Athanasius Contra Gentes

[Barry Hofstetter]

§ 44.1 Νεύματι γὰρ καὶ ταῖς δυνάμεσι τοῦ ἐπιστατοῦντος καὶ ἡγεμονεύοντος τῶν πάντων θείου καὶ πατρικοῦ Λόγου, οὐρανὸς μὲν περιστρέφεται ...


Νεύματι ... καὶ ταῖς δυνάμεσι qualifies οὐρανὸς ... περιστρέφεται and what follows. Νεύματι ... καὶ ταῖς δυνάμεσι is qualified by τοῦ and what follows. My question, how far should we extend the reach of τοῦ? I have an agenda. I want extend it all the way to Λόγου because it fits into my idea of packaging. I am looking for suggestions that limit the reach of τοῦ somewhere sort of Λόγου.

[...]

I'm not exactly sure what "packaging" means, but I think there is little doubt that τοῦ modifies λόγου. Everything in between is in the attributive position to show that it goes with τοῦ...λόγου.

[Stirling Bartholomew]

§ 44.1 Νεύματι γὰρ καὶ ταῖς δυνάμεσι τοῦ ἐπιστατοῦντος καὶ ἡγεμονεύοντος τῶν πάντων θείου καὶ πατρικοῦ Λόγου, οὐρανὸς μὲν περιστρέφεται ...


Νεύματι ... καὶ ταῖς δυνάμεσι qualifies οὐρανὸς ... περιστρέφεται and what follows. Νεύματι ... καὶ ταῖς δυνάμεσι is qualified by τοῦ and what follows. My question, how far should we extend the reach of τοῦ? I have an agenda. I want extend it all the way to Λόγου because it fits into my idea of packaging. I am looking for suggestions that limit the reach of τοῦ somewhere sort of Λόγου.

[...]

I'm not exactly sure what "packaging" means, but I think there is little doubt that τοῦ modifies λόγου. Everything in between is in the attributive position to show that it goes with τοῦ...λόγου.

Packaging simply means putting things inside a separated pair of constituents. It isn't limited to attribution. It isn't a grammatical concept. It is more related to information structure.

Athanasius does this often. Here is is a somewhat different sample from the next paragraph. In this sample the participles φωτίζων καὶ ζωοποιῶν follow Λόγος. What would a grammarian-philologist conclude about the function of these participles?

§ 44.2 πάντα δὲ ταῦτα, καὶ ἔτι πλείω τούτων, ἃ διὰ τὸ πλῆθος οὐκ ἰσχύομεν ἡμεῖς λέγειν, ὁ παραδοξοποιὸς καὶ θαυματοποιὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγος φωτίζων καὶ ζωοποιῶν, τῷ ἑαυτοῦ νεύματι κινεῖ καὶ διακοσμεῖ, ἕνα τὸν κόσμον ἀποτελῶν, οὐκ ἔξωθεν ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τὰς ἀοράτους δυνάμεις ἀφείς· καὶ γὰρ καὶ ταύτας, οἷα δὴ καὶ αὐτῶν ποιητὴς ὑπάρχων, συμπεριλαβὼν ἐν τοῖς ὅλοις, συνέχει καὶ ζωοποιεῖ πάλιν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ νεύματι καὶ τῇ ἑαυτοῦ προνοίᾳ· καὶ τούτου οὐκ ἄν τι γένοιτο πρὸς ἀπιστίαν ἐφόδιον.

§ 44.2. But all these things, and more, which for their number we cannot mention, the worker of wonders and marvels, the Word of God, giving light and life, moves and orders by His own nod, making the universe one. Nor does He leave out of Himself even the invisible powers; for including these also in the universe inasmuch as he is their maker also, He holds them together and quickens them by His nod and by His providence. And there can be no excuse for disbelieving this.

[Barry Hofstetter]

§ 44.1 Νεύματι γὰρ καὶ ταῖς δυνάμεσι τοῦ ἐπιστατοῦντος καὶ ἡγεμονεύοντος τῶν πάντων θείου καὶ πατρικοῦ Λόγου, οὐρανὸς μὲν περιστρέφεται ...


Νεύματι ... καὶ ταῖς δυνάμεσι qualifies οὐρανὸς ... περιστρέφεται and what follows. Νεύματι ... καὶ ταῖς δυνάμεσι is qualified by τοῦ and what follows. My question, how far should we extend the reach of τοῦ? I have an agenda. I want extend it all the way to Λόγου because it fits into my idea of packaging. I am looking for suggestions that limit the reach of τοῦ somewhere sort of Λόγου.

[...]

I'm not exactly sure what "packaging" means, but I think there is little doubt that τοῦ modifies λόγου. Everything in between is in the attributive position to show that it goes with τοῦ...λόγου.

Packaging simply means putting things inside a separated pair of constituents. It isn't limited to attribution. It isn't a grammatical concept. It is more related to information structure.

Athanasius does this often. Here is is a somewhat different sample from the next paragraph. In this sample the participles φωτίζων καὶ ζωοποιῶν follow Λόγος. What would a grammarian-philologist conclude about the function of these participles?

§ 44.2 πάντα δὲ ταῦτα, καὶ ἔτι πλείω τούτων, ἃ διὰ τὸ πλῆθος οὐκ ἰσχύομεν ἡμεῖς λέγειν, ὁ παραδοξοποιὸς καὶ θαυματοποιὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγος φωτίζων καὶ ζωοποιῶν, τῷ ἑαυτοῦ νεύματι κινεῖ καὶ διακοσμεῖ, ἕνα τὸν κόσμον ἀποτελῶν, οὐκ ἔξωθεν ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τὰς ἀοράτους δυνάμεις ἀφείς· καὶ γὰρ καὶ ταύτας, οἷα δὴ καὶ αὐτῶν ποιητὴς ὑπάρχων, συμπεριλαβὼν ἐν τοῖς ὅλοις, συνέχει καὶ ζωοποιεῖ πάλιν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ νεύματι καὶ τῇ ἑαυτοῦ προνοίᾳ· καὶ τούτου οὐκ ἄν τι γένοιτο πρὸς ἀπιστίαν ἐφόδιον.

§ 44.2. But all these things, and more, which for their number we cannot mention, the worker of wonders and marvels, the Word of God, giving light and life, moves and orders by His own nod, making the universe one. Nor does He leave out of Himself even the invisible powers; for including these also in the universe inasmuch as he is their maker also, He holds them together and quickens them by His nod and by His providence. And there can be no excuse for disbelieving this.

I would be interested in finding out what the value of "packaging" here is in better understanding the text. As it is, based on your description (and remembering that I have never so much as heard of it before this) it doesn't really seem to fit. As for your second example, I would call these predicate participles used adjectivally to modify λόγος.

[Stirling Bartholomew]

I would be interested in finding out what the value of "packaging" here is in better understanding the text. As it is, based on your description (and remembering that I have never so much as heard of it before this) it doesn't really seem to fit.

RE: information structure

Discourse 'grammars' have been around for several decades. First one I owned was the grammar of discourse Robert Longacre 1996, Second edition. Calling this grammar confuses traditional philologists. The theoretical underpinnings, at least the ones I'm familiar with, come from telecommunications. Serialized information streams are broken into chunks. Packaging is a way of flagging the boundaries of the chunks. The author identifies a sequence which can be processed in one bite its like cutting up your steak so you don't choke on it.

I am exploring this not promoting it. I expect no support from philologists. Certainly been here long enough to know what to expect from philologists. The philologist's dragged their feet for half a century on linguistics. E.V.N. Geotchius was aware of this in the early 1960s. The gate keepers have changed over the decades. Does it ever occur to them that we are not paying any attention to the gates?

[Barry Hofstetter]

RE: information structure

Discourse 'grammars' have been around for several decades. First one I owned was the grammar of discourse Robert Longacre 1996, Second edition. Calling this grammar confuses traditional philologists. The theoretical underpinnings, at least the ones I'm familiar with, come from telecommunications. Serialized information streams are broken into chunks. Packaging is a way of flagging the boundaries of the chunks. The author identifies a sequence which can be processed in one bite its like cutting up your steak so you don't choke on it.

I am exploring this not promoting it. I expect no support from philologists. Certainly been here long enough to know what to expect from philologists. The philologist's dragged their feet for half a century on linguistics. E.V.N. Geotchius was aware of this in the early 1960s. The gate keepers have changed over the decades. Does it ever occur to them that we are not paying any attention to the gates?

Thanks for the clarification, that's helpful.

In looking at materials with the word "discourse" in the title, I've often found that it simply uses metalanguage to describe what people who actually know the language do and recognize intuitively. Often it's simply classical rhetoric in a different guise.

I can't speak to other's experiences, but as part of my classical philology curriculum I took recommended courses in linguistics as an undergrad, and a required course in graduate school, so people were recognizing the value and need at least at the end of the 1970's. When in Seminary I had professors who were well versed in the subject.

I don't think you need the support, but you might want to pay attention to what people who actually know the language have to say.

[Stirling Bartholomew]

§ 46.1 Ἆρ' οὖν, ἀνελὼν τὴν τῶν ἐθνῶν ἢ εἰδώλων ἀθεότητα, σεσιώπηκεν ἡ ἔνθεος διδασκαλία καὶ ἁπλῶς ἀφῆκε τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος ἄμοιρον τῆς τοῦ Θείου γνώσεως φέρεσθαι; οὐχί γε, ἀλλὰ καὶ προαπαντᾷ τῇ διανοίᾳ λέγουσα· Ἄκουε, Ἰσραήλ, Κύριος ὁ Θεός σου, Κύριος εἷς ἐστι· καὶ πάλιν· Ἀγαπήσεις Κύριον τὸν Θεόν σου ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ καρδίᾳ σου, καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ἰσχύϊ σου· καὶ πάλιν· Κύριον τὸν Θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις, καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις, καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν κολληθήσῃ.

§ 46.1 Has then the divine teaching, which abolished the godlessness of the heathen or the idols, passed over in silence, and left the race of mankind to go entirely unprovided with the knowledge of God? Not so: rather it anticipates their understanding when it says179: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God;” and again, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy strength;” and again, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve, and shalt cleave to Him.”

— John Henry Newman

The highlighted participle clause is constructed as if the article τὴν represents τὴν ἀθεότητα ... ἢ εἰδώλων. Furthermore, not sure why ἀνελὼν doesn't agree in gender with ἡ ἔνθεος διδασκαλία.

[Peng Huiguo]

The attributive position can be filled with arbitrarily long and complex phrases.

God/Word (focus of entire §45) is the subject of ἀνελών, because a teaching cannot be the one to "abolish the godlessness etc", and as you've noted, the case mismatch is a strong clue as well. Thus imho Newman translated this wrongly. Also, that Ἆρα could be Ἄρα, and Ἄρα οὖν would strongly connect ἀνελὼν τὴν τῶν ἐθνῶν ἢ εἰδώλων ἀθεότητα to the preceding instead of succeeding discussion.

[Stirling Bartholomew]

The attributive position can be filled with arbitrarily long and complex phrases.

God/Word (focus of entire §45) is the subject of ἀνελών, because a teaching cannot be the one to "abolish the godlessness etc", and as you've noted, the case mismatch is a strong clue as well. Thus imho Newman translated this wrongly. Also, that Ἆρα could be Ἄρα, and Ἄρα οὖν would strongly connect ἀνελὼν τὴν τῶν ἐθνῶν ἢ εἰδώλων ἀθεότητα to the preceding instead of succeeding discussion.

While it is clear that John Henry Newman isn’t infallible, looking back at §45.1-2 we see one instance where where Athanasius does something similar.

§ 45.1 Ὥσπερ γάρ, ἀναβλέψαντας εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ ἰδόντας τὸν κόσμον αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ τῶν ἄστρων φῶς, ἔστιν ἐνθυμεῖσθαι τὸν ταῦτα διακοσμοῦντα Λόγον· οὕτω νοοῦντας Λόγον Θεοῦ, νοεῖν ἐστιν ἀνάγκη καὶ τὸν τούτου Πατέρα Θεόν, ἐξ οὗ προϊὼν εἰκότως τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ Πατρὸς ἑρμηνεὺς καὶ ἄγγελος λέγεται·

§ 45.2 καὶ τοῦτο ἐκ τῶν καθ' ἡμᾶς τις ἂν ἴδοι. εἰ γὰρ δὴ λόγου προϊόντος παρὰ ἀνθρώπων ἐνθυμούμεθα τὴν τούτου πηγὴν εἶναι τὸν νοῦν, καὶ τῷ λόγῳ ἐπιβάλλοντες, τὸν νοῦν σημαινόμενον ὁρῶμεν τῷ λογισμῷ· πολλῷ πλέον μείζονι φαντασίᾳ καὶ ἀσυγκρίτῳ ὑπεροχῇ τοῦ Λόγου τὴν δύναμιν ὁρῶντες, ἔννοιαν λαμβάνομεν καὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ Πατρὸς αὐτοῦ, ὡς αὐτὸς ὁ Σωτήρ φησιν· Ὁ ἐμὲ ἑωρακὼς ἑώρακε τὸν Πατέρα. ταῦτα δὲ καὶ πᾶσα θεόπνευστος γραφὴ φανερώτερον καὶ κατὰ μεῖζον κηρύττει, ἀφ' ὧν δὴ καὶ ἡμεῖς τεθαρρηκότες ταῦτά σοι γράφομεν, καὶ σύ, ταύταις ἐντυγχάνων, δυνήσῃ τῶν λεγομένων ἔχειν τὴν πίστιν.

§ 45.1 For just as by looking up to the heaven and seeing its order and the light of the stars, it is possible to infer the Word Who ordered these things, so by beholding the Word of God, one needs must behold also God His Father, proceeding from Whom He is rightly called His Father’s Interpreter and Messenger.

§ 45.2 And this one may see from our own experience; for if when a word proceeds from men173 we infer that the mind is its source, and, by thinking about the word, see with our reason the mind which it reveals, by far greater evidence and incomparably more, seeing the power of the Word, we receive a knowledge also of His good Father, as the Saviour Himself says, “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.” But this all inspired Scripture also teaches more plainly and with more authority, so that we in our turn write boldly to you as we do, and you, if you refer to them, will be able to verify what we say.

— John Henry Newman

ταῦτα δὲ καὶ πᾶσα θεόπνευστος γραφὴ φανερώτερον καὶ κατὰ μεῖζον κηρύττει

Here the author makes θεόπνευστος γραφὴ the subject of κηρύττει.

[Barry Hofstetter]

While it is clear that John Henry Newman isn’t infallible, looking back at §45.1-2 we see one instance where where Athanasius does something similar.

§ 45.1 Ὥσπερ γάρ, ἀναβλέψαντας εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ ἰδόντας τὸν κόσμον αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ τῶν ἄστρων φῶς, ἔστιν ἐνθυμεῖσθαι τὸν ταῦτα διακοσμοῦντα Λόγον· οὕτω νοοῦντας Λόγον Θεοῦ, νοεῖν ἐστιν ἀνάγκη καὶ τὸν τούτου Πατέρα Θεόν, ἐξ οὗ προϊὼν εἰκότως τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ Πατρὸς ἑρμηνεὺς καὶ ἄγγελος λέγεται·

§ 45.2 καὶ τοῦτο ἐκ τῶν καθ' ἡμᾶς τις ἂν ἴδοι. εἰ γὰρ δὴ λόγου προϊόντος παρὰ ἀνθρώπων ἐνθυμούμεθα τὴν τούτου πηγὴν εἶναι τὸν νοῦν, καὶ τῷ λόγῳ ἐπιβάλλοντες, τὸν νοῦν σημαινόμενον ὁρῶμεν τῷ λογισμῷ· πολλῷ πλέον μείζονι φαντασίᾳ καὶ ἀσυγκρίτῳ ὑπεροχῇ τοῦ Λόγου τὴν δύναμιν ὁρῶντες, ἔννοιαν λαμβάνομεν καὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ Πατρὸς αὐτοῦ, ὡς αὐτὸς ὁ Σωτήρ φησιν· Ὁ ἐμὲ ἑωρακὼς ἑώρακε τὸν Πατέρα. ταῦτα δὲ καὶ πᾶσα θεόπνευστος γραφὴ φανερώτερον καὶ κατὰ μεῖζον κηρύττει, ἀφ' ὧν δὴ καὶ ἡμεῖς τεθαρρηκότες ταῦτά σοι γράφομεν, καὶ σύ, ταύταις ἐντυγχάνων, δυνήσῃ τῶν λεγομένων ἔχειν τὴν πίστιν.

§ 45.2 And this one may see from our own experience; for if when a word proceeds from men173 we infer that the mind is its source, and, by thinking about the word, see with our reason the mind which it reveals, by far greater evidence and incomparably more, seeing the power of the Word, we receive a knowledge also of His good Father, as the Saviour Himself says, “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.” But this all inspired Scripture also teaches more plainly and with more authority, so that we in our turn write boldly to you as we do, and you, if you refer to them, will be able to verify what we say.

— John Henry Newman

ταῦτα δὲ καὶ πᾶσα θεόπνευστος γραφὴ φανερώτερον καὶ κατὰ μεῖζον κηρύττει

Here the author makes θεόπνευστος γραφὴ the subject of κηρύττει.

I don't think that's parallel to your previous example, which has that odd use of the participle. ταῦτα Ι think is summative of the previous, and also functions as the subject κηρύττει, "These things and also (δὲ καί) inspired scripture proclaim..."

[Stirling Bartholomew]

... because a teaching cannot be the one to "abolish the godlessness etc" ...

Peng,

I understand an share your reservations. Here is a third example from the same context where Athanasius appears to make θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς, which is coreferential with ἡ ἔνθεος διδασκαλία, function as an agent or subject of a verb.

§ 46.2 ὅτι δὲ καὶ ἡ διὰ πάντων καὶ ἡ εἰς πάντα τοῦ Λόγου πρόνοια καὶ διακόσμησις ἀπὸ πάσης θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς μαρτυρεῖται, ἀρκεῖ τὰ νῦν λεγόμενα δεῖξαι τοῦ λόγου τὴν πίστιν, ᾗ φασιν οἱ θεολόγοι ἄνδρες· Ἐθεμελίωσας τὴν γῆν, καὶ διαμένει· τῇ διατάξει σου διαμένει ἡ ἡμέρα· καὶ πάλιν· Ψάλατε τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν ἐν κιθάρᾳ, τῷ περιβάλλοντι τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐν νεφέλαις, τῷ ἑτοιμάζοντι τῇ γῇ ὑετόν, τῷ ἐξαγαγόντι ἐν ὄρεσι χόρτον καὶ χλόην τῇ δουλείᾳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ διδόντι τοῖς κτήνεσι τροφήν.

§ 46.2 But that the providence and ordering power of the Word also, over all and toward all, is attested by all inspired Scripture, this passage suffices to confirm our argument, where men who speak of God say: “Thou hast laid the foundation of the earth and it abideth. The day continueth according to Thine ordinance.” And again: “Sing to our God upon the harp, that covereth the heaven with clouds, that prepareth rain for the earth, that bringeth forth grass upon the mountains, and green herb for the service of man, and giveth food to the cattle.”