Talk:Athanasius of Alexandria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

An event mentioned in this article is a May 9 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

Contents

[edit] Broken Picture

At least to me, the picture on this page does not appear. Does someone have the know how to fix this? Thanks Andy 05:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Athanasius

To maintain NPOV, sources should probably be added to counterbalance strong claims currrently being made in the criticisms section. An argument "built up and perpetuated" by violence? If you read On the Incarnation which predates the Arian controversy, it seems to be an argument that could stand on its own merits. I don't know enough to evaluate such claims, so I'll leave them stand, but I'm going to check into it. Evan Donovan 07:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you may have misread the sentence:
In Alexandria, he assembled an 'ecclesiastical mafia' that could instigate a riot in the city if needed. It was an arrangement 'built up and perpetuated by violence.'
The arrangement that was built up and perpetuated by violence was his power base in the city. However, to be clear I am claiming that he used violence and force to stamp out Arianism. Feel free to check to the two scholarly sources I cite. I feel that these additions are an attempt to begin to balance out the rest of the article that makes him out to be a saint. ;-) mennonot 00:11, 4 November 2005
Would you be amenable to noting that the murder charge mentioned "didn't stick" because his supposed victim showed up at the trial? That section seems to contain a lot of innuendo. Also, I was under the impression that at least some of the riots were caused by out of town monks that entered Alexandria, rather than any kind of established organization within the city. Did the sources you mention connect Athanasius with either Just War theory or the Inquisition? Wesley 05:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy to have any additional facts added if you have sources for them as I'm interested in reading more about this aspect of Athanasius. I don't see the current criticisms as innuendo, because it doesn't infer anything or work obliquely, it directly states that he used violence to try to stamp out those he didn't agree with theologically. Innuendo would be to say, for example, that his opponents "mysteriously disappeared."
The sources I read didn't connect Athanasius with the Just War theory or the inquisition, but they were historical sources, not theological or philosophical ones. I'll be glad to do some more research to place Athanasius into the broader development of the just war theory and other theories and practices of violence if that would be helpful. mennonot 09:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
If the sources available don't connect him with the just war theory or inquisition, that bit seems like a bit of original research, so I'll remove it. I'll see whether I can find a source about his supposed murder victim showing up at trial. Wesley 22:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I am pleased with the current approach taken by the Criticism section. It's balanced, and both sides have cites to back them up. I wish I knew more about the argument so I could judge it myself, but unfortunately, all I know is what I learned about Athanasius in college. Evan Donovan 21:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why we post the criticism section; if O.J. Simpson is innocent then so is Athanasius. Why keep rehashing this? 24.247.148.105 04:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This keeps being rehashed because unlike our judicial system the study of history allows, and is in fact all about, double jeopardy; redefining and reinterpreting historical sources. If historians did not do this, most of what we now know about world history would be very one sided, racist, and incomplete. There is evidence to suggest Athanasius was not the most honest of characters, there is also evidence that says he was. If you do not agree with the former position please post more information that illustrates the latter; the more information the better. Then we can allow people to read both sides, and come to their own conclusions. I personally believe that Athanasius was not always of pure intentions, and may have committed crimes, but I also believe that the three specific charges against him can not be completely proven (they could still be true though). I believe they are worth mentioning because some people did believe them, and because they are interesting. He certainly misrepresents the Arians, but that, I suppose, is another argument. mattf123 22:22, 24 April 2007 (EST)

[edit] Criticism Part II

Hey Mennonot I was wanting to get the specific pasages from Eusebius biblo] As why is this not same line of reasoning that Timothy Barnes took when he wrote Athanasius and Constantius? LoveMonkey 16:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nag Hammadi texts

I think the reference to the Nag Hammadi texts is incorrect and should be changed.

If you study the history of the Christian canon, it is clear that by the 4th century the only books still in dispute were "minor" books such as 2 and 3 John, Revelation, Esther, the books now in the Catholic OT, etc. There was no dispute about which Gospels were canonical, and this had been undisputed since at least the mid-2nd century.

In the wake of Irenaeus's Adversus haeresis, (ca 185): at the beginning of the 3rd century would be more accurate...

There is absolutely no evidence that any religious groups in the 3rd and 4th century used a collection of holy books which included parts of the NT and also Gnostic texts. Whoever used the Nag Hammadi texts as scripture were not part of the catholic Christian church, and therefore any letter by a bishop of that Church would have had no bearing on them.

Quite mainstream communities were reading in churches the Shepherd of Hermas, the Diatesseron, Didache the Apocalypse of Peter in the 3rd and 4th century...

Exactly my point. Athanasius' decree was sent out to his followers, who were "mainstream" Christians. It is conceivable that as a result of his decree, they discarded copies of Shepherd, Didache, etc. None of these books were found at Nag Hammadi. Therefore whoever hid the Nag Hammadi cache was not a mainstream Christian group and did not recognize the authority of Athanasius. Lawrence King 05:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Athanasius' list ruled out orthodox non-canonical books such as the Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, the Didache, and the OT books which Protestants call "Apocrypha". None of these were included in the Nag Hammadi cache.

Therefore Athanasius' canon had no bearing on the Nag Hammadi history. Lawrence King 00:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Quite to the contrary, these were the very books that were hidden away. Wetman 04:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Not true. None of these books (Shepherd, Didache, Esther, Judith) were found at Nag Hammadi. Here is the complete list of Nag Hammadi texts. Lawrence King 05:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm doing research on Athanasius for a church history project at the moment, and I'd agree it does seem a little strange. In fact the remnant of the XXXIX festal letter written by Athanasius in 367 (available on http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-93.htm#P9700_3475833) makes no mention of 'rendering up' any books. Athanasius writes that some books are frauds; others are useful to read but not among those books he considers "fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness." I can't find any reliable website or material that does say he demanded that his province hand over their books.
222.152.206.89

Okay, I am removing the sentence.

Your edit changing it to NPOV rendered the text as follows:

In a portion of the letter lost from historical records (only a fragment of the letter remains), it is theorized he required the monasteries of Egypt to render up all books in their libraries that were not on his approved list.

This was definitely NPOV, but it illustrated that this theory has no actual evidence in its favor.

Athanasius' His letter (available at the link you gave above, and also at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806.htm -- search for "XXXIX") says nothing about burning or destroying books. Could there have been a lost portion that said this? I don't see how. Consider: His list excluded the books sometimes called apocrypha or deuterocanonicals, and it also excluded Esther. It is absolutely certain that Egyptian Christians continued to use the book of Esther as well as the deuterocanonicals after Athanasius. Therefore no such decree was made. Lawrence King 09:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Lest the casual reader of Wikipedia be led astray by this confident chat, the external link mentioned— http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806.htm —is the website that offers the Catholic Encyclopedia and expurgated patristic writings: its main page is http://www.newadvent.org/ The site includes excerpts from the letters that do not include the parts calling upon Christians to "cleanse the Church from every defilement" and to reject the apocryphal books "filled with myths, empty and polluted." --Wetman 04:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

First of all, these quotes are probably fictional. There are many copies of the Church Fathers' writings on the web. But a Google search for the quote you cited turns up only one entry: a paper refuting Elaine Pagels' claim that this quote comes from Athanasius.

William Jurgens' Faith of the Early Fathers vol. 1 pp. 341-2 has a long excerpt from the letter. In the letter, Athanasius refers to the following extra books by name: "the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach [Ecclesiasticus], and Esther, and Judith, and Tobias [Tobit], and the Teaching attributed to the Apostles [Didache], and the Shepherd." Athanasius writes that these books are not included in the canon, "but are recommended for reading". Hardly a demand that they be burnt!

He then writes, "No mention whatever need be made of the Apocrypha, which are the inventions of heretics." Here he almost certainly is referring to works such as those at Nag Hammadi. In other words, Athanasius' letter says nothing new about these books -- like all catholic churchmen in the 3rd and 4th century, he rejects them. This rejection can be found in many other church fathers. Hence the burden of proof lies with anyone who claims the Nag Hammadi books were hidden in response to Athanasius' letter. The much simpler hypothesis is that they were hidden in response to Emperor Theodosius' making catholic Christianity the Roman state religion, which happened 24 years after this letter. Lawrence King 05:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A stupid question, I know, but...

I know this is going to come across as a stupid question, but... the article says that Athanasius (would Athanasios be the Greek spelling?) is venerated in the Roman Catholic Church and is celebrated by the Protestant movements. What I would like to know though, is should he be seen as part of the Byzantine tradition and if not, why not? ThePeg 17:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

He is venerated in the Eastern Orthodox Church as St. Athanasius the Great. His Feast days are Jan. 18 and May 2. MishaPan 09:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It is an anachronism to say he was a Patriarch.

I think that he was an Archbishop, but I am not sure. Definitely not a Patriarch though. 89.210.15.179 23:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The Patriarchates (at least the first four, including Alexandria) were established at the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea in 325, so Athanasius would be the first Archbishop of Alexandria to use the title of Patriarch. I'm not sure when the Archbishops of Alexandria began to be called Popes, but I suspect it was even earlier than 325. Anybody have any information about this? MishaPan 09:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Constantinian Shift?

Near the end, the article says "He played a clear role in making the Constantinian shift a part of the theology of the church." This should really be removed, because it is not NPOV. The theory of the "Constantinian Shift" (as is evident from the article linked to) reflects the view of a particular sectarian stance, and is not neutral. MishaPan 09:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three oe Four Discourses Against the Arians?

In the HISTORY section of this article, it is stated that Athanasius wrote something called "Three Discourses Against the Arians". are you sure that this is not suppose to be "Four Discourses Against the Arians"?

[edit] Article seems to contain mostly criticism and very little history

This article seems quite hostile to the subject. Most of the article deals with criticism and controversy with the exceptions of a boyhood anecdote and a tiny section mentioning merely the titles of a few of his works. In the begining, there needs to be a brief overview of 5 or 6 reasons why he is significant. The opening section tells that he was declared a doctor of the church but you never really find out why and there is almost no discussion of his writings or beliefs. I think it would also be helpful if there was a little bit more about what the arians believed. --Victoria h 00:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Much of the content seems to be more a defense of Arianism rather than content directly related to the subject himself. Personally, I would welcome seeing such content, but believe that the page on Arius or Arianism would probably be the more appropriate place for most of it. I will shortly be trying to restructure the article more in keeping with the prevailing norms of biographies, and that will likely alter the content of the page dramatically. John Carter 18:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I note that the existing article has virtually no content regarding the life of the subject. I also note that it contains at least a few statements which strike me as being at least POV, and possibly contradictory to other content. I note for instance that the article as it stands seems to imply that Alexander was the first Patriarch to express opposition to Arius, when in fact I have a source in the Coptic Encyclopedia that Peter of Alexandria, two patriarchs earlier, may have excommunicated Arius for his beliefs. The existing content would seem to indicate that the troubles began with Alexander. It also mentions the large number of bishops who supported Arius, despite the fact that the Nicene Council did in fact, declare him anaethema, indicating even more bishops opposed him. I have started a revision of the article at User:Warlordjohncarter/Sandbox, using only sources which I am sure would qualify as NPOV. My question is should the content of that page be added to the current one, and how if at all should the current content be revised for inclusion, and whether any of it might be removed on the basis of undue weight. I'd be really happy with any responses. John Carter 19:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Eusebius suggests that Arius was involved in the Meletian controversy, but doesn't say much. Eusebius, Philostorgius, and Socrates Scholasticus all begin their accounts of the Arian controversy with the controversy between Alexander and Arius. Jacob Haller 21:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The source used by the Coptic Encyclopedia seems to be primarily the History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, although I acknowledge that is slightly speculative on my part, not having a copy here. The other comments, regarding Athanasius engaging in "gangster" type activity, also, based on the sources I have found to date, seem to be less than well supported with the othe sources I have found. Those statements, which seem to impugn Athanasius and possibly(?) advocate the position of Arius, are my primary concerns. I will not say that they are completely unbased, but the same source seems to indicate that Arius' side engaged in at least as much activity of that type. John Carter 21:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, there were more than two sides, and, in my reading, the "gangsterism" peaked well after Arius died. My best suggestion is to double-check the criticisms section and integrate specific events with the main sections. Jacob Haller 01:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree this should focus on Athanasius' bio and not on the Arian controversy. Jacob Haller 01:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added the biographical data. One problem with some of the content of the older sections I see is that, at least to me, some of it might fit better into one or more of the other articles about the subject. The content which states that Arius' beliefs were more or less unremarkable in terms of their orthodoxy, for instance. I was wondering if it might be better to remove such content to maybe the Arianism or Arius page, and maybe place a navbos, which would look something like the currently very crude Template:Arianism, on all the relevant articles, so that people would know how to find the related content. John Carter 14:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
There is questions by many scholars about whether the Arius referred to during the Melitian Schism is in fact the same Arius, and I believe that either way it's hard to argue that undeniable tension began during Alexander's ascension to the bishopric. I wrote quite a bit of the sections dealing with Athanasius' character and the Arian Controversy, but I can understand the need for some changes in the article. John Carpenter's looks pretty good and even handed, but maybe a section could be added to the bottom that illustrates the arguments and controversy's about his character? I think explaining the arguments surrounding his life is important, because both sides have a completely different take on who he was, what he did, and why he is important. Mattf123 10 August 2:09pm
I expect that the content directly relating to Athanasius will remain, including the apparent controversy over the election, his behavior, etc. Regarding the controversy about Arius' identity, this is the first I've ever heard of that. If you can point out sources regarding such information, let me know. I'll look for such myself as well. I would think that most of that content would probably be better placed in the Arius article, though. And, for what it's worth, I work primarily with articles relating to saints. If you didn't already know this, Arius was listed as a saint by the Roman Catholic Church (under another name) for several hundred years, so I'm fairly sure that I'll be dealing with that article as well. As to whether the controversy began under Athansius, that I think is debatable given the sources which indicate that Arius had possibly (?) been excommunicated, at least censured, by Pope Peter of Alexandria and had in an unpopular move been reinstanted by Pope Achillas. Also, the First Council of Nicaea happened under Athanasius' predecessor, and I can't help but think that a lot of the tension probably arose around that time. Regarding the claims regarding his character (I assume Athanasius's?), those are, I think understandably, judgement calls at this stage, particularly in determining what constitutes Wikipedia:Undue weight in this instance. Questions regarding his activities, however, can and do belong in the article. Regarding the fact that Arius's ideas weren't criticized before he enunciated them, all the sources I've seen agree to that, and I expect to see that included somewhere. The evidence seems to indicate that Arius was espousing what might be called "Antiochean" thinking in Alexandria, and that politics (including Alexandria's losing "second city" status to Constantinople) and other factors might have played some role there. How much of that belongs in this article, and how much in other articles, though, is a question. John Carter 18:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't have the sources with me right now, I agree that mention can be made that Arius may have been involved in a controversy earlier on, but my point was that the Arian Controversy really took shape under Alexander. While he may have taken sides during the Melitian Schism that was more of a political than a theological issue, and if Arius was suspected of heresy earlier, those charges were clearly not of much concern to Alexander at first. This is illustrated in the fact that Alexander appointed Arius to preach at the parish of Baucalis. I personally question whether a bishop would appoint someone once suspected of heresy, or at least being on the wrong side of a schism, to preach to the impressionable public, but it shows that Arius was in good standing at the beginning of Alexander's reign, and that tensions between him and Alexander are what caused the Arian Controversy. I really like your ideas on how the article should be structured, and its nice to see someone who agrees that a good portion of Arius's views weren't radical in the context of early Christianity (I believe that this is what you are stating). However, I personally diagree that Arius can be associated with Antiochean thinking, and it appears that many scholars have recently thrown out this idea.
for examples see:
Williams, Rowan. Arius: Heresy and Tradition (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1987)30.
Charles Kannengiesser “Athanasius of Alexandria vs. Arius: The Alexandrian Crisis” in The Roots of Egyptian Christianity, ed. Birger A. Pearson and James E. Goehring (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 208.
Williams and Kannengeisser seem to believe that Anotiochean thinkers would have disagreed with Arius on many aspects of his theology. However, they beleive his beliefs were in line with conservative Alexandrian thinkers.
I'll look for those sources. For what it's worth, though, I've seen how it was Pope Achillas of Alexandria who appointed Arius to the post at Baucalis, possibly in some sort of "peacekeeping" move? I'm assuming that's based on the History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, but the source I used didn't indicate what it's own ultimate source was there, and I can't find a copy of the book itself. John Carter 19:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I've also found one other source with makes it's first mention of Arius regarding Alexander. On this basis, I'm beginning to question where the statements about Peter and Achillas are from. Unfortunately, I have no direct access to the History of the Patriarchs. However, I do know at least one Copt here on wikipedia, and I'm leaving that editor, User:Ghaly, a message asking if s/he can verify one way or another whether that info is included in the History. Also, there does seem to be some question regarding possibly conflicting sources here. On that basis, I'm also contacting one of our most trusted and informed editors on Christianity, User:Pastordavid, for any input he might have on this matter. With any luck, we'll be hearing from them soon. At this point, the main concerns to me seem to be how reliable the sources saying the tensions began before Alexander are and, depending on their reliability, how much weight should be given to the various viewpoints. John Carter 15:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

History is one of my greatest interests, and so I have CONCRETE EVIDENCE that Pope St. Peter of Alexandria was the first who encountered and rejected Arius. On the Synaxarium, it says directly:

“ Also in the days of this Pope (Peter), Arius the heretic appeared and St. Peter advised him several times to turn from his wicked thoughts, but he would not hearken to him. Consequently, he excommunicated him and prevented him from the fellowship of the church. ”

The Coptic Synaxarium is one of the most accurate recordings of the History of the Coptic Papacy. The first was evidently Pope St. Peter, the Seal of the Martyrs. If anyone speaks against this fact, then that contradicts the Synaxarium.

  • Under the History of the Coptic Patriarchs, by Severus, it says:
“ So he went to certain priests and deacons and many of the laity, and begged them to visit the prison, that they might throw themselves at the feet of the patriarch, and pray him to set Arius loose from his bonds of excommunication. Now they thought that Arius made this request out of piety, and therefore they consented to his petition. So they entered into the prison, and cast themselves down before Peter, and prayed: Then they made prostrations to him, and besought him to loose Arius from his bonds. But the patriarch cried out with a loud voice : «Do you intercede with me for Arius?» Then he raised his hands and said : «Arius shall be at this time, and in the time to come, excluded from the glory of the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ». ”

The Synaxarium date which I mentioned is here, and the other piece is here.

I believe that there is nothing that says that Pope Peter was not the first, and so this proves my point. ~ Troy 20:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I contacted a few others as well. My profound thanks to Troy for the very quick response above. I do look forward to comments from others about how we should deal with these apparently directly contradictory sources. John Carter 22:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


On one of the sources I gave you (The History of the Coptic Patriarchs...), I stopped at the part where Pope Peter said that Arius was forever excommunicated. Papa Peter went on about letting his successors (Achillas & Alexander) know about these dangerous heresies and warned them of heretics. After He finished, it says that Pope Peter's head got cut off — proof of the fact that this happened in the year 311. It also says that in Encyclopedia Americana (Copyright 1997) on pp. 207. It says directly:
“ Arius was a deacon when he was excommunicated in 311 by Peter, patriarch of Alexandria, for supporting the schismatic views of Meletius of Lycopolis. ”
Please bear in mind that this same encyclopedia (at that time) still considered the Oriental Orthodox to be monophysites. However, I found it to be more accurate on any Coptic issues before the schism. This is coupled with the indirect reference on the History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria which I have just mentioned. If there are any contradictions, I think we should look at the primary Coptic sources first (like the ones I gave you), since this is about a Coptic Pope. I am, however, looking forward to studying what the other sources say (Ghaly's point shouldn't go unnoticed). When I came about arguments against Pope Dioscorus, I lambasted the whole page with the Oriental Orthodox opinion on St. Dioscorus. When it comes to Saint Athanasius, though, there is no doubt about him when it comes to rejecting the Arian heresy. P.S., don't hesitate to call me if you need sources for these disputes. ~ Troy 01:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The History of the Patriarchs dates to the 10th century. Let's look at the earlier histories. Socrates Scholasticus, Philostorgius (albeit in epitome), and even Theodoret all begin the controversy in the episcopate of Alexander. Sozomen associates Arius with Meletius as has Peter excommunicate the Meletians and excommunicate Arius for criticizing the excommunication, and has Achillas reinstate Arius, and then ordain him presbyter. Eusebius is ambiguous. Jacob Haller 05:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is true. However, Eusebius of Caesarea can be considered an explicitly biased source, as I have seen that he is said to have attended school with Arius and actively supported him. (I promise to work on the Arius and Peter of Alexandria articles soon, by the way, to source these statements). Also, those other sources may have been only tracing the controversy back to the time when it became an issue for Christianity as a whole, ignoring the somewhat less relevant "local" prehistory. And while I can accept the argument about the comparative lateness of the extant version of the Coptic sources, there's an unresolvable question as to whether they used then-extant sources themselves. I'm not really sure how to deal with issues like this, though. John Carter 14:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure how this is relevant to Athanasius, but you could cite Sozomen and Eusebius, as well as the Coptic sources, that Arius had some involvement with the Meletians. If it is important to this article, does it really matter whether the Arius was involved with the Meletians before the Arian controversy, so long as he was during it. The latter claim should be easier to support. Jacob Haller 17:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pope Athanasius I of Alexandria?

Surely Athanasius of Alexandria will suffice? InfernoXV 06:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate - having him at Pope Athanasius I of Alexandria is unnecessary. Nobody's trying to move St Peter to Pope Peter I of Rome, for example. InfernoXV 06:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. He is still a pope and you can't deny that. Besides, the redirects were already in place. I constantly have to explain why ppl shouldn't keep reverting my edits, so excuse me if I seem rude (I reverted it back). Lastly, almost all (if not all) of the other Popes of Alexandria go by the title "Pope XXX of Alexandria" as per Wikipedia Naming Conventions (with the exception of St. Mark, since being an Evangelist is a greater title than being Pope of Alexandria). ~ Troy 05:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
He's far better known in English as Athanasius of Alexandria. Ditto for Cyril of Alexandria. Naming conventions also state that wiki should stick with the most commonly known form of a person's name, no? InfernoXV 05:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd add that I have no interest in denying that he was pope of Alexandria, otherwise I'd have attempted to remove the references in the article itself, which I haven't done. Having redirects in place doesn't mean they can't be moved. Simply preferring the article be at the most easily recognisable form of his name 'Athanasius of Alexandria' is not in anyway a denial of his office or disrespect for the Coptic Church and her traditions (I happen to be a student of Coptic myself). -- InfernoXV (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
In this case, I agree that the most relevant naming convention is probably the one which states that an article should be named according to the name by which the individual is best known, unless that were to involve some disambiguation. The majority of the editors of wikipedia will know the subject best as either Saint Athanasius of Alexandria or Athanasius of Alexandria. Naming conventions couterindicate using Saint in article names where such is avoidable, so that would leave Athanasius of Alexandria as the name by which the subject is best known. I acknowledge that redirects exist for all these names, but I'm not sure that necessarily trumps the policy regarding naming conventions, which says in its nutshell, "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Ambiguity doesn't seem to be much of a factor in this case, so the first clause, regrding "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize", is probably the part to follow. John Carter 16:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Alright then. I (being one person) am not going to argue with all of you.
As far as I'm concerned (so far, at least), I only know the basics for naming conventions. I'm not good with major exceptions to that system.
You should all know, however, that I was not the one who originally moved the article to "Pope Athanasius I of Alexandria".
Peace,

[edit] Opening line

In light of the immediately preceding discussion, I propose that we make the first title "Athanasius of Alexandria", to conform with the article's title. Just move Pope Athanasius I of Alexandria to the list following this title. Any objections? Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well then, I'm doing it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)