Disclaimer. This article is the work of an amateur, not a professional. Its purpose is to trace the origin of manuscripts published in the mid-20th century, which claim authorship by the Orthodox saint Athanasius the Great (c. 295–373). Additionally, the content of the epistles will be analyzed for consistency with Orthodox doctrine. The article is a work in progress and may be revised and expanded as further clarifications and research are made.
The digitization of the Coptic text and its translation into Russian and English were prepared by the author of this article.
Text of the Epistles
Epistle 41
English text: #HH-Английский-текст1
Coptic text: #HH-Коптский-текст
French text: #HH-Французский-текст
Russian text: #HH-Русский-текст1
Epistle 42
English text: #HH-Английский-текст1
Coptic text: #HH-Коптский-текст
French text: #HH-Французский-текст
Russian text: #HH-Русский-текст1
On the Festal (Easter) Epistles of St. Athanasius the Great (c. 295–373)
From ancient times to the present day, the hierarchs of the Orthodox Church have had the custom of writing instructive epistles on the occasion of major feast days, the greatest of which is the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ—that is, Pascha (Easter). St. Athanasius the Great followed this practice in addressing his flock. He endeavored to write epistles every year, though for various reasons he was not always able to do so, and thus some were omitted. These texts were written in the author’s native language (Greek) and have survived to this day in the works of a 6th-century writer—Cosmas Indicopleustes—though not all of them and not always in full. Later, Syriac translations also became known.
The main theme of the epistles is Pascha, but Athanasius the Great also touches on other subjects. For instance, in his 39th Epistle, written in 367, he provides the canon of Holy Scripture—the names of the sacred books recognized by the Church as divinely inspired.
Greek Epistles Nos. 41 and 42
Epistle No. 41 was entirely unknown to scholars until recently, while No. 42 (dated 370 AD) has survived only as a small fragment:
"For we are among the called, brethren, and are now gathered by Wisdom (into one), according to the Gospel parable, to this great and heavenly Supper, which transcends the world and suffices for all creation—namely, to Passover—to Christ, Who was sacrificed. 'For Christ our Passover... was sacrificed' (1 Cor. 5:7)."
[missing fragment] ...those who adorn themselves thus shall hear: 'Enter into the joy of thy Lord!'
(Festal Epistle 42, fragment)
Letter XLII. (For 370.) For we have been called, brethren, and are now called together, by Wisdom, and according to the Evangelical parable, to that great and heavenly Supper, and sufficient for every creature; I mean, to the Passover,—to Christ, Who is sacrificed; for ‘Christ our Passover is sacrificed.’
[And afterwards] They, therefore, that are thus prepared shall hear, ‘Enter into the joy of thy Lord’.
(Letter XLII) (alternative source)
The Emergence of Coptic Translations
In the mid-20th century (1955), two French scholars published ancient texts in the Coptic language. In their view, the author of these texts was Athanasius the Great. The names of these scholars are:
Lefort — Louis Théophile Lefort (1879–1959) (L. Th. Lefort)
Goquin — René-Georges Coquin (1886–1961) (French Coptologist)
Among these publications are significant portions of Epistles 41 and 42.
Analysis
Authorship
Having studied the epistles, one might reasonably assume that their author could indeed be St. Athanasius. However, since these epistles have not yet been sufficiently researched, and there are arguments both for and against Athanasius’ authorship, we should not dismiss the possibility that the texts may have belonged to another author. For this reason, the author of the epistles will henceforth be referred to simply as "the author of the epistles" or "the author," without naming him.
The reasons for doubting Athanasius' authorship are as follows:
Not About Pascha. The text of Epistle 41 does not address the theme of Pascha at all. Epistle 42 speaks about the dates of fasting and Paschal celebration.
Uncharacteristic Themes. Both Epistle 41 and 42 (which we will discuss later) raise the issue of attitudes toward human remains with the author's evident indignation, indicating his deep concern about this matter. Yet this theme of treatment of human remains does not appear in any other festal epistle of Athanasius the Great, nor indeed in any of his other works - except for the Life of Anthony the Great, where it is not Athanasius but Anthony himself who condemns Egyptian burial rites and mummification practices.
Not in the Author's Language. The fragments of these epistles are written not in Greek (the author's native tongue) but in Coptic. While this doesn't directly disprove their authenticity, it remains a significant factor among other considerations. We must acknowledge that even if these texts did belong to St. Athanasius, the Coptic version would still represent a translation - and translation (including my own) always involves interpretation, an attempt to convey thoughts through different words. A translation may omit or add elements according to the translator's understanding.
Signs of Editing. There are indications of textual editing: pages are numbered in different styles, and the numbering was later corrected over the original sequence.
Lack of Dissemination. These texts have attracted little attention from scholars and remain largely unpublished, suggesting either distrust of the source or lack of academic interest. For me as a non-specialist, this factor carries weight.
Text of Epistle 41
Russian translation (prepared by the author of this article):
English text: #HH-Английский-текст1
Coptic text: #HH-Коптский-текст
French text: #HH-Французский-текст
Russian text: #HH-Русский-текст1
Textual Analysis
This epistle lacks both beginning and end, making it impossible to determine with certainty whether it is Paschal or even festal in nature - though we cannot rule this out either.
The text opens with condemnation of the schismatic Melitians and those holding to the Arian heresy, who eventually united and acted together.
The Melitians were followers of Bishop Melitius (Greek: Μελίτιος) who around 306 AD began ordaining bishops without proper authority. Initially, the Melitians had no doctrinal disagreements with the Orthodox. Their distinctive position was demanding harsh measures against those who had renounced the Orthodox faith during persecutions but later repented - unlike their Patriarch Peter of Alexandria who permitted their reception through repentance. Melitius' followers insisted on severe penalties and lengthy periods of penance. Later, the Melitians joined the Arians, thus becoming doctrinally compromised as well. At their peak, Melitians constituted about one quarter (29 out of 100) of all bishops in the Alexandrian Church.
After condemning the Melitians and Arians themselves, the author proceeds to describe the essence of the matter - denouncing their practice of stealing the bodies of martyrs from church cemeteries and placing them in open spaces on temporary structures, probably suitable for carrying from place to place (some translations suggest this, referring to biers rather than beds):
"Truly, they do not hide the bodies of the martyrs who fought worthily in the earth, but place them on beds and stands so that anyone who wishes may see them."
The author of the epistle condemns this practice, saying that they pretend to do this to honor the martyrs, but in reality are driven by deceitful motives. Later he will specify that they do this for their own benefit, not for the martyrs:
"They do this supposedly to honor the martyrs, but in truth it is dishonor: they do this with wicked intent."
It is said that they steal the bodies from church cemeteries:
"Because they do not have the bodies of martyrs in their own cities and do not know who is a martyr, they devised how to steal bodies and carry them away from the cemeteries of the cathedral church."
The self-serving motive is indicated - to gain the trust of the faithful:
"they ask for the bodies from those who have just buried them, move them from place to place, so that through these bodies they may deceive those whom they lead astray."
Further, the author condemns these actions, accusing the Melitians of grave-robbing. He abundantly cites Scripture, showing how the forefathers, prophets, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and the apostles were buried:
"for this is manifest wickedness, to be a pauper and a plunderer of the martyrs' tombs, not burying them as saints and first of all as the Lord."
He condemns the improper treatment of the remains of the righteous, again pointing out that they do this for their own gain. Then he recalls Jeroboam, who established trade in the temple (though Jeroboam broke the law regarding the selection of priests), and the Lord Jesus Christ, who drove the merchants from the temple:
"Who can see without trembling the bodies of the prophets and the bodies of the martyrs cast aside and put on display? This is not a Christian act; Paul did not hand this down to us; neither the patriarchs nor the prophets did this in any age. But the Melitians have decided to act thus for their own advantage."
Finally, the author directly states that money is involved here:
"Without doubt, they will also hear Him say to them: 'Do not sell the bodies of my martyrs, and do not trade their beautiful confession for love of money.'"
The author of the epistle states that he has exposed the evil and cunning intention that truly drives the actions of the Melitians. He calls not to imitate them, and at this point the epistle breaks off.
"These words suffice to show the evil and cunning intention pursued by the heretics in this matter. As for us, children of the Church, we must be convinced in no way to imitate these..."
Conclusions
Unlike the following epistle, here the Melitians are accused only of the following:
- grave-robbing;
- attempts to legitimize their schism and gain the trust of the faithful through the handling of these bodies;
- attempts to profit financially from this enterprise.
Some readers, particularly Protestants, might find grounds here to consider the author of the epistle as generally opposed to the veneration of martyrs' relics, irrespective of the Melitians' actions, and that his main objective is to ensure these relics remain buried underground or hidden from view. Orthodox readers, on the other hand, may find arguments supporting the author's orthodoxy, seeing his entirely justified struggle against the sacrilegious theft of martyrs' bodies for selfish gain.
It is also worth noting that church cemeteries often consisted of underground catacombs hewn into solid rock (such as the plan of the 4th–6th century catacombs of San Giovanni in Sicily, burial sites, and further burial sites). Burials were made in rock-cut tombs and sealed with slabs, following Jewish burial traditions. Ordinary believers were laid to rest in wall niches (loculi), stacked in multiple rows (up to ten layers) within chambers and corridors. Martyrs, however, were interred in sarcophagi or arcosolia, where liturgical services were performed. This practice was widespread in Rome, Naples, Sardinia, Sicily, Malta, Crimea, and various Mediterranean cities, including Alexandria (Egypt), from the 2nd century onward.
The author of the epistle does not condemn this ecclesiastical practice of venerating martyrs' relics, conducting services at their tombs, or offering prayers to the martyrs. His condemnation is directed solely at the specific actions of the Melitians. The next epistle will prove far more informative and allow for definitive conclusions regarding the author's orthodoxy.
Text of Epistle 42
Russian translation (prepared by the author of this article). Fragments previously known in Greek are highlighted in bold.
English text: #HH-Английский-текст1
Coptic text: #HH-Коптский-текст
French text: #HH-Французский-текст
Russian text: #HH-Русский-текст1
Textual Analysis
The beginning of the epistle follows the typical structure of a bishop's Paschal greeting.
After a gap of ten lines, the subject abruptly changes, likely due to a missing fragment. The text now discusses demons, who may occasionally speak truthfully but must neither be listened to nor trusted, lest by believing what appears true, one is led into falsehood. Scriptural citations are provided to support this teaching.
The discourse then turns to healings from demonic possession that occur in martyria—places where the relics of martyrs are kept:
"If they object that many possessed by unclean spirits have been healed in the 'martyria,' this is merely an excuse; let them hear my response: they were healed neither by the martyrs nor by the demons, but by the Savior whom the martyrs confessed. Tormented by Him, the demons cried out, like those mentioned in the Gospel, saying: 'I beg You, do not torment me' (Lk. 8:28)."
The author does not deny the healings but clarifies that they were performed not by the martyrs or demons, but by Christ, in whom the martyrs believed. This aligns fully with Orthodox teaching. Whether a miracle is wrought by a living or departed righteous one, it is accomplished solely by God's power. All saints are venerated by us because of the grace of God dwelling in their bodies, which brings about such wonders. This idea is reaffirmed later in the epistle:
"For whoever bears witness to the Lord, the Lord will bear witness to him; and he who abides in the Lord will find the Lord abiding in him."
However, the end of this passage reveals a critical detail: certain believers in the martyria were practicing something akin to spiritist rituals—communicating with spirits and inquiring about the future, a practice utterly foreign to Orthodoxy and categorically condemned by the Church:
"But they will be greatly astonished to see the destruction of the demons whom they glorified and from whom they sought knowledge of the future."
It then becomes clear that the author of the epistle is speaking about people who are not under his authority and who, by his own admission, will not heed his rebukes:
"Will they dare, after these explanations, to continue inquiring through unclean spirits? Yes, yes, they will dare, for they are shameless and lovers of pleasure."
The author then condemns communication with these spirits that were summoned in the martyria and to whom people bowed. He affirms that the martyrs are in Christ—thus confessing the Orthodox belief in the righteous dwelling with Christ—and explains how the faithful should seek answers from God: not through spiritist occult practices, but in dreams or in their hearts:
"The martyrs are in Christ, not in demons, and would call upon Christ who dwells in them. They would wait for Christ to reveal what they seek—whether in a dream or by speaking in their hearts—rather than throwing themselves at the feet of demons."
We know from Scripture instances where the Lord indeed communicated with the righteous in dreams, and there is prophecy that this would occur among Christians. However, the Church today cautions that not all dreams are from God, and one should not hastily believe them. Communication with God in the heart, as I understand it, refers to thoughts the Lord may impart in due time.
The author asserts that these people are not Christians—rightly so, for they reject the Church in the person of her hierarch and practice spiritist rites alien to Christians:
"How can such people be called Christians? How can one not keep away from them? Truly, they reveal themselves as strangers to God."
Finally, the author gives the most crucial reason why this practice is un-Orthodox: these people, as is typical in spiritism, merely sought to interrogate the spirits they summoned. The Orthodox, however, do not summon spirits but simply pray to the righteous, asking them to intercede for us before God—to become our fellow supplicants, for "the prayer of a righteous man has great power." Thus, the author condemns a specific spiritist practice and shows how the Orthodox should properly approach the martyrs: as messengers to God:
"Why, then, do they go to their tombs? In truth, they do not go because they want the martyrs to be their messengers to God, but to interrogate them through demons. This is not Christian behavior; rather, such acts are demonic mockery and belong to idol worship."
This is the most fundamentally important point of the entire epistle! Here we find two key elements of Orthodox doctrine:
1. The author states the proper purpose of visiting martyrs' tombs: "to make them messengers to God."
2. He acknowledges prayers to the saints, who can both hear and intercede for us before God.
Later, the author states that we have no need for intermediaries who speak from the earth—referring to demons, for as he said earlier, the martyrs abide in God (i.e., not on earth but in heaven), as will be explicitly stated further on:
"We are strangers to demons; we have the prophets, and we honor the Word of God, which speaks from heaven. We have no need for those who speak from the earth."
In closing, the epistle provides the dates for the fast and Paschal celebration. It calls the faithful to celebrate the feast together with the saints who dwell with Christ in heaven:
"Remembering the poor and praying for one another, that we may rejoice and celebrate together with the saints in heaven in Christ Jesus."
Farewell.
Conclusions
Having analyzed the text, one can conclude that its theological content is fully Orthodox.
Doctrinal Points:
- Christians should venerate the bodies of martyrs;
- It is permissible to address prayers to martyrs in martyria;
- Martyrs can serve as our messengers to God: they hear us and intercede for us before God;
- Christ dwells in the bodies of martyrs;
- Through the relics of martyrs, God grants healings;
- Martyrs dwell in heaven with Christ, and we celebrate feasts together with them.
General Conclusions
Forms of Treatment of the Righteous' Remains
What could one potentially accuse the Orthodox of, based on isolated parts of these texts?
- Elevating the bodies of the righteous above ground level;
- Not completely concealing them from view.
However, the text makes clear that the Melitians not only displayed the bodies but treated them disrespectfully: they stole them, left them abandoned, kept them on biers, and permitted (or organized) spiritist practices in martyria involving communication with spirits about the future—not to mention that they were, in the author's view, heretics and schismatics. To level accusations, one would have to ignore both the context of these epistles and the historical context, which shows that the Church (not just the author) generally opposed the veneration of false martyrs in heretical martyria. Ten years before these epistles were written, the Council of Laodicea (Asia Minor) prohibited honoring false martyrs among heretical groups:
Council of Laodicea (360 AD)
Rule 9: That members of the Church are not permitted to visit the cemeteries of heretics or so-called martyria for prayer or healing. Any of the faithful who do so should be excommunicated for a time, while those who repent and confess their error should be received back into communion.
Rule 34: That no Christian should forsake the martyrs of Christ and turn to false martyrs—that is, those honored by heretics or declared by heretics to be martyrs, for they are alien to God. Those who turn to them shall be anathema.
Thus, the Council both condemned the veneration of false martyrs among heretics and affirmed the veneration of true martyrs in the Church. This is precisely the position upheld by the author of the epistle in question.
It is also worth noting that the Melitians' actions themselves indicate that the veneration of martyrs was practiced in the author's community. They resorted to grave-robbing to acquire bodies from church cemeteries, hoping to attract believers and legitimize their schism. This implies that the Melitians knew Christians venerated martyrs' relics and sought to exploit this fact. Moreover, the veneration of martyrs' bodies was clearly practiced in the author's community, as their target was not their own supporters but the author's flock, who honored the martyrs. Thus, the author is defending his flock against these encroachments by opponents of the Church.
My work has been to compare these texts with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. The placement of the righteous' remains relative to ground level and their visibility are not directly matters of doctrine but rather religious practices, which may evolve over time. The author's theology, however, is entirely Orthodox. Above, I have identified at least five key doctrinal points in the author's teaching that are fundamentally unacceptable to opponents of Orthodoxy.
David Brakke on Athanasius' Epistles
American scholar David Brakke of Ohio State University in 1997 composed a seven-page commentary on these epistles, entitled "Athanasius of Alexandria and the Cult of the Holy Dead."
In this commentary, Brakke confirms that Epistles 41 and 42 are known only through the Coptic publications of Lefort and Coquin (p. 13, footnote 5) and provides several quotations from these epistles taken from the "Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium" (CSCO), Volume 20.
Through these quotations, Brakke seeks to demonstrate St. Athanasius' rejection of relic veneration practices. He acknowledges nearly everything we have just uncovered in these texts: the schismatic Melitians stealing martyrs' bodies from church cemeteries, attempting thereby to gain legitimacy and profit, and engaging in spiritist practices. However, Brakke ultimately reduces the matter to the claim that the epistles' accusations apply not just to the Melitians but to a significant portion of the contemporary Church. He argues that the author was opposing not specifically the Melitians' actions but the veneration of martyrs' bodies in general, considering it a pagan practice. I, however, regard Brakke's interpretation as mistaken and will elaborate on my reasons after examining his article in detail.
Thus, I propose to review the content of David Brakke's work.
Epistle 41
Brakke provides an English translation of certain passages from the epistle. In a footnote, he references a collection of Coptic texts, leading me to conclude he translated from Coptic:
"They (viz., the Melitians) have not left hidden in the earth the bodies of the martyrs who contested well, but they try to put them on stretchers and pieces of wood so that those who want to can view them. They do this with pomp, as if on account of the martyrs' honor, but truly this is a contemptible thing, and they do it for a shameful reason.For indeed they do not have the bodies of martyrs in their city, nor do they know which is a martyr, although they have taken counsel to blaspheme their bodies and take them from the cemeteries of the catholic church. In fact, those who have already been buried they exhume and carry out, so that, since they are put to shame for denying him whom the holy martyrs confessed, they might, even through their (the martyrs') bodies, find a way to deceive those whom they lead astray".
"for the sake of financial gain"
(Athanasius of Alexandria and the Cult of the Holy Dead“, David Brakke, p. 14., p. 16)
Bold text indicates portions Brakke added to the text, effectively commenting on it:
"This (practice of exhuming martyrs' bodies) resembles the crookedness of Jeroboam, who sold <the priesthood, and of those who sold> and bought doves in the Temple of God, as it is written (1 Kings 12: 31; Matt. 21: 12-13; par.). Indeed, it is clear without a doubt that those who are lawless now and are being driven out by whippings are the ones to whom the Lord said: 'Do not make my Father's house a house of trade' (John 2: 16). They too will hear him say: 'Do not sell the body of my martyrs, and do not make their good confession profitable for the sake of greed'. For those who commit such a sin must receive the same punishment"
(Athanasius of Alexandria and the Cult of the Holy Dead“, David Brakke, p. 16)
In addition to these texts, Brakke references the Life of St. Anthony the Great, composed by St. Athanasius. He then speculates about the reasons for the author's criticism of the Melitians. While I do not fully agree with his conclusions, I present them as they stand.
Reasons for the Epistle Author's Opposition to the Melitians According to David Brakke:
1. The desire to establish his parishes' right to be recognized as successors of the former "Church of the Martyrs". The author writes that the Melitians do not even know which of the stolen bodies truly belong to martyrs and believes these relics should be transferred to Orthodox custody (p. 14). Meanwhile, these martyrs allegedly appeared to the Orthodox and revealed the locations of their bodies (footnote 13). Brakke also acknowledges that the Melitians sought to legitimize their structure by appropriating martyrs' relics and achieved some success. However, the epistle's author does not counter them by similarly exhuming martyrs' bodies to relocate them to his own churches. Instead, he attempts to establish a connection with the martyrs through doctrine, demonstrating that they shared the same Orthodox faith as his community, not that of the Melitians.
2. The desire to emphasize that holy relics must remain within the Church. Brakke notes that while the author taught about communion with the martyrs through shared faith, he did not deny that relics should be kept in the Church's possession. The author maintained that martyrs' bodies should rest in Orthodox cemeteries and generally associated Orthodoxy with specific places: cemeteries or churches. Brakke suggests this idea may have been a response to Egyptian practices of keeping relics in private homes, while the author sought to centralize the Church around the bishop—promoting a unified ecclesiastical structure (p. 15).
3. The desire to preserve the Church's financial support. Here, Brakke argues that wherever relics go, financial offerings follow. Thus, by opposing the Melitians' "privatization" of martyrs' bodies, the author allegedly sought to safeguard the Orthodox Church's income. In support of this claim, Brakke cites passages where the author rebukes the Melitians with scriptural references to the marketplace in the Temple under Jeroboam and Christ's expulsion of the money-changers.
Epistle 42
According to Brakke, this subsequent epistle shifts focus from where martyrs' remains should be kept to where truth should be sought. Brakke cites two passages from Epistle 42:
"Let them listen, and I will answer them by saying that they are not healed by the martyrs coming upon the demons, but they are healed by the Saviour, the one whom the martyrs confessed. And the demons cry out because they are being tortured by him, just as those in the gospel cried out, saying: 'I beg you, do not torture us!' (Luke 8: 28). But they try to see the demons that are destroying them! These people give glory to them (the demons) and ask them about what will happen. After these words, will they dare to question the unclean spirits? Yes, they will dare, for they are shameless lovers of pleasure"
(Athanasius of Alexandria and the Cult of the Holy Dead“, David Brakke, p. 17)
"would call upon Christ, who is within themselves, and wait until he reveals what they are seeking, either in a dream or by speaking intheir heart, and they would not run to the demons.... Because we worship the Word of God who speaks from heaven, we do not need words from earth"
(Athanasius of Alexandria and the Cult of the Holy Dead“, David Brakke, p. 17)
Brakke interprets this epistle as addressing exorcisms and divination in martyria:
Exorcisms: Brakke suggests Christians justified exorcisms by referencing Apostle Paul's expulsion of a spirit of divination from a woman (Acts 16:16-18). Thus, the epistle's author emphasizes that demons are cast out not by martyrs but by Christ dwelling within them. While acknowledging the reality of these deliverances, the author raises objections detailed in the following point.
Spiritism: The true motive for visiting martyrs' remains was not exorcism but spiritist practices—summoning spirits to inquire about the future. Brakke observes that the author explicitly states Christians came not to "witness Christ's power over demons" but specifically to see demons, question them, and hear responses. Participants mistakenly identified these demons as "prophets of the martyrs," believing martyrs or even Christ spoke through them. The epistle condemns this communion with demons, recalling how Christ both cast out demons and commanded them to be silent. It denounces such practices as false paths to truth, directing seekers instead to God's Word, to Christ within the martyrs, and to await revelation through dreams or the heart. Brakke further speculates that when the author speaks of seeking truth in God's Word, he refers to the canon of Holy Scripture outlined by St. Athanasius in his 39th Festal Letter.
In conclusion, Brakke frames the author's conflict with the Melitians as political. He claims the author considered Scripture the sole path to truth, arguing that dead martyrs and prophesying spirits could not serve as alternative sources of truth or holiness—hence the preference to keep martyrs' bodies buried. Brakke asserts the author believed continuity with the ancient Church should be achieved through confessing right faith in the Word, not through possessing and venerating physical remains. He concludes that the epistles' author stood at odds with broader Christian practices of his time.
Correspondence of Brakke's Arguments with the Epistles' Content
David Brakke acknowledges the following in the text:
The Melitians stole the bodies of martyrs;
Did so for financial gain;
Sought to legitimize their parishes;
Summoned spirits in martyria for divination;
The author combated these practices, addressing each explicitly;
Martyrs' bodies must be treated with reverence;
Christ dwells in the bodies of martyrs;
Exorcisms occurred in martyria.
Yet, in my view, when constructing his final conclusions, Brakke ignores nearly all his own summary, focusing solely on one aspect—the visibility of relics. One might assume this is what he considers the "cult of the dead," which allegedly conflicted with the epistles' author's teaching and was adopted by the Christian world in the 4th century.
Brakke entirely overlooks that the epistles' author affirms:
Prayers may be offered to martyrs near their bodies, though the martyrs themselves dwell in heaven with Christ;
They can serve as our messengers to God—that is, they hear and intercede for us.
Regarding the Council of Laodicea (360 AD) and its 9th and 34th canons (cited earlier), Brakke seems wholly unaware, attempting to pit St. Athanasius against the rest of the Church, as if it had succumbed to paganism.
Brakke quotes a passage from the epistle, inserting his own commentary in brackets without clarifying that it is his addition:
"This (practice of exhuming martyrs' bodies) resembles the crookedness of Jeroboam, who sold <the priesthood, and of those who sold> and bought doves in the Temple of God, as it is written (1 Kings 12: 31; Matt. 21: 12-13; par.)"
This would not be problematic were it not for the violated context. The epistle's author, just before this, extensively discusses the Melitians, accusing them of profiting from martyrs' remains. Yet Brakke neither provides this context nor acknowledges its meaning, instead framing the issue as mere exhumation, divorced from the Melitians' actions. Moreover, Brakke's reasoning is inconsistent: if the subject is exhumation, why does the author later prove its impiety by referencing Jeroboam's establishment of trade in the temple and Christ's expulsion of the money-changers? These arguments concern not exhumation but the defilement of holiness through greed. Here is the passage in full:
"Who would rightly despise the heretics? Who would even wish to encounter them as they mock the bodies of the saints like false prophets? Who could see the discarded and displayed bodies of prophets and martyrs without distress? This is no Christian act; Paul did not hand this down to us; neither the patriarchs nor the prophets did such things in their time. But the Melitians resolved to do this for their own gain—for this is the craftiness of Jeroboam, who sold doves and conducted exchange in the temple of God, as it is written. And doubtless, to those who sinned then and were driven out with whips, the Lord said, 'Do not make My Father’s house a house of trade.' Doubtless, they too will hear Him say to them, 'Do not sell the bodies of My martyrs, nor trade their noble confession for money'; for those who commit such errors will inevitably receive the same punishment."
Thus, Brakke's commentary violates the context.
The theological teachings of the epistles' author fully align with Orthodox doctrine, as I have endeavored to demonstrate in my analysis above. Nevertheless, Brakke contrasts the author's teachings with those of the wider Christian world.
The Orthodox Church has never taught the spiritist practices that the Melitians performed at martyrs' tombs - never taught that one should summon spirits, much less for divination or inquiries about the future. Yet Brakke implies that the Christian world at large was already engaged in such practices? I think Brakke himself doesn't actually believe this, which is why I say he ignored his own summary of the epistles when drawing conclusions.
While I don't know Brakke's personal faith, I perceive in his research inconsistencies and manifestations of Protestant thinking. The concluding section particularly struck me as resembling a Protestant pastor's sermon. Protestant influence is evident in several ideas Brakke attributes to the epistles:
That following God's Word (the Bible) alone is paramount for believers, without connection to Tradition - promoting the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura;
That the apostles didn't establish centripetal church authority (by which Brakke seems to mean hierarchical authority), but that this was allegedly imposed later by church hierarchy - reflecting Protestant anti-clericalism;
That connection to the ancient Church comes through doctrine alone, without connection to holy relics or sacred spaces. While Orthodoxy affirms doctrinal unity, it also insists on grace-filled continuity through priesthood and sacraments - a connection Protestants typically reject, insisting on doctrinal agreement alone.
Suggesting financial concerns motivated the author's actions - rather disrespectful toward Christian saints, especially since Brakke acknowledges the author as defending true faith;
Treating veneration of relics as pagan practice that the Church supposedly opposed but ultimately failed to suppress - a typical Protestant attempt to prove the Church "fell" at some historical point;
The implicit accusation that the Church became pagan - essentially the primary Protestant charge against historic Christianity.
We must account for how a researcher's religious affiliation may bias their conclusions. Of course, this same caution applies to my own analysis - I leave that for readers to judge.
When examining both epistles in their entirety, we find important passages directly relevant to our topic that Brakke overlooked. The epistles' author:
Permits visiting martyrs' tombs for prayer
Affirms praying to saints
Acknowledges saints dwell with God in heaven
Confirms God inhabits their relics, working healings through them
All this Brakke ignores in his conclusions.
In my assessment, when read completely, both epistles can be understood in a fully Orthodox manner. Their author condemns not proper veneration, but specifically the Melitians' sacrilegious exploitation of relics for schism, profit and occult practices - maintaining Orthodox teaching while combating abuses.
Afterword
The subject of the remains of the righteous is extensively addressed in the works of St. Athanasius' contemporaries: John Chrysostom, Ambrose of Milan, Ephrem the Syrian (among other important sources). Yet St. Athanasius never speaks a single word against the Orthodox practice of venerating relics in his writings. In fact, he only touches upon this subject in one of his works - the Life of Anthony the Great - where he quotes St. Anthony's objections to Egyptian customs of mummification and keeping bodies in private homes.
From its earliest days, the Orthodox Church practiced the burial of martyrs in catacombs. Their relics were simply placed in specially carved wall niches or sarcophagi and covered with slabs. They were not buried in the ground but merely concealed from view. Altars were constructed at these sites (arcosolia and sarcophagi) where divine services were performed. This practice was widespread from the 2nd century in Rome, various Mediterranean cities, and Alexandria (Egypt). As mentioned earlier, we find not a single word of objection against these common ecclesiastical customs. When ancient saints opposed the veneration of remains, it was exclusively in the context of heretical and schismatic groups.
The bodies of martyrs have been venerated in the Orthodox Church since before the 4th century and continue to be venerated today, because this accords with Scripture, which declares that the bodies of the righteous are temples of the Holy Spirit.
Rodion Vlasov. 2024.