Severian on 1 Corinthians 11:3

Severian on 1 Corinthians 11:3

Postby Andrew Chapman » May 22nd, 2013, 11:08 am

I wonder if anyone would be willing to help me with the translation of the following passage from Severian's commentary on 1 Corinthians [TLG: Severianus Orat. et Scr. Eccl., Fragmenta in epistulam i ad Corinthios (in catenis). {4139.040} ]. It may be to much to ask for a full translation, although that would be much appreciated, but it would be very helpful if someone could tell me if I have completely misunderstood the passage. I have tried to translate the second half of the passage. The paragraph starting Εἰ ἀσεβως I find harder.

{761 Kor 11,3}76 (9t) Προτρεπόμενος μᾶλλον ἢ ἀποδεχόμενος λέγει, ἵνα ἑξῆς τὴν (10) παραίνεσιν βεβαιώσῃ ἐν αὐτοῖς· θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι ὅτι παντὸς ἀνδρὸς ἡ κεφαλὴ ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν, κεφαλὴ δὲ γυναικὸς ὁ ἀνήρ, κεφαλὴ δὲ Χριστοῦ ὁ θεός.

Εἰ ἀσεβῶς ἐκλαμβάνοι τις, κατὰ τὸν τῆς θεότητος λόγον, εἰ δὲ (20) εὐσεβῶς, κατὰ τὸν τῆς οἰκονομίας· οὐ γὰρ περὶ τοῦ γεγενῆσθαι νῦν ὁ λόγος—ἰδοὺ γὰρ ὁ ἀνὴρ τὴν γυναῖκα οὐκ ἐποίησεν—οὐδὲ ἡ τάξις ᾗ ἐχρήσατο Παῦλος εἰς (25) τοῦτο βλέπει, ἀλλ’ εἰς μόνην τὴν ὑποταγήν· οὐ διὰ τὴν τῆς φύσεως ἀλλοτρίωσιν—καὶ ὅλως οὐδὲ τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἡ θεότης λαμβάνεται νῦν, ἀλλ’ ἡ οἰκονομία ἐγγυτέρω (30) ἔχουσα πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα καὶ τὴν γυναῖκα κατὰ τὴν φύσιν. (260,col2.)

Ἐπειδὴ οἱ Ἀρείου λέγουσιν· (9) ὥσπερ κεφαλὴ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς (10) ὁ Χριστός, ἐπειδὴ ποιητὴς αὐτοῦ ἐστιν, οὕτω τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ θεὸς ὡς ποιητὴς αὐτοῦ, δοκοῦσι τὰ ἑξῆς ἀγνοεῖν· τῆς γὰρ γυναικὸς κεφαλὴ ὁ ἀνήρ.

Whereas those of Arius say: Even as Christ is 'κεφαλη' of the man, since He is his maker, so God [is the κεφαλη] of Christ, as being His maker..

They seem to fail to understand the things that are coming next.. for the man is head of woman

(15) καὶ οὔτε ποιητὴς αὐτῆς ἐστιν καὶ ὁμοούσιος αὐτῇ ἐστιν, καὶ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον εὑρισκόμεθα ὁμοούσιοι τῷ Χριστῷ.

and is not her maker, and is of the same substance as she is.. and according to this reasoning we are found to be of the same substance as Christ.

οὕτω πάντα πᾶσι ληροῦσιν.

thus they speak foolishly of everything

κεφαλὴ γὰρ ὧδε (20) κατὰ τὸ ἀρχοντικὸν εἴρηται, οὐ κατὰ τὸ ποιητικόν·

for 'κεφαλη' is spoken of according to rulership, not according to authorship.

ὥστε ὁ ἔχων ἄρχοντα καὶ κεφαλὴν τὸν Χριστόν, ἐὰν ἁμαρτῇ, τὸν ἑαυτοῦ ἄρχοντα ὑβρίζει.

so that he having Christ as head and ruler, if he sins, he insults (and commits an outrage against) his own ruler.

κατὰ (25) τοῦτον τὸν λόγον τῷ Χριστῷ ὑποτεταγμένοι τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ ὑποτετάγμεθα, ὅτι καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ κεφαλὴ ὁ θεός.

according to this reasoning we who have submitted ourselves to Christ have also submitted ourselves to God the Father, because God is the head of Christ.

Thanks for your help,

Andrew Chapman,
Oxford, England
Andrew Chapman
 
Posts: 138
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England

Re: Severian on 1 Corinthians 11:3

Postby Stephen Carlson » May 28th, 2013, 10:39 am

No one has commented on this. Let me stir the pot some to bring this to the top of the active posts, but I don't know how helpful I can be.

Andrew Chapman wrote:κεφαλὴ γὰρ ὧδε (20) κατὰ τὸ ἀρχοντικὸν εἴρηται, οὐ κατὰ τὸ ποιητικόν·

for 'κεφαλη' is spoken of according to rulership, not according to authorship.

It looks like τὸ ἀρχοντικὸν and τὸ ποιητικόν are the key terms here. I would consult your lexical resources as best you can, esp. LSJ, Lampe, Sophocles, etc.

Andrew Chapman wrote:κατὰ (25) τοῦτον τὸν λόγον τῷ Χριστῷ ὑποτεταγμένοι τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ ὑποτετάγμεθα, ὅτι καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ κεφαλὴ ὁ θεός.

according to this reasoning we who have submitted ourselves to Christ have also submitted ourselves to God the Father, because God is the head of Christ.

If possible, one should first try to take the perfects as resultative, best translated with an English past/passive participle with the simple present of be, as: "we who are submitted to Christ are also submitted to God the Father,".
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke, New Testament)
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Severian on 1 Corinthians 11:3

Postby Andrew Chapman » June 4th, 2013, 11:18 am

Thanks, Stephen, very much. I just found this from Eusebius of Caesarea's Proof of the Gospel, Book 4, chapter 4 (TLG: Eusebius Theol. et Scr. Eccl., Demonstratio evangelica. {2018.005} Book 4 chapter 4 section 2 line 6):

.. οὐρανοῦ δημιουργικόν, κόσμου κατασκευαστικόν, ἀγγέλων ποιη- (5)
τικόν, πνευμάτων ἀρχοντικόν, ὄργανον ψυχῶν σωτήριον, σωμάτων
αὐξητικόν, πάντων προνοητικόν, κυβερνητικὸν θεραπευτικὸν βασιλικὸν
κριτικόν, πατρὸς εὐσεβείας ἀπαγγελτικόν.

Which rather neatly has ποιητικον and ἀρχοντικον side by side. W.J.Ferrar has 'Maker of Angels, Ruler of Spirits', which seems reasonable.

Thank you very much for the point about the perfect, which is noted.

Andrew
Andrew Chapman
 
Posts: 138
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England

Re: Severian on 1 Corinthians 11:3

Postby Stirling Bartholomew » June 4th, 2013, 6:12 pm

[quote="Andrew Chapman" The paragraph starting Εἰ ἀσεβως I find harder.

{761 Kor 11,3}76 (9t) Προτρεπόμενος μᾶλλον ἢ ἀποδεχόμενος λέγει, ἵνα ἑξῆς τὴν (10) παραίνεσιν βεβαιώσῃ ἐν αὐτοῖς· θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι ὅτι παντὸς ἀνδρὸς ἡ κεφαλὴ ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν, κεφαλὴ δὲ γυναικὸς ὁ ἀνήρ, κεφαλὴ δὲ Χριστοῦ ὁ θεός.

Εἰ ἀσεβῶς ἐκλαμβάνοι τις, κατὰ τὸν τῆς θεότητος λόγον, εἰ δὲ (20) εὐσεβῶς, κατὰ τὸν τῆς οἰκονομίας· οὐ γὰρ περὶ τοῦ γεγενῆσθαι νῦν ὁ λόγος—ἰδοὺ γὰρ ὁ ἀνὴρ τὴν γυναῖκα οὐκ ἐποίησεν—οὐδὲ ἡ τάξις ᾗ ἐχρήσατο Παῦλος εἰς (25) τοῦτο βλέπει, ἀλλ’ εἰς μόνην τὴν ὑποταγήν· οὐ διὰ τὴν τῆς φύσεως ἀλλοτρίωσιν—καὶ ὅλως οὐδὲ τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἡ θεότης λαμβάνεται νῦν, ἀλλ’ ἡ οἰκονομία ἐγγυτέρω (30) ἔχουσα πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα καὶ τὴν γυναῖκα κατὰ τὴν φύσιν. (260,col2.)
[/quote]

Only with trepidation do I tread into Patristics. τὸν τῆς θεότητος λόγον is something like a technical term during the 4th century christological controversies. If you search TLG for θεότητος λόγον you will find Gregory (Gregorius Nyssenus), Cyrill, Concilia Oecumenica (ACO), Concilium universale Ephesenum anno 431 and others. There is a contrast set up here between Εἰ ἀσεβῶς ἐκλαμβάνοι τις ... εἰ δὲ εὐσεβῶς but I not sure exactly what the contrast entails. οὐ γὰρ περὶ τοῦ γεγενῆσθαι νῦν ὁ λόγος "the matter at hand does not concern creation [of woman]" ἰδοὺ γὰρ ὁ ἀνὴρ τὴν γυναῖκα οὐκ ἐποίησεν looks like "for the man did not create (make) the woman.". οὐδὲ ἡ τάξις ᾗ ἐχρήσατο Παῦλος εἰς (25) τοῦτο βλέπει, ἀλλ’ εἰς μόνην τὴν ὑποταγήν· οὐ διὰ τὴν τῆς φύσεως ἀλλοτρίωσιν the meaning of ἡ τάξις (?) is critical here, something that Paul didn't intend by his teaching, contrasted to τὴν ὑποταγήν the meaning of which is a topic of much controversy.

I'll stop there.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Stirling Bartholomew
 
Posts: 216
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Severian on 1 Corinthians 11:3

Postby Stirling Bartholomew » June 4th, 2013, 7:12 pm

second thoughts:

I suspect that ὁ λόγος in οὐ γὰρ περὶ τοῦ γεγενῆσθαινῦν ὁ λόγος is probably coreferential with λόγον in Εἰ ἀσεβῶς ἐκλαμβάνοι τις, κατὰ τὸν τῆς θεότητος λόγον.

οὐ διὰ τὴν τῆς φύσεως ἀλλοτρίωσιν "not because they were different in nature" probably an observation on Christology which is used as the basis for an argument about woman having the same nature as man: ἀλλ' ἡ οἰκονομία ἐγγυτέρω ἔχουσα πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα καὶ τὴν γυναῖκα κατὰ τὴν φύσιν.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Stirling Bartholomew
 
Posts: 216
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Severian on 1 Corinthians 11:3

Postby Stirling Bartholomew » June 6th, 2013, 4:10 pm

the text again:
{761 Kor 11,3}76 (9t) Προτρεπόμενος μᾶλλον ἢ ἀποδεχόμενος λέγει, ἵνα ἑξῆς τὴν (10) παραίνεσιν βεβαιώσῃ ἐν αὐτοῖς· θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι ὅτι παντὸς ἀνδρὸς ἡ κεφαλὴ ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν, κεφαλὴ δὲ γυναικὸς ὁ ἀνήρ, κεφαλὴ δὲ Χριστοῦ ὁ θεός.

Εἰ ἀσεβῶς ἐκλαμβάνοι τις, κατὰ τὸν τῆς θεότητος λόγον, εἰ δὲ (20) εὐσεβῶς, κατὰ τὸν τῆς οἰκονομίας· οὐ γὰρ περὶ τοῦ γεγενῆσθαι νῦν ὁ λόγος—ἰδοὺ γὰρ ὁ ἀνὴρ τὴν γυναῖκα οὐκ ἐποίησεν—οὐδὲ ἡ τάξις ᾗ ἐχρήσατο Παῦλος εἰς (25) τοῦτο βλέπει, ἀλλ’ εἰς μόνην τὴν ὑποταγήν· οὐ διὰ τὴν τῆς φύσεως ἀλλοτρίωσιν—καὶ ὅλως οὐδὲ τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἡ θεότης λαμβάνεται νῦν, ἀλλ’ ἡ οἰκονομία ἐγγυτέρω (30) ἔχουσα πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα καὶ τὴν γυναῖκα κατὰ τὴν φύσιν. (260,col2.)

Ἐπειδὴ οἱ Ἀρείου λέγουσιν· (9) ὥσπερ κεφαλὴ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς (10) ὁ Χριστός, ἐπειδὴ ποιητὴς αὐτοῦ ἐστιν, οὕτω τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ θεὸς ὡς ποιητὴς αὐτοῦ, δοκοῦσι τὰ ἑξῆς ἀγνοεῖν· τῆς γὰρ γυναικὸς κεφαλὴ ὁ ἀνήρ.


Stirling Bartholomew wrote:There is a contrast set up here between Εἰ ἀσεβῶς ἐκλαμβάνοι τις ... εἰ δὲ εὐσεβῶς but I not sure exactly what the contrast entails.


It appears that the scenario behind the discussion here is the Arian (οἱ Ἀρείου λέγουσιν) use of this text: 1 Corinthians 11:3 . The contrast is drawn between the impious (ἀσεβῶς or heretical) who understand (ἐκλαμβάνοι) 1Cor 11:3 as pertaining to the godhead (τὸν τῆς θεότητος λόγον) and the pious (or orthodox εὐσεβῶς) who understand 1Cor 11:3 as pertaining to οἰκονομίας, a word somewhat difficult to render in English, used again ἀλλ’ ἡ οἰκονομία ἐγγυτέρω.

In an argument with the Arians, the use of ὁ λόγος in οὐ γὰρ περὶ τοῦ γεγενῆσθαι νῦν ὁ λόγος might be read with reference to the prologue of John's Gospel. On the other hand it could simply refer to the subject matter currently under discussion 1Cor 11:3. "For this (λόγος) does not concern generation (γεγενῆσθαι) —for behold, man did not make woman."

In the next contrast the word τάξις is difficult, L&N: " kind or type of entity, implying a contrast-comparison to other similar entities."

οὐδὲ ἡ τάξις ᾗ ἐχρήσατο ... A loose attempt at paraphrase: "This was not the sort of relationship (i.e., creator:creature) which Paul was proclaiming here but only subjugation, not because of different natures, you see. Not now addressing the godhead of the only-begotten (τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἡ θεότης) but that man and woman ἡ οἰκονομία ἐγγυτέρω ... ἔχουσα in regard to nature.

This last sentence is difficult. The general idea, Paul is not talking about a difference in nature but a difference role within the ἡ οἰκονομία.

Reading a text from an unfamiliar genre and from a post-apostolic era for which a version is not accessible presents difficulties with lexical semantics. The vocabulary here is common to the era of the major christological controversies and not being a specialist on that era or genre presents one with a daunting task of figuring out what the author is trying to say.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Stirling Bartholomew
 
Posts: 216
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Severian on 1 Corinthians 11:3

Postby Andrew Chapman » June 12th, 2013, 1:57 pm

Thanks very much, Stirling, that's tremendously helpful, and much appreciated. So attempting a rough translation, and no doubt bowdlerizing your more subtle points in the process:

Εἰ ἀσεβῶς ἐκλαμβάνοι τις, κατὰ τὸν τῆς θεότητος λόγον, εἰ δὲ (20) εὐσεβῶς, κατὰ τὸν τῆς οἰκονομίας

Lampe gives 'ordering' among the meanings for οἰκονομια, which perhaps fits the line of thought.

'The impious understand [this] according to deity, but the pious according to ordering.'

οὐ γὰρ περὶ τοῦ γεγενῆσθαι νῦν ὁ λόγος

'For this word [ie 1 Cor 11:3] is not about generation'

ἰδοὺ γὰρ ὁ ἀνὴρ τὴν γυναῖκα οὐκ ἐποίησεν

'For behold, the man did not make the woman'

οὐδὲ ἡ τάξις ᾗ ἐχρήσατο Παῦλος εἰς (25) τοῦτο βλέπει, ἀλλ’ εἰς μόνην τὴν ὑποταγήν

I see from Lampe that βλεπω with the accusative can mean 'have regard to', which makes sense:

'nor did the order which Paul proclaimed have regard to this but to submission only.'

οὐ διὰ τὴν τῆς φύσεως ἀλλοτρίωσιν

'not because of a separation of nature' (which I guess means much the same as difference of nature, as you have it)

καὶ ὅλως οὐδὲ τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἡ θεότης λαμβάνεται νῦν

'nor is it at all the deity of the only-begotten which is being received, [as the right way of understanding this], as a matter of fact'

{L & S for νῦν: A/4. sts. opp. to what might have been under other circumstances:- as it is (or was), as the case stands (or stood), as a matter of fact}

ἀλλ’ ἡ οἰκονομία ἐγγυτέρω (30) ἔχουσα πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα καὶ τὴν γυναῖκα κατὰ τὴν φύσιν.

'but (more nearly this:) [which is being received and understood] the ordering of the woman in relation to the man according to nature'

the cases don't seem right in this last clause, but you described it as difficult, so possibly it's not just me.

Andrew
Andrew Chapman
 
Posts: 138
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England

Re: Severian on 1 Corinthians 11:3

Postby Andrew Chapman » June 13th, 2013, 1:33 pm

Remarkably, I came across a translation of the most difficult section of this today. It is in 'Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: 1 and 2 Corinthians, Bray and Oden', p.105:

'Since man did not make woman, the question here does not concern the origin of woman. Rather it concerns only [the relation of] submission. The nature of God and Christ is the same. Similarly the nature of man and woman is the same.'

Andrew
Andrew Chapman
 
Posts: 138
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England


Return to Church Fathers and Patristic Greek Texts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest