Gregory of Nazianzus De Filio (Orat. 29) 16

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. 2 σύναγε cdefg ’duo Reg. Or. 1’|| 3 πάρα τὸ πη] παρατροπὴν (om και) b: παρατροπῇ ‘Reg. a’
2. 3. παρὰ τὸ πῆ κ. ἁπλῶς] ’The fallacy lies in arguing from the conditioned to the absolute’ (lit. ’is on account of that which is so for special reasons and that which is so absolutely’).
3. 4. τοῖς περὶ ταῦτα] ’to use the technical language of logicians’ (lit. ’as it is customary to speak technically for those who concern themselves with these’).
4. 5. ἡμῶν γὰρ κτλ.] ’For when we allow that it is in the nature of a cause to be greater than the thing caused, they infer that it is greater by nature; which is like arguing that because we say, "Such and such a man is dead." therefore man, in the abstract, is ’ The emphasis, of course, is on ὁ δεῖνα, and it seems simplest to take ἄνθρ. along with it as subject, understanding νεκρός alone to be predicate — an arrangement of words like ὁ μέγας τέθνηκε Βασίλειος. But the sense is the Same either way. In the apodosis, τὸν ἄνθρ. is subject, the predicate being supplied from the previous clause, sc. νεκρὸν εἶναι. The commentators from Elias onwards have totally failed to catch the argument, or even to understand the grammar of the passage. If Gr. had intended to say anything so pointless as Petavius (de Trin. II v 12) makes out, viz. that because ὁ δεῖνα is a dead man, therefore he is a man, he must have said τὸ ἄνθρωπον, not τόν. So far Elias, whom Petavius quotes, knew better.
5. 16. ’ Well? they say, ’the word Father must denote either nature or operation: which is it to be?’ Neither, is the answer; it denotes a relation, and α relation which implies community of nature between the Father and the Son.
6. 10. ἀξιάγαστον] ‘astonishing,’ from ἄγαμαι ’to wonder.
7. ib. οὐσίας, ἢ ἐνεργ. ὄν.] ’is it a name denoting essence, or operation?’
8. 12. ἑτεροούσιον] A word modelled on the false analogy of ὁμοούσιος. It should be ἐτερούσιος.
9. 16. 5 διαφυγόντα] φυγόντα b || 11 οὐσία] οὐσίας e ‘Reg. Cypr. || 14 αἱρήσετε] σητεb·. σεται d || 15 ’δε] γὰρ ’Reg. Cypr. aliiq. Reg. et Colb.’ || 16 ἄλλως] + πὼς df || πέρι] πρὸς b || 17 om καὶ bc
10. 1. οὗ γὰρ ὁ ἐνεργῶν] lit. ’where there is one performing an operation, there is also the result of the operation.’ It is not very obvious why γέννησις should not be included under the head of ἐνέργεια, and Gr. does not much object to it. But evidently Gr. ’s opponent made ἐνεργεῖν = ποιεῖν.
11. 3. ᾐδέσθην] iron. ‘I should have stood in great ’awe.’
12. 7. σχέσεως] ’relation’’, explained by τοῦ πῶς ὦι πρός κτλ.
13. 10 κὰκεῖ when used in ref. to the Godhead.
14. 12. συνεισάξει] ’will at the same moment imply the Son.’
15. 15. αὐτὸδἐ τοῦτο] ’His operation will still have produced that very result consubstantial with Himself.’
16. ib. εἰ καἰ ἄτοπος] The καὶ be taken closely with ἄτοπος and disjoined from εἰ, which has here the force of ’since.’ The reading ἢ, adopted by the Benedictines, makes ἄλλως superfluous. The notion of such an operation as results in a Son’ would be absurd if it did not imply a real (i.e. a consubstantial) Son.
17. 17. κακομαχεῖν] ‘to fight unscrupulously: The word στροφάς, ’twists,’ shews that the μάχη is a wrestling-match, not a battle.