2 May 373] is also given the titles St. Athanasius the Great, Pope St. Athanasius I of Alexandria, St Athanasius the Confessor and (in the Coptic Orthodox Church, mainly) St Athanasius the Apostolic. He was the 20th bishop of Alexandria.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Christianity, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Religion, Church History

58 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 315

About the author

born perhaps 293

Greek patriarch Saint Athanasius, known as "the Great," of Alexandria led defenders of Christian orthodoxy against Arianism.

An Athanasian follows him, especially in opposition to Arianism.

Christians attributed Athanasian Creed, which dates probably from the fifth century, but people now consider its unknown origin.

People also refer to Athanasius (Arabic: البابا أثناسيوس الرسولي, as the Confessor and the Apostolic, primarily in the Coptic Church; he served as the twentieth bishop. From 8 June 328, his episcopate lasted, but four different Roman emperors ordered him to spend five exiles for 17 years. People consider this renowned theologian, a Father of the Church, the chief of Trinitarianism, and a noted Egyptian of the fourth century.

People remember his role in the conflict. In 325, Athanasius at the age of 27 years played a role in the first council of Nicaea. At the time, he served as a deacon and personal secretary of Alexander, the nineteenth bishop. Constantine I convoked Nicaea in May–August 325 to address the position of Jesus of Nazareth of a distinct substance from the Father.

Three years after Nicæa and upon the repose of Alexander, bishop, he served in June 328 at the age of 30 years as archbishop. He continued to the conflict for the rest of his life, and theological and political struggles engaged him against Constantine and Constantius II, the emperors, and against Eusebius of Nicomedia and other powerful and influential churchmen. He stood as "Athanasius contra Mundum," against the world. Within a few years of his departure, Saint Gregory of Nazianzus called him the "pillar of the Church." All fathers of the Church followed and well regarded his writings in the west and the east. His writings show a rich devotion to the Word, the Son of Man, great pastoral concern, and profound interest in monasticism.

The Roman Catholic Church counts Athanasius and three other doctors, and east labels him the "father." Many Protestants also celebrate him and label him "father of the canon." People venerate Athanasius on feast day, 2 May in west, 15 May in Coptic, and 18 January in the other eastern churches. The Roman Catholic Church, Orient, east, Lutherans, and Anglican communion venerate him.

Reviews

[Stuart · Rating 5 out of 5]

Athanasius' "Against the Heathen" is a spectacular read, and not the least of the many reasons for that is that it provides insight into the world in which deities were numerous and variegated.

Another significant reason is the revelation of the philosophical mind of the man who is considered by all three major Christian denominations (Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox) to be the 'Father of Orthodoxy.'

In this work Athanasius truly takes on the mantle given to him later of 'contra mundum.' His sweeping rebuke of every type of theism opposed to Christianity is as breathtaking in scope as it is impressive in accuracy. He bases nearly all his critiques on an understanding of the writings that concern each deity, betraying his perceived connection between the Scriptures and the knowledge of God. Particularly exciting for Reformed types like myself is his section on the knowledge of God, in which he argues in quite an amenable way to those in the Reformed tradition who emphasize sola scriptura's epistemological value.

The continuity between this ancient thinker and contemporary Reformed (and Eastern Orthodox) theology is encouraging. Regardless, any tradition ought to benefit from reading this masterpiece from the 'Father f Orthodoxy.'

[Donald Owens II · Rating 4 out of 5]

A worthy classic.

[Tim Casteel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Has a similar vibe to Augustine's City of God (but is MUCH shorter!); systematically taking down the common worldviews of the time: idolatry and worship of various gods. Wonder if Augustine modeled his style after Athanasius (Athanasius being born 60 years prior)?
The book seeks to prove that the idolatry of the Greek gods has resulted "not for the good, but for the ruin, of human life."

Wonder what would be a similar approach nowadays? Keller's High Theory?
And what would that book focus on- what modern practices are leading to the "ruin of human life"?
What are the ways of this current world that "have been proved to be nothing more than a false guide for life" that need to be replaced with the "aim at reaching the real and true God?"
And how do we "pierce the cloud which sin draws over [their] vision…so they may be able to behold the Word of the Father after Whose likeness they were originally made?"

Not my favorite book ever- a bit of a slog. But tremendously encouraging that there were such brilliant Christian thinkers in the 200s. We moderns tend to think that we are far more advanced than the backwards folks of yesteryear (thanks to the myth of progress).
Any doubts you have re the early church being dupes ('of course they unquestionably accepted miraculous things like the resurrection, because they were simpleminded folks') will be corrected by reading men like Athanasius or Augustine.

And how bout this for a summary of modern man: "The soul, materialised by forgetting God, and engrossed in earthly things, makes them into gods. The race of men descends into a hopeless depth of delusion."
Materialized - literally engrossed in the material world. Living as if this is all there is.
Seeking only bodily pleasures, we "become stripped of the contemplation of divine things."

"For men having fallen into the unreasonableness of their passions and pleasures, and unable to see anything beyond pleasures and lusts of the flesh, inasmuch as they keep their mind in the midst of these irrational things."
That is modern man - unable to see anything beyond pleasures and lusts. Because that's all that we give our attention/eyes to (instagram/tiktok/youtube). Thus we are stripped of our ability to see God.

Interesting to observe how he approached apologetics- Athanasius mostly argues from logic, not scripture; though the entire book seems to be a longform meditation on Romans 1.
I like Athanasius' bravado and (unintentional?) humor: "Now this argument, not one whit less than those previously dealt with, will demonstrate their [Greeks'] impiety coupled with great ignorance." 😂

[Etienne OMNES · Rating 3 out of 5]

Contre les païens, d'Athanase le grand est un traité d'apologétique anti-païenne écrit par Athanase dans sa prime jeunesse. Il y déploie une argumentation de haut niveau contre l'idôlatrie de son temps, et pourquoi il faut croire au Créateur et sa parole, Jésus Christ.

L'intérêt pour moi a surtout été de voir le mode d'argumentation et la méthode apologétique utilisée par Athanase, et voir le platonisme d'Alexandrie à l'oeuvre. Le style est magnifique, et la lecture agréable. On remarquera ainsi que l'unité du Fils avec le Père était un non-négociable pour Athanase, avant même la querelle arienne.

[Mathias · Rating 4 out of 5]

Guds Ordning vittnar om Ordet som finns nära människan, det finns i hennes hjärta som trons Ord, vilket är avbilden av Ordet som har skapat världen och upprätthåller världen. Logos spermatikos finns i människans natur, människans natur styrs av hennes fortplantningsstrategier för det genetiska materialet i sädescellerna; allting klaffar helt och hållet, kristendomen är framtidens religion. Intelligent design är dock en heresi som menar att ett förnuft har skapat världen- men det är inte ett "förnuft" utan ett Ord, Guds Ord som utgår av Fadern

[Nurullah Doğan · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5

At times, I could not believe this was a text written around 300s as some points sounded so contemporary.

Yes, there were parts where the explanations and arguments were a bit weak and could have been explained better, but overall, for such work to be made public against the idolaters and polytheists around that time is a great achievement.

I am looking forward to reading "On The Incarnation".

[Abanoub Raafat · Rating 1 out of 5]

poor, very poor arguments.

[Nick Anderson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not as classic and timeless as “On the Incarnation” but still insightful into what the church had to face early on

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the preface to Athanasius's much more popular book On the Incarnation. In it, Athanasius mostly makes philosophical rather than theological arguments. Whereas On the Incarnation was aimed at people claiming to be Christian (whether trinitarian or not), this one assumes nothing on the part of the hearer, not even a rudimentary theism. As such, it suffers from the same problems that all philosophical texts do, such as making starting assumptions that not everyone agrees upon. He makes the same sorts of arguments that Augustine and Aquinas would both go on to refine, ones he mostly inherited from Plato and Aristotle. Even for those of us who already agree with his conclusions, often his arguments come across as flimsy insofar as they rely on philosophy. In fact, it's remarkable how far philosophy has strayed from the starting assumptions of Athanasius, going so far today as to be radically uncertain and suspicious of even the concept of truth or discrete "selves."

A Lutheran might opt to skip this entire text and go on to its better-known sibling, primarily because Athanasius wrote: "For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth..."; to some degree, it begs the question of why even waste time on this in the first place. In other words, when people's worldviews preclude supernaturalism or even teleology, why argue with them? My most charitable guess is that this is either an intellectual exercise for Athanasius, or he might be writing this for fellow believers, rather than the "gentes" (gentiles, heathens) in the title (in order to convince us our religion isn't irrational). That being said, calling this a "mere" philosophical exercise would be unfair, as Athanasius makes some interesting statements worth remarking upon.

First, we have a pre-Augustinian notion of nearness to God as "good" and departing from Him as "evil;" closely entwined with this is the notion that evil doesn't exist per se, that it is only a negation of the good, which once again Augustine is better known for elaborating on. This is central to any discussion of God, because, as Athanasius frames it, everything is always a choice. You cannot stop choosing, you cannot pause the game: "[the soul] cannot at all cease from movement, being, as I said before, mobile by nature." Related to this notion of (perpetual?) motion is an interesting argument for the existence of the soul which I hadn't yet come across: "If then the soul were moved by the body, it would follow that the severance of its motor would involve its death. But if the soul moves the body also, it follows all the more that it moves itself. But if moved by itself, it follows that it outlives the body. For the movement of the soul is the same thing as its life, just as, of course, we call the body alive when it moves, and say that its death takes place when it ceases moving."

Athanasius has a high view of the soul, primarily because it is rational. However, some medieval theologians and philosophers eventually went too far in ascribing a total ability to know God rationally rather than needing to be assisted (or completely carried) by the Holy Spirit. Here I would have to admit that the Islamic tendency toward apophatic (negative) theology is much more attractive and much safer, keeping us from falling into the pit of works righteousness which prompted the Reformation. I do think that Athanasius is at least slightly correct, however: the soul of man, being rational, can come to certain conclusions which lead it toward the bible and faith in the Christian God.

The soul of man, being intellectual, can know God of itself, if it be true to its own nature.

Neither as God Himself is above all, is the road to Him afar off or outside ourselves, but it is in us and it is possible to find it from ourselves, in the first instance, as Moses also taught, when he said: “The word” of faith “is within thy heart.” Which very thing the Saviour declared and confirmed, when He said: “The kingdom of God is within you.” For having in ourselves faith, and the kingdom of God, we shall be able quickly to see and perceive the King of the Universe, the saving Word of the Father.


It's surprising to me the wide variety of interpretations of "The Kingdom of God is within you" passage; Tolstoy takes it as an abolition of hierarchical church order, and Athanasius sees it more as an admission that everyone, thanks to their rationality, has a spark of intuition about God. Luther and other reformers likely used it in a way closer to Tolstoy, evoking the "priesthood of all believers." Taking these few examples in hand, the phase unfortunately seems to act more as a mirror of one's biases rather than any clear, positive assertion. It's one of the few teachings of Christ which is left hazy: Is it an earthly kingdom and command for social justice, as many liberal theologians argue? Is it a literal heaven and afterlife, as traditional theologians interpret it? Is it the brotherhood of believers and an abolition of religion per se, as Zizek would argue? Only the middle option is tenable, but the others are interesting to consider in tandem. Who is to say it must only have one meaning?

Returning to the issue of coming to know God, something I think that Lutheran theology glosses over to its own detriment is exactly that: how do we know God? With so much focus on giving God alone the glory, we sometimes downplay our own role so much as to make ourselves not only non-actors but almost non-entities; we are basically taught that it's our job merely to hold up the Bible, and if people reject the bible, then it's not our problem anymore. We're so averse to apologetics that we barely even evangelize, other than talking about it in the hopes that some stray fire hits the heathen. This aversion to apologetics is understandable given the heresies that arise from over-relying on reason, but even we Lutherans confess the Athanasian Creed, which uses extremely philosophical language and syntax to make its point. I don't think it's really possible to disagree with the Athanasian Creed if you read the Bible honestly, but to grant the creed is to grant also the philosophical rigor which enabled its writing and ratification.

Returning back to more general issues, I like how Athanasius chooses to attack dualism and Manichaeism: namely, the issue is how we could ever know the "Good" God if the "Evil" God is the creator of the world. Most theistic apologetics cite the world and its profound order as a central evidence of a Good God. However, when you take that away, Athanasius makes a great point: How else can we possibly know he exists? Rather than making an ordered universe, you'd expect an Evil God to create a chaotic, incomprehensible nightmare. That's decidedly not what we have. I find quite profound the argument that Athanasius makes here (and in passing in The Incarnation) that "if this were so [no Good creator God], we should consequently see not an ordered universe, but disorder, not arrangement but anarchy, not a system, but everything out of system, not proportion but disproportion. For in the general strife and conflict either all things would be destroyed, or the prevailing principle alone would appear." The last part is quite important. If the universe were created by chance, chances are (literally, all the chances except for the one which did create this universe) it would not cohere into anything, or if it did it would collapse into one oppressive excess. Unless there was intentionality, there's no way that it accidentally ends up balancing the two possible extremes into something coherent and comprehensible.

Because of the evident order of the universe, it also follows that there is a single order-er, because competing order-ers would not be able to guarantee its continued order; it would be torn apart by competing interests. This is only one of the arguments that Athanasius makes against the Roman pantheon of his day. The other main argument he makes borrows from the Old Testament, namely making fun of their idols. Rather than stopping at insulting the idols themselves because they are mute, deaf, blind, and immobile (even our technology today has gained those aspects), he continues by reviling those who worship the idol rather than the artist who made the idol. The creator of something is always greater than the thing they created (in order to create it in the first place they had to be), therefore he asks them why they don't worship the artists instead of the idols, because at least the artists made something, and often something genuinely beautiful.

I'll conclude with what is one of the most succinct ways that anyone has explained morality: "Evil, then consists essentially in the choice of what is lower in preference to what is higher." As pointed out earlier, you can never stop moving, never cease worshiping, so your choices and actions tell everyone what you value, who you fear. Athanasius's attack on the idols might seem foolish to us because it's obvious that the Romans didn't think the god was IN a little piece of wood or even a big piece of marble; rather, their gods were at the best abstract concepts like lust and gluttony, and at worst they were myths piled on top of historical men. He asks, "Why, is it fitting to regard as a god one who has perpetrated such deeds, and who stands accused of things which not even the public laws of the Romans allow those to do who are merely men?" Rather than making the gods relatable, all it does is make them beneath us. A God by definition is a transcendent being, something which forces you outside of your animal instincts and into a higher plane. This is why I don't necessarily hate religions such as the Enlightenment focus on science or the Romantic focus on art. At least these rise above the animal and attempt something higher; even if it isn't the highest Good, it's at least on the path toward Him. All we can do is keep following the path, which must lead us to Christ. Initially, it might be tempting to enter the simplicity of Islam, that "radical monotheism." However, Mohammed's self-evident moral shortcomings leave us no other choice but the Christ, who really is the only teacher throughout history I've found who actually cared for the downtrodden. No one else even comes close.

[Mina Sherif Soliman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Athanasius speaks of "pagans" who create idols and deify it, he speaks of "pagans" who create their gods by their own hands.

We now speak of "Christians" who create idols and deify it, we speak of "Christians" who create their gods by their own hands and divinify it, worshiping our social image seeking the validation and the approval, worshiping our consumeristic urges putting our faith in the money and materialistic successes.

In some ways, our idols may be even more insidious than those of the ancient pagans because we are often unaware of their power over us. We may not bow down before statues or offer sacrifices, but we are consumed by our desire for material possessions, status, and attention.

We forgot who God really is, while juggling between all these divinifed idols.

يتحدث أثناسيوس عن "وثنيين" يصنعون أصنامًا لأنفسهم ويعبدونها، يتحدث عن "وثنيين" يخلقون آلهتهم بأيديهم.

نحن الآن نتحدث عن "مسيحيين" يصنعون أصناماً لأنفسهم ويعبدونها، نتحدث عن "مسيحيين" يخلقون آلهتهم بأيديهم.

يعبدون صورتهم الإجتماعية و الشهرة والسلطة، يعبدون رغباتهم الاستهلاكية ويضعون إيمانهم في المال والنجاحات المادية.

قد تكون أصنامنا أكثر خبثًا من أصنام الوثنيين القدامى لأننا غالبًا ما نكون غير مدركين لسلطتها علينا. قد لا نسجد أمام التماثيل أو نقدم الأضاحي، لكننا نجري لاهثين وراء رغباتنا في الحصول على الممتلكات المادية والمكانة و الإنتباه.

لقد نسينا من هو الله حقًا، بينما نتقلب بين جميع هذه الأصنام المؤلهه.
------------------------------------
#mg_books_reviews

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

The more popular On the Incarnation by Athanasius starts as follows:

In what preceded we have sufficiently treated a few points from many, regarding the error of the Gentiles concerning idols and their superstition, how their invention was from the beginning... Come now, blessed one and true lover of Christ, let us, with the faith of our religion, relate also the things concerning the Incarnation of the Word

I thought it might be good to start with the first book before continuing with On the Incarnation. This book reads like a treatise on Romans 1 and how people turn from a Creator to the created. It then works through a refutation of idols. Throughout that process a lot can be learned about the theology of the one of the major figures in church history.

[MAGUED INSAN · Rating 5 out of 5]

أما طريق الحق فإنه يردنا إلى الله الحقيقي.
ولكي نصل إلى معرفة هذا الطريق وإدراكه تماما، لا يحتاج المرء لشئ سوى أنفسنا، بل هو فينا ومن السهل أن نجد أنه يبدأ من داخلنا كما علم موسى قائلا:" إن كلمة الإيمان هي في قلبك" الأمر الذي أعلنها المخلص وأيده بقوله" ملكوت الله في داخلكم".
كتاب رائع وجميل في الأسلوب والمنهج العلمي والفكري في الحجه منطقي لحد الذهول، فكيف لمثل هذا الفكر في هذا الزمن،وما حاجتنا اليوم لمثل هذه الكتابات ومثل هؤلاء الكتاب.
اما من ناحية الترجمة فهيا جميلة والطبعة أيضا تعليقي فقط علي هوامش او التعليقات مهي مربكة لاقصي حد لأنها مسهبة في الشرح بدون حاجه.. مما يقطع حبل تركيز القارئ.

[Tim Van · Rating 4 out of 5]

At times, glorious brings about worship.
A bit repetitive at times, although a good method for teaching, it does not always make for great reading.

Read it slow and prayerfully, and it will benefit any believer of Jesus that is willing to follow.

Even though it was written a long time ago, it is relevant for today. What do we worship the Creator or the created?

The last 3 "chapters" are worth the read alone, although reading the whole work makes those three "chapters" a better read imo.

[John Giles · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is kind of like an old school Mere Christianity, mostly refuting the idolatry and polytheism that reigned in the ancient gentile world. He continues his arguments and lines of thought in “On the Incarnation”

Athanasius is easy to read so I highly recommend him to anyone like me who is wanting to try their hand at reading the Church Fathers for the first time.

[Otto René · Rating 4 out of 5]

Obra importante dentro del cristianismo primitivo e incluso en general, desarrolla de forma simple y sintetizada una serie de buenos argumentos contra toda práctica pagana. Aterrizando con un hermoso mensaje sobre el alma humana, y el como el Verbo, Jesús, es en efecto, Dios. Clave para cualquier cristiano que quiera comprender el porqué del mal, que es el alma para nosotros los cristianos, la idolatría, y comprender un poco más la vasta y bella naturaleza de Jesús. 7/10

[Carson Harraman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thinking about Behr's approach to the two part work. Nothing particularly interesting in all of the denunciations of idolatry, but it is clear that this is an "apology for the Cross" right at the beginning. Will be curious to read De Incarnatione in quick succession to feel out how these two interact together.

[Youssef Sameh · Rating 5 out of 5]

ما هذا الكتاب الا عظات حية بسيطة للفهم ، منقولة من الكتب المقدسة بتامل للطبيعة معطيا اياها حقها ، لا في تاليهها ، بل لنري عظمة من اوجدها ،.
" بعظم جمال المخلوقات ، يبصر ناظرها ، فيعلم من هو الخالق " ( حك ١٣ )

[Josh Murray · Rating 5 out of 5]

The prequel to his more well-known work On the Incarnation, Contra Gentes is Athanasius' powerful critique of paganism and idolatry. The book also features interesting thoughts on the soul, the origins of sin, and God's self-revelation through nature. Well worth a read!

[Chandler Collins · Rating 5 out of 5]

An incredible work from Athanasius in which he gives great insights that can shape the Christian’s understanding of the problem of evil and cosmological argument! He also argues for Christ’s active sustainment of the world.

[Joshua Pearsall · Rating 5 out of 5]

like many writings by the fathers, a wonderful work. An expert address morally, philosophically, and Scriptural of the pagan system around deities and the deification of men. On top of several references to the clarity and sufficiency of Scripture, as always a refreshing read from the fathers.

[Samir · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not bad

[Christopher Moellering · Rating 4 out of 5]

Concise work explaining the irrationality of idolatry.

[Bishoy M. Farag · Rating 4 out of 5]

كتاب روووووعة

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

The refutation of pagan deities is largely only of historical interest, but Athanasius's proofs for God and the Word are well worth the time.

[Adonis McReynolds · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another great book by St. Athanasius with the focus on demonstrating the truth of God and Christ through both Scripture and philosophy and the vanity of worshipping idols.

[Sascha · Rating 5 out of 5]

PEAK!!!

[Ebram Awny Ramzy · Rating 5 out of 5]

طالما العمل لأثناسيوس الرسولي فنحط الخمس نجوم وبعدين نقراه.

[Alex · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really enjoy Athanasius. This work has many great insights about idolatry. It also provides a window in the early phases of humanity and how idolatry is expressed.

[Ronnie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Review in the making.

Topics: problem of evil, idoltary, worship of idols

The Complete Works of St. Athanasius (20 Books): Cross-Linked to the Bible - Saint Athanasius (Highlight: 3; Note: 0)

───────────────

▪ The gradual abasement of the Soul from Truth to Falsehood by the
abuse of her freedom of Choice.

▪ False views of the nature of evil: viz., that evil is something in the
nature of things, and has substantive existence.

▪ But it were better, if need to admire these things, to ascribe it to
the art of the skilled workman, and not to honour productions in preference
to their producer. For it is not the material that has adorned the art, but the
art that has adorned and deified the material. Much juster were it, then, for
them to worship the artist than his productions, both because his existence
was prior to that of the gods produced by art, and because they have come
into being in the form he pleased to give them

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

a book that was written long ago yet describes a lot of what we live in nowadays .... a good start for theological books .