Gregorius Nazianzenus De Filio (Orat. 30) 10

ed. Arthur James Mason

Table of Contents

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

← Previous Next →

De Filio (Orat. 30). Gregorius Nazianzenus. ed. Arthur James Mason. Germany. 2014.

Sponsored by University of Leipzig.

Funding provided by European Social Fund Saxony.

Current edition First1KGreek

De Filio (Orat. 30) (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. 30)

1. 9. 2 τοῦτο] ταύτα b || 3 δοίης] δώῃς ‘ Reg. b ’ 10. 7 μηδὲν] οὐδὲν ’Reg. ’ || 14 ὡς ἔπι πλεῖστον ὡς τὸ οὐ] ὡς ἔπι τὸ πλεῖστον οὐ b || 17 ευλογον] + ὡς τὸ f II om οἱ b
2. 3. τῷ θεῷ] See note on ἑ 7 τοῦ κατὰ τὸν ἄνθρ. νοουμ.
3. 4. ἐπίκτητα] Cp. ii 31.
4. 10. ’λθ’. 6. — The Son cannot do, except He see the Father doing. ‘Cannot’is a word of many meanings; cannot now, cannot as a rule, cannot reasonably, cannot because not, cannot naturally though miracle might do it.
5. 6. μὴ δύνασθαι] John v 19.
6. 8. οὐ τῶν καθ’ ἕνα τρ. λ.] The gen. is due to the technical language of logic, like ἀδυνάτων in § 7. ’Can’ and ’cannot’ do not belong to that logical class of words which can only be used in one sense. They have manyshades of signification πολύς.). Gr. uses the sing. πολύσημον) be. cause he is only going to consider the negative, ’cannot.’
7. 9. τὸ μὲν γάρτι] ’for ’ lit. ‘ ’ Sometimes it denotes lack of power — not always absodo, lutely predicated, but with reference to time and circumstances ποτε, πρός τι).
8. 14. τὸ δέ, ὡς ἐπὶ πλεῖστον] Somewill times it denotes a general rule, which does not invariably hold good.
9. 15. οὐ δ. πόλις κρ.] Matt, v 14.
10. 16, ἐπιπροσθοῦντος] Cp. ii 4. Μείζονος, ’something ’; not ὄρους understood.
11. 17. οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ ν.] Mark ii 19.
12. 3 οως λόγος] om ο b ΙΙ 5 σημεία ἔκει ac Ἴ’ 14 τι και] om καὶ c
13. 1. ὁ σῶμ’. δρώμενος] It would have been more strictly accurate to have omitted ὁ. Gr. does not mean to suggest that ὁ ὁρ. is one and ὁ Λόγος another.
14. 4. τοὺς λόγῳ καθ’.] The ref. to John xv 3, the absence of the art., and the contrast of λόγῳ with σῶμα. τικῶς, shew that ’the ’ is intended, and not ’the ’ At the same time the argument would fail if the spoken word by which we are cleansed were not identified with the Eternal Word who by means of it ἐνδημεῖ with us.
15. 5. μὴ δ. ἐκεῖ σ. ποιῆσαι] Mark vi 5, Matt, xiii 58.
16. 9. οὐκ ἐνεδέχετο κτλ.] ‘ it was sc. θεραπεύειν, or ἰᾶσθαι, ‘when one of the two failed its fellow? lit. ‘when the fellow failed the other? Ἐλλείπειν is a trans, verb. Gr. probably means that it was a case of ἀβούλητον on both sides ; the people ’would’ not take the means to be healed, and the Lord ’would ’ not heal in spite of them.
17. 10. τῷ εὐλόγῳ added to the examples of ἀδύνατον = οὐκ εὔλογον above.
18. 11. τοῦ αὐτοῦ] sc. τοῦ ἀβουλήτου.
19. 12. μὴ μισεῖν ὒ.] John vii 7. Gr. no doubt was confusing this passage with John xv 18 f. I know of no authority for omitting the μή in our text of Gr.
20. 13. πῶς δύνασθε ἂγ. λ.] Matt, xii 34.
21. 14. ἐστι δέ τι] ‘ There is also a class of the following kind among things spoken? i.e. a class of ’ sages which speak of things impossible by nature, but possible to God, if so He chose.
22. 17. γεννηθῆναι δ.] John iii 4.
23. ib. ῥαφίς] Matt, xix 24, 26.