Gregory of Nazianzus De Filio (Orat. 29) 8

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. 7. 1 ουν] + φησι bedf ΙΙ 6 ειποις] + ὅτι b 8. 13 οιει] οιη e || τα ce race
2. 2. εἰς τὸ εἶναι] again ’ to be so,’ i.e. θεός.
3. 3. καἰ ταῦτα κτλ.] ‘and compelled to that very thing, namely to be God.’
4. 4. πῶς οὖν] Gr. returns rapidly to the original question, and again parries it by the counter question as to the creation of the Son. The difficulty of imagining the creation is as great as that of imagining the generation.
5. 7. ἔργου δύν. ἔσχειν] ‘how came it to have that effective force?"
6. 9. οὕτως] sc βούλεται καἰ λόγει.
7. 8. You do not understand your own generation, or the law of your own development; how can you expeel to understand that of God? That, however, ἲς no proof that God does not beget. If nothing is to be true but what you understand, must reduce the list of existences, beginning with that of God Himself The mode of the divine generation is evidently beyond us.
8. 14. λόγους συμπ.] ‘the formulae,’ or ‘laws.’
9. 16. τροφῆς ἐξομ.] ‘assimilation of food.’
10. 17. μνήμην, ἀνάμν.] Cp. ii 22.
11. ib. τίνα μέν] ‘what things belong to the united compound of soul and body.’
12. 19. τὰ μεμερ.] We might have expected μεμερισμένων, ‘belong to soul and body apart’; but it ‘which are the things distributable’ to soul and body respectively.
13. 2 φιλοσοφήσεις af: -σοις ‘Or. Ι’ ΙΙ 9 ἀπάντων] πάντων ef ΙΙ οὐδὲ] οὐ bf ||
διανοηθείης] + πέρι b II 17 ἀγγέλοις μὴ ὅτι γε σοι ἐννοεῖν b II om νοεῖν df ΙΙ συγχωρήσωμεν aefg || 20 ἀποφεῦγον a
14. 1. ὧν γὰρ ὔστ. ἡ τελ.] Although some parts and faculties of our nature only reach their perfection at a later time, the law of their development ment is present in the very moment of generation.
15. 2. μηδὲ τότε] not even when you have stated the laws of human development.
16. 8. διαγράφειν] ’to cancel,’ ‘strike off the list.’ Cp. v23.
17. 11. κατάβαλέ σου τὰς ᾿ρ.] ‘drop your dissipations. ’ The Eunomians conceived of the orthodox theology in a materialistic way, and proceeded to apply to it language of this kind. For ῥεύσεις cp. v 31; for διαιρ. and τομάς cp. i 6.
18. 15. δυσχεραίνων] ‘with loathing.’
19. 20. ἀμβλυωπίαν] ’the dulness of’ your ’blinded sight.’
20. 9. A fresh puzzle is proposed by the Eunomian. Does the Son exist prior to generation, or not? The answer ἲς that there is no such as a time prior to that generation. It is from all eternity. There is no more need to ask whether the Son is ἐξ ὄντων or ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων than there is to ask the same question concerning the Father. We are not compelled to believe that either one or the other of two alternates is true. Take instances. Is time in time or outside of time? A man says, ‘I am lying’: is he speaking the truth or not? Were yon present at your own conception or not? Both alternatives may be false. The question is absurd.