Gregory of Nazianzus De Filio (Orat. 29) 14

ed. Arthur James Mason

Table of Contents

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

← Previous Next →

De Filio (Orat. 29). Gregory of Nazianzus. ed. Arthur James Mason. Germany. 2014.

Sponsored by University of Leipzig.

Funding provided by European Social Fund Saxony.

Current edition First1KGreek

De Filio (Orat. 29) (Greek) (Gregory of Nazianzus. The Five Theological Orations. Mason, Arthur James, translator. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899.)

Notes on the current edition

De Filio (Orat. 29)

1. 4 ἥμιν ἐστιν f 14. 3 προσοίσουσιν bedef
2. 1. κἂν ἐπινοίαις τισι] The distinctive ’notions’ which Gr. has in view are, of course, those of giving and of receiving life, of ‘proceeding ’ and its correlative. They are not, however, to be considered as merely subjective distinctions drawn by us, any more than the distinctions which we draw between one man and another. Td ὀνόματα, sc. πατήρ, υἱός, πνεῦμα.
3. 2. ὃ μὲν ἂν κ. λέγηται] sc. θεός. This seems hardly necessary to say; but it lends a kind of fulness to the following statement, ὃ δ’ ἃν ἢ κατὰ φύσιν θεός), τοῦτο κ. ἅλ’. ὀνομάζεσθαι θεόν). The ὀνομάζεσθαι = λέγεσθαι, and has nothing to do with the ὀνόματα above.
4. 4. οἱ δέ] While names are not of much importance, so long as we get the facts right, they, the Eunomians, when pressed, will use the name of θεός to describe the Son, but explain it to have no foundation in fact.
5. 7. ταῖς μαρτυρίαις] ’’testimonies of Scripture.’ Cp v 2 29.
6. ib. ὁμώνυμον] ‘in an equivocal sense.’ Ὁμώνυμα are in logic which bear the same name but in different senses.
7. 14. ’ The word God,’ they ’is an aequivocum; it is used to denote two things which are essehtially different, as dig, for example, denotes both α beast and α ’ Ah, but in the one case there is no difference in dignity between the two things which bear the same name; in the other, if your theory were true, two beings would bear the same name which cotild not be even distantly compared.
8. 12. ὁμ. ταῦτα εἶναι] The neut. used, as in the preceding section, to avoid the irreverence of a direct reference to the Divine Persons.
9. 13. τὸν κύνα] the name of a fish, as well as of the beast. Both fish and beast are quite properly called ’dog,’ but not in the same sense.
10. 15. τοιοῦτον εἶδος] ’such a class’; namely, ὁμώνυμα both of which ’properly’ bear the common name.
11. 13 οιονει] οἶον a ΙΙ 17 μεταβαίνεις] ης (non ῃς) a: ει d1
12. 2. δύο φύσεις] perh. ‘two kinds of animals.’
13. 4. πρότερον...ὕστερον] as well as μᾶλλον and ἦττον, qualify οὖσαν τοῦθ’ ὄπ. λέγ’.
14. 6. οὐδὲ γάρ τι σ.] ’for there is nothing attached to the name which forces such distinctions upon ’ There is nothing in the name ’dog’ to make you care to enquire whether the beast or the fish was the first to bear it, or whether the beast is more of a dog than the fish: the one of ’dog’ is for all practical purposes as good as the other. The common name is borne by creatures which, though different from each other, are equals.
15. 11. ἐνταῦθα δέ] ’ But when come to the case in point, you attach to God an awful solemnity, and say that He is too high to be described as having any essence or nature, — athing which belongs to none but God and constitutes as it were the nature of the Godhead; and you give this to the Father, but take it away from the Son, and make a subject of Him.’
16. 17. περικόπτεις] ‘mutitate.’ ib. τῆς τὸ 1. ἐχ’. ὁμων.] such as that of the different ’dogs.’
17. 19. ὁ γραπτός σ. κ. ὁ ζῶν ἆ] The real man and the picture of a man (either of which is spoken of as ’a man’) illustrate more nearly such a Godhead as the Eunomians speak of than the two kinds of ’dogs.’ The picture is not further from being a real man than the Son is from being really God, if the Eunomian account is correct; and at the same time it bears externally a greater resemblance to its original.