machine-draft · no human review4 passages · 1,009 words
Work dossier · summary and historical context
Summary
This homily by Athanasius of Alexandria offers a scriptural exposition on the phrase 'Nunc anima mea' (Psalm 118:20 LXX), blending allegorical interpretation with moral exhortation. It explores Christ's dual nature—divine impassibility and human passion—using metaphors such as honey-water to illustrate the union without confusion. The work reflects Athanasius's Christological concerns, likely countering Arian or docetic views, and emphasizes human deification through Christ's condescension. Surviving in a single medieval manuscript tradition, the homily was later cited in Byzantine catenae and florilegia for monastic and liturgical instruction.
The homily is significant for its nuanced Christology, using the honey-water metaphor to articulate the coexistence of divine and human in Christ without mixture or destruction. It illustrates Athanasius's soteriological emphasis on deification through Christ's condescension and counters docetic or Arian interpretations of Christ's emotions. Its later use in Byzantine catenae shows its enduring value for monastic and liturgical instruction.
Historical context
The homily is traditionally assigned to Athanasius's episcopate in Alexandria (328–373 CE), but no external evidence confirms a specific date or occasion. It survives in a single medieval manuscript tradition; the khazarzar edition relies on a 17th-century printed edition without critical collation of all witnesses. The text is in Greek, the language of Athanasius's corpus, and belongs to the genre of exegetical homily. Its transmission through Byzantine catenae and florilegia indicates use in monastic and liturgical settings for spiritual instruction. The homily's Christological arguments align with Athanasius's broader anti-Arian polemic, though specific opponents are not named. The lack of a critical apparatus and variant readings limits certainty about the original text.
term — a Coptic word and the rendering chosen for it
scripture — a biblical quotation or allusion
background — historical or institutional context the text presupposes
structure — the passage's function in the work
caution — uncertainty or a contested reading
reception — later use — liturgy, canon law, daughter versions
Pipeline notes
coverageNo English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed.
limitThe English is a machine draft produced passage by passage from the transcribed Coptic; no human has verified it. The commentary is model-written and cites only keys the pipeline could resolve.
registerRegister: homily in ancient Greek; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them.
structurePassages: 4 narrative.
sourceSource edition: khazarzar — Migne PG text (public domain); khazarzar host and the digitising project state no licence for this layer
The benefit of the Lord's likeness to us is great, because we also are made like him. For if he himself had not been made like human beings, humans could not be made like God. But humans are made like God who has become man. And he who descends to our likeness must be made like us especially in that respect in which we stood in need of change. We stood in need of change in respect of the passions, that these might be transformed into impassibility. Let no one disbelieve concerning the passions, thinking that the divinity is altered, but let him consider that the passion accrues to it from the movement of the flesh and the soul, and that it both accrues and is overcome. For it has accrued for this reason, that it might be overcome; and from this it has been overcome, that the whole nature of human beings might be benefited according to its kinship. For beginning from that point, we are all transformed from those who suffer into those who are impassible, and from the dead we are established as living. Therefore let no one be disturbed into disbelief if the Lord, being God and also man, says, "Now my soul is troubled." For this happened because the divinity yielded, while the flesh was being raised; it was possible for the divinity to prevent the disturbance, but it did not wish to, lest it dissolve the likeness to us. Something of this sort is to be understood from our own affairs: honey mixed with water—the honey is not changed, but the water has predominated. So when there is some movement of the flesh in the Lord, let us take a likeness of this sort, as of water predominating in a honey-mixture. But when again the divine aspect is manifested, and it works miracles, and shows its authority, let us take a likeness of this sort, as of the honey prevailing over the water.
For this is possible for the divinity: at times to yield to the flesh so that it prevails, at other times to overcome it, abolishing the passion and the weakness of the flesh. A proof is that for forty whole days it abstains from bodily food and the body does not hunger. For after this, as it is written, it became hungry. Here there is an excess of the flesh; then it became hungry after such a time. The flesh prevailed for this reason, so that a trial might be presented, and the tempter be put to shame, and the human being who from the beginning fell through food might rise through abstinence from food. It also bears the disturbance of the flesh at the approach of death. And how was it to become obedient, fulfilling our obedience on our behalf, unless it also encountered opposition and overcame that opposition? For when some opposition from the flesh arises in us, if we disobey the command, being conquered by the flesh, sin occurs in this way. Therefore in the Lord, the opposition from the flesh had to occur, but obedience had to conquer. For even though he is God, yet he is in the flesh and fulfills obedience according to the flesh, and the will of the flesh is overcome by the will of the divinity, just as he said: "I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of the Father who sent me," calling his own will that of the flesh. For the flesh has become his own; for the divine will of the Son is not separate from the will of God. But the will of the flesh had to be set in motion and then subjected to the divine will.
And thus the disobediences of human beings are resolved through this paradoxical obedience, which Christ obeyed on our behalf. Now observe, when the fleshly impulse arose, what he says: "And what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour. But for this reason I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name." The words "What shall I say? Father, save me from this hour" he uttered according to the movement of the flesh; the words "for this reason I came to this hour" are uttered by the divinity prevailing, almost not even allowing the fleshly will to appear. For the phrase "What shall I say?" is like a word of one checking himself, so that it might be shown to us that the flesh is real, yet subordinated, and unable to distract, like a horse its rider, nor even to cause the guiding hand to slacken. And indeed, what does the passion consider? Not disgrace, not shame, but glory for himself and the Father. And it rather hastens the passion than averts it. "Father, glorify your name": there will be, he says, no refusal on my part, but that which refuses will yield, and that which does not refuse will prevail. For the fleshly nature refuses death, and this was in Christ, since the Word truly became flesh; but the divine will chooses the salvation of the world, which death accomplished. Then the words "that I may do the will of the one who sent me" appear to be fulfilled. Christ says: "Father, glorify your name," and the answer from heaven: "I have glorified, and I will glorify again," so that we may know that there is no separation, no division between the Father and the Son.
Rather, that we might gain our union with God, which came about in Christ. For there is no human being who has not separated himself from the will of God in some respect, either in deed or in time. But in Christ alone was the inseparability of the will preserved; following whom we gain the union with God and the saving unity according to his likeness, according to the likeness of the divine union, as he himself said: "I and the Father are one," so that these also may be one in us.
Citation. Tergwame, “Homilia in illud Nunc anima mea”, khazarzar-athanasius-the-great-of-alexandria-homilia-in-illud-nunc-anima-mea:1, machine-draft, 2026. https://naxiai.com/christian/works/khazarzar-athanasius-the-great-of-alexandria-homilia-in-illud-nunc-anima-mea#s1
Colophon. Source: khazarzar ·
licence: Migne PG text (public domain); khazarzar host and the digitising project state no licence for this layer ·
model: deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor ·
provider: Relace ·
cost: $0.0027 ·
generated 2026-11-15.