Search Results

Series Introduction On an unassuming day in late May of the year 325 A.D., in the lakeside city of Nicaea, 318[1] bishops from all across the Roman Empire came together at the invitation of the Emperor in what would become one of the most venerated and consequential events in Christian history. Their convocation, necessitated by novel — and yet, upon closer examination, not entirely original — doctrinal contentions maintained by a popular and elderly Alexandrian presbyter, Arius, along with his supporters and fellow heretics, carried the potential for either vindication of the Faith delivered by Christ “once for all to the saints,”[2] or formal acceptance by the Church of an entirely heretical doctrinal framework. Despite the gravity of the Council of Nicaea, the first “ecumenical”[3] council in the Church’s history, and its central role in the eventual triumph of Orthodoxy over what amounted to a threatening and popularly attractive deviant dogmatic system, its historical background, doctrinal concerns, and subsequent legacy remain until today relatively obscure and unfamiliar to the average Christian. Indeed, besides perhaps limited superficial awareness of the occurrence of this council, and potentially also an association of the great Saint Athanasius with it, if even that, the ordinary believer is — and this is a disheartening and lamentable fact — woefully unaware of its monumental significance. In our humble effort to contribute to remedying the foregoing, especially on this 1700th anniversary of the Council, by providing a serviceable introduction to its history, import, and legacy, we will begin by providing an overview of the “makings,” character, and life of Saint Athanasius the Apostolic, whose theological acumen and spiritual prodigiousness became renowned even from a young age and proved timely — even divinely-prepared — for the ecclesial contentions of his lifetime. Abba Athanasius emerges from the doctrinal battlegrounds of the Nicene era as the victorious defender of Orthodox Christianity, one may add at great personal cost[4] and not without the invaluable assistance and support of several other faithful, pious, and theologically adept believers from among both the clergy and the laity, and his unshakeable personality, deep piety, and heartfelt defense of his Faith — rather than some theoretical set of impersonal dogmatic tenets — deserve careful attention, if only for the sake of spiritual edification and inspiration to piety and doctrinal concern. Having so introduced Athanasius, albeit in necessarily cursory fashion, we will proceed to highlight the theological, social, and ecclesial backgrounds and contexts that underpinned the subject theological dispute, along with a discussion of the catalyst behind it, Arius of Alexandria, his dogmatic ideas which later came to be collectively known as Arianism, along with its many variants, and his repeated clashes with the Alexandrian Church between 313 and 325 A.D. in the lead-up to the Council. Finally, we will dedicate the third entry of our series to a discussion of the aftermath of the Council, especially the chaotic and volatile period that lasted until approximately 381 A.D. and caused immense suffering to both the Church generally and Athanasius and his fellow supporters and defenders of Nicaea specifically. It is our hope that by God’s grace, this limited series will serve as a helpful introductory foray into the contentious world of fourth-century Christianity, and an inspiring and convicting opportunity for readers to develop a deeper understanding and appreciation not only of Saint Athanasius and his defense of the Faith against Arianism, but also of the truly nuanced and consequential nature of theological debate and the immense sacrifice the Fathers of the Church offered, due to their unwavering faithfulness, in order to preserve and deliver the Faith they had received and which they were entrusted by the Lord to uphold, proclaim, and transmit in His Church. The Makings and Character of Saint Athanasius the Apostolic It would doubtless be remiss, for our purposes, to commence our discussion of the Council of Nicaea and the Arian Controversy without first examining the makings and character of the man who emerged from that unenviable period as the Champion of Orthodoxy — Saint Athanasius the Apostolic. It would, without exaggeration, be impossible to either adequately capture the magnitude of the Church’s triumph over Arianism — which at one point had enamored and captivated almost the whole of Christendom — or elicit from this unfortunate period of the Church’s history perhaps any modicum of spiritual edification without properly understanding, inasmuch as we are able, the man who, against all odds and in opposition to, almost literally, the whole word, possessed the clarity of mind and soundness of understanding to be able to properly comprehend and synthesize what had been handed down in the Church from the beginning, had undergone the requisite education and training to be able to distinguish nuanced deviations from sound doctrine and respond to them clearly and forcefully, and stood firm, despite great personal loss, against a popular, attractive, and politically connected heresy. Indeed, to understand and appreciate the Nicene victory over Arianism, one must first understand and appreciate Athanasius. Athanasius was born to a pious and wealthy Egyptian Christian family in or around 298 A.D. He was baptized in his infancy, and it was his family that planted within him the seed of truth, nourished him in the Christian life, and facilitated the earliest and most important years of his physical, spiritual, and intellectual development. While we know little about his parents from his writings, we are certain that they routinely attended the liturgical services of the Church, bringing with them little Athanasius. He routinely attended Divine Liturgies, baptisms, weddings, and all other services in the Church, and, as we will see shortly, he was incredibly attentive during these, soaking in the prayers, hymns, readings, and ecclesial atmosphere since his infancy. It was therefore his family that constituted the first formative force that influenced his life, character, and thought. The liturgical experience, to which he was accustomed and in which he was raised, left an indelible mark on the life of our saint. It is clear from the historical data that Athanasius was quite familiar since a young age with the liturgical prayers of the Church. For instance, a famous story recorded about him by several early Christian historians tells that one day, Pope Alexander spotted young Athanasius playing with his friends by the seashore in Alexandria. As he watched them play, he recognized that they were acting out the liturgy of baptism, and so when he had called them over and investigated their play, he discovered that Athanasius, who fulfilled the role of the bishop in the act, conducted the rite precisely and with great enthusiasm and reverence.[5] But how could Athanasius do so without reference to the liturgical rubrics or texts unless he had memorized the prayer and rite of baptism, and how could he have done so if he had not already, despite his young age, attended many baptisms and paid close attention to and participated in the celebration? Athanasius did not abandon this liturgical mode of life as he grew; even after he became patriarch, he practiced the liturgical life faithfully, competently, and with great love and care. This is easily appreciated, for instance, in his recounting that, after he had already become the bishop of Alexandria, he was once in the church praying the Midnight Praises (Tasbeha), when at the time of the Second Canticle (Ϩⲱⲥ), more than five thousand guards seized upon the church to arrest him. As a faithful shepherd, Athanasius insisted that all those present first be permitted to depart unharmed; when all had departed, the guards entered the church to find it empty, with even Athanasius having managed to secretly flee.[6] All throughout his life, Athanasius was keen to observe the liturgical worship of his beloved Church, and the influence of that liturgical experience is clearly perceptible in the stories about him as well as his own writings. It suffices to read his beautiful Letter to Marcellinus on the Psalms to see how deeply and lovingly Athanasius approached the life of prayer and what great familiarity and facility he had with the Psalter, which was, of course, a main liturgical book both in the practice of the Egyptian churches and among the monastics in his day. Beyond liturgical worship, Athanasius was deeply influenced by the persecution that arose in his early youth. From the time that he was a young boy until his mid-teens, Athanasius lived through the so-called Diocletianic Persecution, which lasted from 303 A.D. until 313 A.D. Thus, Athanasius experienced the most severe era of early Christian persecution from when he was about five years old until he was about fifteen. He likely prayed in hiding along with his fellow believers during these years; perhaps he, like many other Christians, was forced to flee his home along with his family; and he saw at least some among his teachers, relatives, and friends martyred for the sake of Christ.[7] This experience, particularly during these formative years, left a profound mark on his spirituality, intellectual framework, and theological understanding, so much so that when writing his first great treatise, Against the Heathen and On the Incarnation, only a few years after the persecution ended — that is, when he was only about 18 or 20 years old — Athanasius considers as among the most powerful witnesses to the truth of the resurrection of our Lord, besides the purity and chastity of young Christian men and women, which he undoubtedly practiced and saw among his friends and fellow believers in his young age, the courage and peace of the men and women who went with joy to their martyrdom.[8] Had he not seen such men and women with his own eyes, or been educated by, or perhaps even related to, some of them, he would not have been able to speak with such force and in so moving a way about them, and he might not have appreciated the convicting power of their witness or its implications when understood in light of the sound Faith of Christ. And so Athanasius, having seen martyrdom up close and personally, was able to hold fast to the truth of Christ when faced with a new form of persecution and personal suffering for His sake. In addition to his upbringing by pious parents, liturgical practice, and experience of the Great Persecution, Athanasius was deeply influenced by his discipleship — to the renowned monastic elders of his day and to Pope Alexander himself — and especially the ascetical life with which he had through that discipleship been introduced and become quite accustomed. He enjoyed a close personal relationship with the great Abba Antony, even being within his inner circle and “pouring water on his hands,”[9] a sign of personal trust and close discipleship. He spent so much time with Antony, in fact, that when he was asked to write the account of that saint’s life, he was able to prepare his great work, The Life of Antony, predominantly from memory, but for supportive reliance on other disciples of Antony who had perhaps spent more time with him or had been present for events in his life for which Athanasius had been absent.[10] And Abba Antony, of course, deeply respected and loved his disciple Athanasius, to the point of leaving the inner mountain and traveling to Alexandria at the request of Athanasius and the other “bishops and all the brethren” to assist them in their opposition to Arianism[11] — one of only two or three times that Antony left the desert to visit the city after undertaking the monastic life — and bequeathing to him one of the only two garments he owned at the time of his departure.[12] Besides Antony, Athanasius was also well acquainted with Abba Pachomius, seeking even to ordain him to the presbytery, which ordination Pachomius famously refused by going into hiding until Athanasius agreed not to move forward with it.[13] And certainly Athanasius was closely acquainted and associated with many great monastics in his day, visiting the monasteries in a pastoral capacity, ordaining bishops from among the monks — for the first time in Christian history — in order to assist him, given their renowned theological training and intellectual prowess, in opposing Arianism and defending the Faith of Nicaea, and even being able to take refuge among the monks of the Egyptian desert during his third and fourth (of five) exiles, receiving during those exiles news of ongoing events and communicating with his flock through loyal and skilled messengers acting within an established and effective system of monastic communication. Of course, his discipleship to the great Pope Alexander, his predecessor in the papacy, is also well known. It was that patriarch who first “discovered” Athanasius, as mentioned above, and who facilitated his theological education in the School of Alexandria, ordained him when he was still in his early twenties to the diaconate due to his rare brilliance, spiritual and academic excellence, piety of life, and sincerity in discipleship, and granted him to accompany him to the great Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., and to participate there in defending the Faith against the Arians. In this manner, Athanasius was well-discipled — to spiritually faithful and theologically competent teachers and elders — and embodied the spirit of sound discipleship, and was therefore able to deliver the true faith and spirit of Christ to his own disciples and to the following generation of believers, both due to his personal receipt of that doctrine and spirit from those who held fast to, properly understood, and lived according to it and, as we will now see, also through his formal education and theological training. Beyond the aforementioned factors, and in tandem with them, Athanasius was influenced by his academic and theological training and study. As previously noted, Pope Alexander ensured that the young Athanasius obtained the highest caliber of education in his day, and in the information known of Athanasius’ life prior to his encountering Pope Alexander, it is likewise clear that his own parents emphasized his education in their own right when he was a young boy. Athanasius therefore benefitted greatly from a sound, well-rounded education, and was thus well trained in Greek philosophy, rhetoric, logic, grammar, literature, Greco-Roman religion, and other disciplines. It was this training, along with his mastery of the Scriptures, that ultimately proved most useful to him, enabling him to recognize, understand, and refute Arius’ doctrinal framework and theological misunderstandings, and persuade the believers of the truth and reasonableness of Orthodoxy, with not only scriptural arguments, but also by using philosophy, reason, and other pertinent disciplines.[14] The foregoing influences, great and impactful as they were in the life of the great defender of Orthodoxy, were, it must be said, insufficient on their own to produce the spiritually, intellectually, and doctrinally imposing, albeit physically unimpressive, Athanasius. Indeed, what bound these together and produced in Athanasius the unique, inspiring, and indefatigable heart, mind and spirit he possessed throughout his life were none other than, first, a profound knowledge and mastery of the Scriptures, and, second, an extraordinary and inextinguishable love for Christ. Athanasius was renowned for and deeply influenced by an encyclopedic knowledge of the Scriptures and the writings of the Fathers who preceded him. He memorized the Scriptures, like many of the saints from the early Church until today, and this mastery of the Scriptures was key to his ability to correct and refute the Arians, since they relied on many verses and passages from the Scriptures, but taken out of context, interpreted inconsistently and disharmoniously with the patristic tradition, and used manipulatively — eisegetically — to further their arguments and agendas. Athanasius’ scriptural knowledge and understanding of the work of the saints and biblical interpreters who came before him — along with his faithful spirit — enabled him to properly understand the verses utilized by the Arians, correct, expose, and masterfully counter their manipulative and unfaithful usage of them, and thereby safeguard the believers from his time until today from the error of that ignominious heresy. Meanwhile, an illimitable and deeply personal love of Christ and the Church — a palpable piety and sincere theological humility — was perhaps the central driving force behind Athanasius’ impassioned, lifelong commitment to and defense of the Nicene cause and the extermination of Arianism. As one scholar summarized, “[i]t was not as a theologian, but as a believing soul in need of a Saviour, that Athanasius approached the mystery of Christ.”[15] And as another beautifully expressed: “Athanasius was on fire with the love of Christ . . . His love of Christ is the key to his whole life and also to his writings.”[16] Athanasius was therefore not, as some have come to conceive of theology, an academic or speculative theologian to whom matters of doctrine were objects of mere intellectual interest and theoretical contemplation. Rather, he was, in every respect, a “great Christian pastor”[17] to whom “Christianity is not a dead system of doctrine and statements of faith, but living faith in Jesus Christ.”[18] And so, despite the great difficulties he suffered at the hands of the Arians and their political and religious supporters, “[t]he glory of God and the welfare of the Church absorbed him fully at all times.”[19] The influences in the life, understanding, and character of this great saint — of which we have here spoken in cursory fashion and with words that of necessity fall short of conveying the full sense of his nobility and splendor — must be understood collectively. They worked together in him both to render him the saint that he became, by God’s grace and his own uncompromising conviction to the life with God until the last breath, and to enable him to defend the Faith of Christ and to overcome the monstrous threat of Arianism — one that could have eliminated sound Orthodoxy from the world entirely. As one considers Abba Athanasius, the insufficiency of words in adequately conveying to the reader even a glimpse of his greatness becomes obvious. And yet, despite that inadequacy, through them one immediately recognizes in him an awe-inspiring and decisive resoluteness worthy of wholehearted imitation.[20] He was in every respect human — having his share of flaws, weaknesses, and biases, as with any other person, but with a dynamic, enthusiastic, and active personality distinguished by deep piety, singularity of purpose, clarity of thought, unmistakable loyalty, uncompromisable dignity, infectious joy, and a lighthearted sense of humor. It was this Athanasius who, by God’s grace, would rise to the occasion of refuting and resisting Arius and his fellow heretics — from whom, as will be seen, there emerged in Athanasius’ lifetime several groups divided along various theological lines — and to whom Orthodox Christianity would forever be indebted as perhaps its greatest defender. — [1] Evagrius, Ecclesiastical History 3.31; Athanasius, Epistle to the African Bishops; Hilarius, Contra Constantium; Jerome, Chronicon; Rufinus, Ecclesiastical History 10.1. [2] Jude 3. [3] That is, universal, or having representation from, and applicability to, the entire [Christian] world (oikoumene). [4] See, e.g., Rufinus, Ecclesiastical History 10.15: “But he had such struggles to undergo in the church for the integrity of the faith that the following passage seems to have been written about him too: ‘I will show him how much he will have to suffer for my name.’ For the whole world conspired to persecute him and the princes of the earth were moved, nations, kingdoms, and armies gathered against him. But he guarded that divine utterance which runs: ‘If camps are set up against me, my heart will not fear, if battle is waged against me, in him will I hope.’ But because his deeds are so outstanding that their greatness does not allow me to omit any of them, yet their number compels me to pass over very many, and thus my mind is troubled by uncertainty, unable to decide which to keep and which to pass over. We shall therefore relate a few of the pertinent matters, leaving the rest to be told by his fame, which will, however, doubtless find itself recounting the lesser things. For it will discover nothing that it could add.” [5] For the complete telling of this account, see Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 1.15; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 2.17; Rufinus, Ecclesiastical History 10.15. [6] For the full account in Athanasius’ own words, see Athanasius, Apologia de Fuga 24. [7] See On the Incarnation 56. [8] Id. at 28, 48, 52. [9] See Life of Antony, Prologue. [10] Ibid. [11] Id. at 69-71. [12] Id. at 91. [13] The Bohairic Life of Pachomius 28. [14] It suffices to read his Against the Arians to see how well Athanasius comprehends these disciplines and capitalizes on his knowledge of them to pick apart Arius’ belief system and theological assertions. [15] Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Athanasius: Select Works and Letters (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers II.IV), xv. [16] Dominic Unger, “A Special Aspect of Athanasian Soteriology,” Franciscan Studies 6 (1946), 30. [17] W. Emery Barnes, “Athanasius” in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, James Hastings, gen. ed. Volume 2, 170-171. [18] Friedrich Lauchert, Die Lehre Des Heiligen Athanasius des Grossen (Leipzig: Gustav Fock Verlag, 1895), 12. [19] Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Athanasius: Select Works and Letters (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers II.IV), lxvii. [20] It was this sublime character of Athanasius that led St. Gregory of Nazianzus to declare: “In praising Athanasius, I shall be praising virtue. To speak of him and to praise virtue are identical, because he had, or, to speak more truly, has embraced virtue in its entirety.” (Oration 21.1). —

Introduction Digital technologies such as Artificial Intelligence, Virtual Reality, and Social Media today predominate the non-physical online realm, transcending time and space and allowing for instantaneous communication and connectivity from any location globally. With this unprecedented technological proliferation, the notion of remoteness is quickly becoming obsolete, as even in the deserts, one can be completely engaged in and connected to a world of communication and information. Despite the overbearing inescapability of this modern immersive condition, the desert still lends her wisdom, for there can be found until today the richest Christian men and women following in the footsteps of those who have sought for centuries to fulfill through monasticism the high calling of Christianity. The founder of this monastic movement, Antony of Egypt, himself retreated to the desert in a quest to live out the Christian Faith in complete devotion, being convinced that the message of Christianity must be internalized and transfigured within himself so that he might fulfill the Lord’s command to be perfect. [1] Equipped with this conviction, Antony forsook all his possessions and began his long journey into the inner desert — a journey to perfect virtue and true Christlikeness — ultimately becoming the lamp of monasticism (as he is called in the Coptic Orthodox Tradition) and an example for all Christians. Antony recognized that Christianity properly lived requires unwavering personal devotion and complete integration into one’s life — the Christian is required to “put on Christ” (Romans 13:14) and not be “conformed to this world” (Romans 12:2). As online technological advancements continue to gain prevalence in people’s daily lives, imposing upon Christians a new “gospel,” a conscious consideration of the necessary features of the human experience according to the Christian framework is perhaps more necessary today than ever before. [2] Of these advancements, Artificial Intelligence, being by its very nature antithetical to and devoid of any measure of living experience, raises especially alarming concerns, particularly for evangelization and the Christian life. In contrast to several of those concerns, however, stands the life and standard of Antony, which remains until today a grounding example for Christian believers and emphasizes several features of the human experience which they must consciously guard within themselves in the face of the threats posed by these technologies. Encountering Antony of Egypt Journeying from his village to the desert, Antony sought to fulfill the calling of Christian discipleship to Christ, creating a balanced environment conducive to Christian formation [3] and not evading any component of the human experience. Athanasius’ description, in The Life of Antony , of Antony's emergence from the Roman fort in response to the demands of the masses depicts this state of balance that Antony achieved: “…Antony came forth as out of a shrine, as one initiated into sacred mysteries and filled with the spirit of God. It was the first time that he showed himself outside the fort to those who came to him. When they saw him, they were astonished to see that his body had kept its former appearance, that it was neither obese from want of exercise, not emaciated from his fasting and struggles with the demons: he was the same man they had known before his retirement. Again, the state of his soul was pure, for it was neither contracted by grief, nor dissipated by pleasure, not pervaded by jollity or dejection…No, he had himself completely under control — a man guided by reason and stable in his character.” [4] The balance of personal development with interpersonal communication and communal connection which Antony maintained deserves not only admiration, but also emulation, [5] for he became thereby the model of a complete Christian — “the man of God.” [6] Antony and the Self The primary resources pertaining to Antony — The Life of Antony , his sayings, and his letters — depict and emphasize the absolute necessity of sound identity formation in Christian experience, dependent upon scriptural internalization, virtue attainment, and enlightened self-understanding. This formation led Antony to order his life in submission to the Scriptures and thereby to become a conduit for the Lord to permeate the lives of his disciples. From a young age, Antony knew the Scriptures, contemplated upon them often, and took them personally. Upon hearing the Gospel being read in church shortly after his parents’ death, he submitted to its teaching and allowed it to radically transform his life. It was the Scriptures, after all, that initiated his journey into the wilderness. In his later encounters with demons, his mastery of the Scriptures is especially evident, as he used them as his shield to overcome demonic attacks. [7] His scriptural formation also flows seamlessly into his teaching: when many came to learn from him, he said to them, “The Scriptures are really sufficient for our instruction.” [8] Similarly, when asked what one must do “in order to please God,” he responded “…always have God before your eyes; whatever you do, do it according to the testimony of the holy Scriptures.” [9] His second letter, [10] moreover, is almost entirely formulated out of scriptural passages woven together. By thus internalizing the Scriptures, and that through memorization rather than relying on any exterior aids to merely read them, [11] Antony succeeded to embody them in his real lived experience. “[L]ike a wise bee,” [12] Antony built upon his scriptural grounding by cultivating within himself the good qualities he observed in virtuous people: “He observed the graciousness of one, the earnestness at prayer in another; studied the even temper of one and the kindheartedness of another…and in one and all alike he marked especially devotion to Christ and the love they had for one another.” [13] Understanding the necessity of good works, [14] he urgently worked to internalize and assimilate virtuous qualities in himself [15] rather than simply observing and admiring virtuous people. He would later teach his disciples: “Really, [virtue] is not far from us, nor is its home apart from us; no, the thing is within us, and its accomplishment is easy if we but have the will. Greeks go abroad and cross the sea to study letters; but we have no need to go abroad for the Kingdom of Heaven nor to cross the sea to obtain virtue.” [16] By pursuing virtue, Antony became a powerful witness to the Lord, so that those whom he imitated [17] identified him as “God’s Friend” even though he strove to surpass them in virtuosity. [18] His virtue thus became a powerful instrument of evangelization and exhortation, attracting many to the desert to encounter and imitate him. [19] Having learned the Scriptures and become virtuous, Antony recognized and frequently emphasized the importance of knowing oneself. Echoing the advice of Paul the Apostle to Timothy (1 Timothy 4:16), he advised his disciples to know themselves — at least six times in his first seven Letters — for “he who knows himself knows God and his dispensations for his creatures.” [20] He consequently identified any doctrinal or behavioral deviance from the Faith of the Church as a result of improper self-understanding and a failure to cultivate the fruits of the Spirit in oneself: “As for Arius…that man has begun a great task, an unsealable wound. If he had known himself, his tongue would not have spoken about what he did not know. It is, however, manifest, that he did not know himself.” [21] In knowing himself, moreover, Antony recognized his natural dependence upon his brethren in the Faith, and was for this reason deeply concerned with his neighbors in the world as they struggled against general laxity in spiritual life [22] and consequent heresy. He therefore takes up the medium of writing in order to exhort them to take personally and submit to the true Christian Faith: “I beseech you, my beloved in the Lord, who are joint heirs with the saints, to raise up your minds in the fear of God.” [23] Antony and Community Believing that “…he who loves his neighbor loves God, and he who loves God loves his own soul,” [24] Antony sought his salvation not only in the context of solitude, but also in that of interaction and communication with others. Upon commencing his monastic commitment, Antony first discipled himself to an elder, and sought to maintain this discipleship when he desired to venture deeper into the desert: “He met the old man referred to above [25] and begged him to live with him in the desert.” [26] Later, he would become a father and teacher to monks, [27] caring not only for their spiritual wellbeing, but also for their physical nourishment: “…seeing that people were coming to him again, he began to raise a few vegetables too, that the visitor might have a little something to restore him after the weariness of that hard road.” [28] Later, when he was ninety years old, Antony sought out Paul of Thebes, who had undertaken monasticism prior to him, and traveled to visit and converse with him. [29] Interestingly, the first question Paul asked Antony was “how fares the human race?” [30] While Antony and Paul retreated to the desert, seeking in its stillness to discern the voice of God, they nevertheless remained deeply connected to the city and community of believers, understanding, in Antony’s own words, that “our life and our death is with our neighbour.” [31] Evidently, Antony did not leave for the desert to escape from human interaction, but rather out of his longing for a deeply contemplative atmosphere, away from the distractions of the city, in order to live in complete relation with God, [32] recognizing that “silence is necessary for prayer and for effective communication.” [33] He therefore remained connected to and interested in the affairs of the city, saying to those who came to him, for example: “Be you, therefore, like children and bring to your father what you know and tell it, while I, being your senior, share with you my knowledge and my experience.” [34] Having heard of the spread of Arianism, Antony traveled to Alexandria to encourage the faithful in their defense of the orthodox Faith: “The entire city ran together to see Antony. Pagans, too, and even their so-called priests came to the church saying: ‘We would like to see the man of God’ — for so they all called him…and, indeed, as many became Christians in those few days as one would have seen in a year.” [35] At the time of the persecution under Maximin, Antony went again to the city, longing to suffer martyrdom, and “ministered to the confessors in the mines and in the prisons.” [36] His care for the edification and salvation of all is evident even in his interaction with Emperor Constantine, who had written to him. Although he “did not like to accept letters, saying that he did not know what to answer to such things,” he decided to write back to Emperor Constantine simply so that he could exhort him “not to think highly of the things of this world, but rather to bear in mind the judgment to come; and to know that Christ alone is the true and eternal King. He begged them to show themselves humane and to have a regard for justice and for the poor.” [37] The importance of interpersonal communication and community to Antony is therefore easily perceptible. Along with offering his guidance to the monastic community that was forming around him, seeking in the process to balance his social interaction with personal reflection, Antony communicated with Christian believers generally through visits and letters. In a word, having actively and intentionally submitted to and identified with the Christian message, Antony permitted it to mold him into an icon of the Lord Jesus, becoming in the process the image of what it means to be a truly living human, “the glory of God.” [38] His witness and life therefore became the inspiration for the monastic movement until today, converting and leading countless people into a deeper love of and life with Christ. Artificial Intelligence and the Human Experience Contrary to the immersive, incarnate, and deeply personal experience of Christianity as expressed and lived in the person of Antony of Egypt, modern technologies discarnate the human experience, being deeply formative and developmental, even at the neurological level. [39] Moreover, as Neil Postman points out: “Technology…carries with it a program, an agenda, and a philosophy that may or may not be life-enhancing and that therefore require scrutiny, criticism, and control.” [40] It is necessary, then, to examine the place of digital technologies in the human experience, especially as humanity furthers its dependence on such mediums. Indeed, “a discarnate world, like the one we now live in, is a tremendous menace to an incarnate Church.” [41] Artificial Intelligence and the Self Artificial Intelligence, more than the digital technologies that preceded it, is a deeply non-human technology, facilitating creation without human involvement and depriving products of the human element that was previously inherent to their production. Romano Guardini, in observing the rise of machine reliance, makes an important distinction: in times past, “people did, of course, use tools and aids in great numbers and with great delicacy. But these were only supports, extending the range of activity of natural human organs…and a limit was always set to make possible direct and living execution.” [42] With the availability of Artificial Intelligence, however, a human can simply command technology to produce a desired product, and within moments, that product is packaged together irrespective of that person’s knowledge, skillset, or experience, and without their contribution. Walter Ong comments: “Knowledge is hard to come by and precious, and society regards highly those wise old men and women who specialize in conserving it, who know and can tell the stories of the days of old. By storing knowledge outside the mind, writing and, even more, print downgrade the figures of the wise old man and the wise old woman, repeaters of the past, in favor of younger discoverers of something new.” [43] Because the need to internalize information is minimized by Artificial Intelligence, its user is made perpetually dependent upon it, rendering it the arbiter of truth, knowledge, and goodness: “The manner in which one asks a search engine, the algorithms of an artificial intelligence, or a computer for answers to questions that concern private life reveals that one relates to the device and its response with a fideistic attitude.” [44] Such technology therefore divests the human of humanity, substituting knowledge and firsthand experience with emptiness and reliance on exterior aids for information and fulfillment. Artificial Intelligence and Community Artificial Intelligence’s divestment of humanity’s humanity also carries communal consequences. As a powerful analytical tool, Artificial Intelligence introduces a novel way of thinking: “This knowledge does not inspect; it analyzes. It does not construct a picture of the world, but a formula. Its desire is to achieve power so as to bring force to bear on things, a law that can be formulated rationally. Here we have the basis and character of its dominion: compulsion, arbitrary compulsion devoid of all respect.” [45] Establishing a new primary residence for humanity within the virtual world and introducing a new role for humanity as spectator rather than creator, Artificial Intelligence threatens humanity’s very nature: “What takes place here is not human, at least if we measure the human by the human beings who lived before us. It is not natural if we measure the natural by nature as it once was.” [46] Having identified such trends in the early stages of the technological age, Guardini remarks: “A system of machines is engulfing life. It defends itself. It seeks free air and a secure basis. Can life retain its living character in this system?” [47] Only in the ecclesial community, “the place where the experience of God creates communion and the sharing of life,” [48] in the real, physical world, can life retain its living character. [49] Christianity, as experienced by Antony, is wholly concerned with reality, and is inherently meant for life — personal and communal experience. Through primarily physical means of encounter and perception, one most effectively “tastes” (Psalm 34:8) the Christian message and becomes transformed by it, allowing it to permeate his encounters with others. It was in this way that Antony succeeded to inspire others to venture deeper into the Faith. His effort in evangelization and exhortation flourished without the aid of any sophisticated technologies because it was purely and wholly incarnate. Michelle Borras identified that “since the Gospel is a message of the incarnate Love that alone saves, it can only be proclaimed adequately in an incarnate way…The Gospel must always have a ‘face.’” [50] Because Antony internalized the Christian message and lived through it, thereby allowing it to reflect the love of Christ to others, the Gospel in him indeed had a face — the face of Christ. Conclusion The monastic movement was inaugurated by Antony as Christian men and women imitated him by flocking to the desert to embody and live out the Christian message of discipleship to Christ. Understanding that the Faith must be taken personally, Antony and all who imitated him left the world for the desert in order to focus on fulfilling the divine commandments. Thus, in writing The Life of Antony , Athanasius exhorts his readers “to model [their] lives after his zeal” [51] and advises that his biography be read even to pagans. [52] Artificial Intelligence, being by nature an external and non-human tool of creation, is in contrast an obstacle to venturing into a personal and intimate relationship with God, developing within the human an authenticity-limiting exterior dependency in creativity, communication, and informational retention. Artificial Intelligence’s inability to capture or express human life and spirit is evident in a simple yet revealing exercise: when tasked with writing a doxology for Antony, ChatGPT produced a biographical, impersonal, and detached composition [53] in comparison to the personal and exhortatory doxology for Antony authored by Coptic Orthodox believers for liturgical prayer. [54] If we “hope for the word of God to dwell in us richly in the digital age,” [55] Artificial Intelligence and similar technologies must be thoroughly examined in light of the ethos of Christianity, with those among these technologies that do not comport with the Christian “spirit and life” [56] being actively guarded against, lest by becoming tools of evangelization and mediums for Faith delivery and formation, they compromise rather than uphold the message and spirit of Christianity. — [1] He reached this understanding through hearing the words of the Scriptures being read during the liturgical service: “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven, and come, follow Me” (Matthew 19:21); “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow” (Matthew 6:34). Antony understood these divinely-inspired words as being “directed especially to him” ( See Athanasius, The Life of Antony 2-3, in Robert T. Meyer, Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation, Volume 10: St. Athanasius: The Life of Saint Antony , 19-21). [2] Daniella Zsupan-Jerome notes: “After [the Word], communication of his good news becomes the Spirit-led task of the Church. This age-old mission to communicate is at the heart of the Church. From this perspective, the digital media are but the latest chapter in the long story of how the Church has gone about expressing this identity and mission to communicate” ( Connected Toward Communion: The Church and Social Communication in the Digital Age , 2). [3] Daniella Zsupan-Jerome offers a definition to Christian formation as being “part of the language of articulating the task of catechesis, the process by which believers are nurtured toward conversion of mind and heart to Jesus Christ” ( Ibid. , 10-11). [4] Athanasius, The Life of Antony 14 (Meyer, 32) [5] See Ibid. , Prologue (Meyer, 17) [6] See Ibid. , 93 (Meyer, 96) [7] See e.g., Ibid ., 6-7, (Meyer, 23-26) [8] Ibid. , 16 (Meyer, 33) Antony sought to understand the Scriptures even through personal encounters with the saints. When he found difficulty with a passage of Scripture, for example, he did not first seek to discover its meaning in books, but rather “went out into the desert…a long way off and stood there praying, crying in a loud voice, ‘God, send Moses, to make me understand this saying.’ Then there came a voice speaking with him” (Benedicta Ward, The Sayings of the Desert Fathers , 7 (Anthony the Great, Saying 26)). [9] Benedicta Ward, The Sayings of the Desert Fathers , 2 (Anthony the Great, Saying 3) [10] See Samuel Rubenson, The Letters of St. Antony: Monasticism and the Making of a Saint , 203-205 [11] “Again, he was so attentive at the reading of the Scripture lessons that nothing escaped him: he retained everything and so his memory served him in place of books” (Athanasius, The Life of Antony 3 (Meyer, 21)). In response to those who sought to discredit him for not receiving any schooling, Antony also said: “…one who has a sound mind has no need of letters” ( Ibid. , 73 (Meyer, 80)). [12] Athanasius, The Life of Antony 3 (Meyer, 20) [13] Ibid. , 4 (Meyer, 21) [14] See e.g. , Matthew 5:16; James 2:14-26; Titus 2 [15] See Athanasius, The Life of Antony 4 (Meyer, 21-22) [16] Ibid. , 20 (Meyer, 37) [17] See 1 Corinthians 11:1 [18] Athanasius, The Life of Antony 4 (Meyer, 21) [19] See e.g. , Ibid. , 46 (Meyer, 59-60) [20] See e.g. , Rubenson, 208 [21] Ibid. , 211 [22] “The Peace of Constantine, which brought about mass conversions, had the paradoxical effect of diminishing the lay contribution to the activity and holiness of the Church. Monasticism is a witness to this fact; for the monk is not a layman, and his status is to be explained as a reaction against the growth of mediocrity in the ranks of the simple faithful. The fervent part took its stand deliberately, and as an institution, over against the majority of the flock. This is no matter for surprise; the ideal conditions for a full Christian life do not coincide with taking things easy” (Henri de Riedmatten, “The Part of the Laity in the History of the Church” in Blackfriars , November 1958, Vol. 39, No. 464, p. 458). [23] Rubenson, 230 [24] Ibid. , 222 [25] See Athanasius, The Life of Antony 3 (Meyer, 20) [26] Ibid. , 11 (Meyer, 29) [27] Ibid. , 14 (Meyer, 32-33) [28] Ibid. , 50 (Meyer, 63) [29] See Jerome, The Life of Paulus the First Hermit [30] Ibid., 10 [31] Ward, 3 (Anthony the Great, Saying 9) [32] “This making a City of the Wilderness was no mere flight, nor a rejection of matter as evil…It was rooted in a stark realism of faith in God and acceptance of the battle which is not against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual things of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Derwas Chitty, The Desert A City , xvi). [33] Fr. Jonah Lynch, FSCB and Michelle K. Borras, Technology and the New Evangelization: Criteria for Discernment , 30 [34] Athanasius, The Life of Antony 16 (Meyer, 33-34) [35] Ibid. , 70 (Meyer, 79) [36] Ibid. , 46 (Meyer, 59) [37] Ibid. , 81 (Meyer, 87) [38] See Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.XX.VII [39] “Gutenberg attaches itself to the left hemisphere [of the brain]; the oral, the acoustic and consequently the electric, to the right hemisphere” (Marshall McLuhan, The Medium and the Light: Reflections on Religion , 52). [40] Neil Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology , 185 [41] McLuhan, 50 [42] Romano Guardini, Letters from Lake Como: Explorations in Technology and the Human Race , 66 [43] Walter J. Ong, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word , 41 [44] Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization, Directory for Catechesis 366 [45] Guardini, 44 [46] Ibid. , 73 [47] Ibid. , 49 [48] Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization , Directory for Catechesis 372 [49] Timothy O’Malley, emphasizing the importance of liturgical participation to evangelization efforts, writes: “Liturgical prayer is essential to the new evangelization. Precisely, because in every liturgical rite, we human beings return to our vocation as those made in the image and likeness of God. We are capacitated for the kind of self-gift, which comes to transfigure society. Those who return to our sacramental life should encounter there a beautiful and humanizing liturgy, one that elevates the desires of the human heart, allowing them to become an offering of love to the Father. We are immersed in a cosmos in which the primary narrative is not one of grasping, seizing, but the prodigal logic of self-gift. Lay communities, connected to parishes, may incarnate this liturgical life in concrete ways in cities and rural areas as we seek to manifest to the world that wisdom of a Catholic life, given over to the sacramental logic of the triune God” ( Liturgy and the New Evangelization: Practicing the Art of Self-Giving Love , 132). [50] Lynch and Borras, 27-28 [51] Athanasius, The Life of Antony Prologue (Meyer, 17) [52] See Ibid. , 94 (Meyer, 98) [53] The ChatGPT -produced doxology reads: “Praise be to Antony, the desert’s sage, whose wisdom guided countless souls on pilgrimage. In solitude he found divine embrace, a beacon of light for all seeking grace. With fervent heart and humble ways, he taught love, compassion, and righteous praise. In Egypt’s sands, his spirit soared high, a timeless legacy that will never die. Amen.” [54] “Remove from your hearts the thoughts of evil and the pretentious images that darken the mind. Contemplate with understanding the great miracles of our blessed father, my great lord Abba Antony — this is he who became our guide and harbor for salvation; he invited us with joy to the eternal life. The fragrance of his virtues delighted our souls, like the blossomed aroma in the Paradise. Let us truly be confirmed in the upright faith of the great Antony, proclaiming and saying: ‘I sought and I found; I asked and I was given; I knocked and I believed that it will be opened for me’ ( see Matthew 7:7-8; Jerome, The Life of Paulus the First Hermit 9 ). Hail to our father Antony, the lamp of monasticism; hail to our father Abba Paul, the beloved of Christ. Pray to the Lord on our behalf, O my masters and fathers who love their children, Abba Antony and Abba Paul, that He may forgive us our sins” (Coptic Doxology for St. Antony). [55] See Zsupan-Jerome, xv [56] See John 6:63 — This paper is an adaptation of course work submitted for “Evangelization, Media, & Technology,” offered by Dr. Brett Robinson in Summer 2023 at the University of Notre Dame. I express my gratitude to Dr. Robinson for his helpful guidance and encouragement, and wish to acknowledge his efforts in the preparation and delivery of this course, which provided the framework of this paper and many resources used throughout. — Cover Art: Gawdat Gabra, The Treasures of Coptic Art, 94 (Coptic Icon depicting the visit of St. Antony (left) to St. Paul of Thebes (Old Cairo, Monastery of St. Mercurius)).

The Discourse which Saint Athanasius, Archbishop of Rakote, pronounced concerning the passage in the Gospel of Saint Matthew, “The kingdom which is in the heavens is like unto a rich man, who came out in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard.” The Lord says in the Gospel of Matthew: [1] The kingdom which is in the heavens is like unto a certain rich man, who came out in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. He made an agreement with the laborers [to pay them] a stater a day, [and] he sent them into his vineyard. He came out [again] at the third hour, and he saw others standing in the market, and they were idle. He said unto these others, “Go into my vineyard, and that of which you are worthy I will give unto you;” and they went in. He came out again at the sixth hour, and again at the ninth hour [and saw other laborers], and he did the same with these. When, however, he came out again at the eleventh hour, he saw others standing [in the market]. He said unto them, “For what reason do you stand in this place the whole day doing nothing?” They said unto him, “Because no man has hired us.” He said unto them, “Go into my vineyard.” Now let us inquire carefully, and let us learn what are these kinds of laborers, and what this vineyard is, and who is this master. In the first place, the Master in this vineyard is God the Father, who has governed His creatures (or, creation) from the beginning. And moreover, He speaks with them through the prophet who has made known to us that the vineyard of the Lord of Hosts is the House of Israel, and the men of Judah are the new and beloved plant. [2] The laborers whom He hired in the beginning are Moses, and Aaron, and Joshua the son of Nun. He called unto Moses in the land of Midian, saying, “Come, go down into Egypt, and you shall bring out My people from that land. And you shall labor in My vineyard in commandments, and decrees, and ordinances.” [3] And He covenanted with them for a stater, that is, Moses was to have the honorable rank of prophet, and Aaron was to hold the office of high priest over His people, and they were to serve [Him]. Those who were hired at the third hour were the Judges, whom He appointed to be over His people; “him of whom you are worthy will I give unto you.” They were not prophets, and they were not apostles, but they were those who were worthy of the title of ‘judge.’ Those who were hired at the sixth hour, and at the ninth hour, were Samuel, and David, and all the [other] Prophets. Samuel worked in the vineyard with a horn. [4] David transplanted a slip of the vine from the land of Egypt, and he cultivated it with the psaltery. Hosea found Israel to be like a vine in the desert in some respects, for he said, “Israel is a branch of a vine which is good, and his fruit is abundant.” [5] Those who were hired at the eleventh hour were the Apostles, whom He found to be idle the whole day. And they were idle in respect of the works of iniquity of all kinds, because no one had hired them, and the Devil could not hire them for the service of idols. He could not hire John the Baptist for the peddlers in the place of eating and drinking. Peter He could not hire for the service of unbelief. Andrew He could not hire in polluted marriage, and He could not make him to become the servant of a woman. For this reason he was called “Boanerges,” that is to say, “Son of the thunder of heaven.” [6] Therefore could no one hire them on earth to make them to work for him, and to give them wages according to what they were worth. Therefore were their wages abundant in the heavens. Therefore does the Savior say concerning all the Apostles, “O My Father, the men whom You have given Me from the world have I found to be chosen vessels.” [7] And again, “Of those whom You have given Me have I lost none,” [8] and, “No man is able to come to Me except through My Father, who has sent Me to draw him.” [9] Behold, these words make us to know that it is the Father who hires the laborers for His vineyard. Who is this Governor? I say, it is the Lord Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God, in whose hand are all the possessions of God, which is a mystery. His power is in Israel and in the other nations, for He Himself said, “The Father loves the Son, and has given everything into His hand.” [10] The Son says, “To Him belongs the inheritance.” The Governor says, “It is He who gives wages unto those who labor, and the whole world is under His rule.” Therefore the key of David is in His hand, and He is the vine. [11] Therefore it is He who rejoices in all His creatures. He is the Bread. [12] Therefore it is He who gives meat and drink to all His creation. Now when the evening had come, the lord of the vineyard said unto his steward, “Call the laborers, give them their wages; begin with the last and continue until you come to the first; give unto each a stater.” [13] The Father said to the Son, “Either at the last day or today, You know [best], call the laborers and give them their wages, all the laborers who have labored for the race of men, give them the wages of their work.” Paul says, “Now certain men God placed in the Church, the first being the Apostles,” [14] unto whom He began to give [their] wages; and the second were the Prophets, et cetera . The first [laborers] came, thinking that they would receive more [than the others]. Hearken unto Him, for He said, “I say unto you, very many of the Prophets and Kings have desired eagerly to see the things which you see, and have not seen them.” [15] The stater which He gave unto them was the honor of Apostleship, and the Holy Offering. And, the Scripture says, when they had taken the stater, they murmured against the lord of the vineyard and said, “Why is it? These last have only labored for one hour, and yet you have paid them the same amount as you have paid to us.” Now, who are these who murmured and were envious of the laborers who came in last except the scribes and Pharisees, who had themselves been sent to labor in the vineyard? It is against these that the Scripture cries out saying, “Why have you burned up My vineyard? And why are the possessions plundered from the poor in your houses?” [16] For they themselves received the Law as the commands of angels, but they did not keep it, and they murmured against the Lord saying, “The disciples of John and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast. [17] Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? They do not wash their hands when they eat their bread, [18] they eat, they drink, they make merry. Even the Apostles cut down the ears of corn [19] and eat before Your very face, and they wander about at large in the world.” It was these very men that murmured saying, “Why have Your disciples made the Sabbath to be of no effect?”, who were envious of these last who were the laborers in truth. And the lord [of the vineyard] made answer, and said unto one of them, “Friend, I have done you no injustice. Did I not agree with you for one stater? Take what is yours and depart.” [20] And who was it who made all these complaints? I say that it was none other than he unto whom it was said, “Friend, that for which you have come, do,” [21] that is to say, it was Judas, who betrayed the Savior, and who spoke with great murmurings saying, “Why did they not sell the ointment for three hundred staters and give them to the poor?” [22] If you did care for the poor, O betrayer, why did you steal their property from the money box of the treasury? Or was your eye evil because I am good? [23] Now because he was a wicked man he stole the money which was cast into it ( i.e. , the money box). And the Savior Himself was good to him, and He showed Himself long-suffering in respect of him, for He said unto him, “I have not the power to do what I wish with the offerings that they bring.” This was God’s defense of him: “I, who am God, have not the power to pay more wages than those which a man shall earn, and I judge those who shall work wickedness.” These are the testimonies, and the murmurings of Judas: he murmured with his tongue, and he was cruel and merciless in his heart. He was a wicked man in his soul, he was a thief with his hands, and he was shameless in respect of his eyes. And when they were eating, the Apostles watched that they might not let their hands touch those of the Savior in the bowl, for they were afraid, and said, “Who are we that we should eat with God?” But Judas, the man with no right perception, did not hesitate to put his hand into the bowl with the Savior, and he was eager to dip his piece of bread at the same time, and to eat before the Savior. The Savior said nothing in order that we might understand. When the disciples had asked Him, “Who, then, is it that shall betray You?” He gave them a sign of the lack of right perception in Judas, saying, “He who shall dip his hand with Me into the bowl first is he who shall betray Me,” [24] and He said unto him, “That which you shall do, do quickly.” [25] For the Savior made haste to work out the salvation of His creation on the Cross, according to the wish and commandment of His Father. You will not find that He put out of the way, or was careless about that for which He had come, or that He was afraid of death; but He made manifest His readiness for the Cross like a valiant martyr, and [as is fitting of] God who is without fear. Therefore did He urge Judas onward, saying, “That which you shall do, do quickly. Hasten onward, for all these created beings are hindered; they await you, and moreover, they await Me. Those beings who are in the heavens await Me, and those beings who are in the abyss and chaos await you. My Father is with Me, and He will help Me; the Devil is with you, and he stands by your side, at your right hand, and he will help you. Those who are in the gates which are in the heavens, that is, the holy angels, will crown Me, and the avenging powers are making Amente [26] ready for you.” And He urged him onward with these words, “Hasten, for I am ready for the whips (or, scourgings).” Rightly therefore did Esdras say, “The creature may not hasten more than the Creator.” [27] Now since Judas was he who should betray Him, why did He cry out to him, “Friend, I do you no injustice”? Though He said to him, “Your eye is evil, but I Myself am good,” the Savior did not withhold the speech of friendship from him until the hour in which he betrayed Him. He called him “friend,” but he thought of enmity. He gave him the bag that held the money, and he became a thief. He chose him as a disciple, but he meditated guile. He chose him as a man, but he became a devil. O Judas, what is it that you did? And what did you gain when you did betray the Lord? You wasted your life and lost this great honor — the glory of Apostleship. For who is above his lot? After the appellation of “Angel” comes the title of “Apostle.” Now a man hardly considers his son to be worthy to eat with him, yet it was a helpless servant who was made to eat with his God, and Jesus, our Lord, considered him to be worthy to do so. He ate with the tax-gatherers, and He drank with Judas, the lawless man, and a pestilent man reached out his hand with [that of] God. This wretched man lost his life, and accepted death for himself; he exalted himself above his worth, and he fell down on to the ground according to his worth. Jesus chose him with the Apostles, and he lost his Apostleship. He was chosen to be an heir, and he himself abandoned [his] inheritance. Now the Apostles were the heirs of the Savior, and they were the light of the world, but Judas did not wish to give forth light. They were the salt of the earth, but Judas did not wish to purge away what was polluted. They were those whom God set in the Church, but Judas did not wish to continue with them. Therefore he was removed from the measure of manhood, and he became the portion of the Devil. Woe to you, O Judas! In what did you benefit yourself? Better is Cain, who killed a man, than Judas, who killed God. Better is Saul, who hated a man, than Judas, who hated God. Better is the hardheartedness of Pharaoh towards the people than the hardheartedness of Judas towards God. Better is the deceit of Balaam than the wickedness of Judas. Better is the rebellious speech of Korah in the desert than the stiffneckedness of Judas in Jerusalem. Better is Achar (Achan), who stole the accursed thing, than Judas, who stole the gifts of charity. Better is the arrogance of Absalom in respect of David than the contumacy of Judas in respect of God. Better is the evil counsel to David of Ahitophel, who hanged himself and died, than the condemnation of Judas, who hanged himself and is in Tartaros [28] , against the Savior. Better, by far, are the cursings by Shimei of David than the scorn of the Savior by Judas. Of far less evil was the bloody murder by Joab, which he committed in sheer wickedness, than the murder by Judas, which he committed in pitilessness. Better is the love money by Gehazi, who became a leper, than the avariciousness of Judas, who went to destruction. The sin of Jeroboam was less than the wickedness of Judas, for Jeroboam [only] made false gods, but Judas rejected the True God. “Friend, I do you no injustice; take that which is yours and depart.” [29] O evil friend Judas, it was not the Savior who did you injustice, but you yourself; take your curse, and depart into Amente! Now with Judas being in this state, Matthias [30] entered in and received the blessing, and became a disciple of the Master in his stead. He became an Apostle, he preached, and he sent forth light into the countries [round about]. He made himself salt, and purified souls; he made himself a servant, and was in subjection to God; he became a beloved son of the Lord Jesus Christ, the King of all, the Lord of all, the Glory of all, who rules all, who shall judge all, who shows compassion upon all, who does acts of mercy to all, who sustains all, who destroys all, who transforms all, who makes all new, who makes all glad, and through whom all endures. And now, O man, come and embark in the ship of salvation, which is the faith of the Church. It has two steering oars, from which it is guided, and these are the Testaments, upon which, if you meditate, they will bring you to a good place for tying up your boat. It has a mast, which is the Cross of the Lord, and a rudder: these are your hands which are stretched out in prayer to God. It has a sail which bears it forward, that is the Power of God, which directs you into every good course. It has a guiding pole, which is the Bishop in the Church. It has a helmsman to steer it, who is Jesus, who directs the course of the universe. The sailors on board are the clergy who are in the Church and who minister. There is a cargo borne upon it, and these are the Christian people. You shall arrive in a port, in a fair haven, that is to say, the harbor of Jesus, which is the heavenly Jerusalem. You shall inherit the things promised by God, that is to say, His good things, and you shall rest yourself with your fellow citizens, who are the angels and all the saints. And now behold, O my brethren, we have passed the whole day in exercising ourselves in the word, so that we might at length set the matter, to which we put our hands, upon its feet. And now, let us give thanks unto God, and unto the Holy Spirit, who has opened for us our mouth in speech, and has put into our mouth the words, in order that we may say the things which the Logos has bestowed upon us, which will benefit greatly our own souls and the souls of those who hear us. Let us ascribe blessing to the Logos, who has blessed us with the Holy Spirit. It is He, moreover, who spoke saying, “When they speak with you, take no thought as to what you shall say, for it shall be given unto you in that hour what you shall say. For it shall not be you who shall speak, but the Spirit of our Father who shall speak in you.” [31] And now let us ascribe glory to God, God Almighty, who has sent unto us the King, the Christ, through whom we bless and praise the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit — the consubstantial Trinity, from all ages to all ages. Amen. — [1] Matthew 20:1-16 [2] Isaiah 5:7 [3] See  Exodus 3:10 [4] See  1 Samuel 16:13 [5] Hosea 10:1 [6] (Ed.) This could be a conflation of persons or a transcription error where the transcriptionist missed some line(s) where the speaker continues to name the disciples until he reaches James and John. The irregularity here is also acknowledged by the original translator, E.A. Wallis Budge, with a marginal note “ sic. ” and without further elaboration. [7] See  John 17:6 [8] John 17:12; 18:9 [9] John 6:44 [10] John 3:35 [11] See  John 15:1 [12] See  John 6:35 [13] See  Matthew 20:8 [14] 1 Corinthians 12:28 [15] Matthew 13:17 [16] Isaiah 3:14 [17] Matthew 9:14 [18] Matthew 15:2 [19] Matthew 12:1 [20] Matthew 20:13 [21] John 13:27 [22] Mark 14:5 [23] See  Matthew 20:15 [24] Matthew 26:23 [25] John 13:27 [26] Hades, or Sheol. [27] 2 Esdras 5:44 [28] Hades, or Sheol. [29] Matthew 20:13, 14 [30] Acts 1:26 [31] Matthew 10:19-20 — E.A. Wallis Budge, Coptic Homilies in the Dialect of Upper Egypt: Edited From the Papyrus Codex Oriental 5001 in the British Museum, 80-89,   226-234 (Minor adaptations to the original translation have been made, primarily modernizing archaic terminology for ease of reading).  To access the original: https://archive.org/details/coptichomiliesin00budgrich . DossPress.com  is a place for Christian men and women to collaborate for the sake of our common edification by sharing their written works. As we strive to uphold a standard of doctrinal and spiritual soundness in the articles shared, we note nonetheless that the thoughts expressed in each article remain the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Doss Press.