Orations of St Athanasius Against the Arians

[Barry Hofstetter]

Stirling, Ima leave this thread and you with a nugget I stumbled upon yesterday, from Origen's fragmentary commentary on 1 Corinthians (afaik no one has published an English translation of this).

πῶς γὰρ οὐ μωρὸς ὁ μὴ λέγων
μὴ εἶναι πρόνοιαν ἢ
ἐξ ἀτόμων καὶ κενοῦ τὰ πάντα συνεστηκέναι ἢ
τὴν ἡδονὴν τέλος εἶναι τῶν ἀγαθῶν, καὶ
τἆλλα λέγων ὅσα τῆς ἔξω καὶ δοκούσης σοφίας ὕθλοι καὶ λῆροι τυγχάνουσιν;
οὗτος γὰρ ἀληθῶς μωρός ἐστιν καὶ ταῦτα τὰ δόγματα μωρία εἰσίν.

(My loose translation. I said loose, Barry, don't get triggered) Now take one who says "There's no providence" or "Everything forms from atoms and emptiness" or "The greatest aim in life is to seek pleasure"; isn't such a one a moron? Yes indeed. And similar ideas parroted by someone else; don't these get implicated to be silly tales and trash talks? Ditto.

My lousy translation aside, look how similar that bold text is to the text that concerns us here: Origen against Epicurean; Athanasius against Arian. A participle in front and a τυγχάνουσι at the back. And a norminative abutting the τυγχάνουσι. There's even an ὅσος. Similar thrusts, but look how compact and rhetorically sharp Athanasius is compared to Origen!

May the Lord guide you in your readings.

The syntax, in fact, while similar in some respects is not identical.

ἉΙ μὲν αἱρέσεις, ὅσαι τῆς ἀληθείας ἀπέστησαν, ἐπινοήσασαι μανίαν ἑαυταῖς φανεραὶ τυγχάνουσι, καὶ τούτων ἡ ἀσέβεια πάλαι πᾶσιν ἔκδηλος γέγονε.

Note that the "fronted participle" is singular, and has to refer back to the earlier subject (ὁ λέγων...) and therefore cannot be related to τυγχάνουσι(ν) in the same way that επινοήσασαι, nominative plural modifying the subject of the main verb αἱρεσεις, is. I would say that τυγχάνουσιν in the Origen fragment (which one is it, BTW?) is functioning in the "absolute" sense mentioned earlier "happen to be" = "are." I would render something like "and saying other things such as are nonsense and trivialities outside the realm of proper wisdom."

[Stirling Bartholomew]

Peng,

Thank you for your participation. I have read everything several times. The vitriolic responses to your posts has muddied the waters. I don't clearly understand what the contention is about. I often disappear from a discussion when after the first insulting post from one of the participants.

[Barry Hofstetter]

My apologies if I came across as too harsh. My main concern is that we come away with the best possible understanding of the Greek text, but I think I've gotten a bit impatient and curmudgeonly of late. I'll do my best to reign those attitudes in!

[Stirling Bartholomew]

In sections five and following Athanasius ramps up the rhetoric against his opponents.

§ 7.1 Τίς τοίνυν, τῶν τοιούτων καὶ τοῦ μέλους τῆς ‘ Θαλείαςʼ ἀκούσας, οὐ μισήσειεν ἐν δίκῃ παίζοντα τὸν Ἄρειον ὡς ἐπὶ σκηνῆς περὶ τοιούτων ; τίς οὐ θεωρεῖ τοῦτον, διὰ τοῦ δοκεῖν ὀνομάζειν Θεὸν καὶ περὶ Θεοῦ λέγειν, ὡς τὸν ὄφιν συμβουλεύοντα τῇ γυναικί ; τίς δὲ, τοῖς ἑξῆς ἐντυγχάνων, οὐ βλέπει τὴν ἀσέβειαν αὐτοῦ ὥσπερ καὶ τοῦ ὄφεως τὴν μετὰ ταῦτα πλάνην, εἰς ἣν παρήγαγε σοφισάμενος τὴν γυναῖκα; τίς ἐπὶ ταῖς τοιαύταις βλασφημίαις οὐκ ἐξίσταται ;

§ 7.1 Who is there that hears all this, nay, the tune of the Thalia, but must hate, and justly hate, this Arius jesting on such matters as on a stage ? Who but must regard him, when he pretends to name God and speak of God, but as the serpent counselling the woman? Who, on reading what follows in his work, but must discern in his irreligious doctrine that error, into which by his sophistries the serpent in the sequel seduced the woman? Who at such blasphemies is not transported?

— J.H. Newman and A. Robertson

Here we find ἐντυγχάνων establishing the situation for the interrogative τίς ... οὐ βλέπει τὴν ἀσέβειαν αὐτοῦ κ.τ.λ., where ἐντυγχάνων means to encounter something written (LSJ, BDAG, Lampe).

postscript:
Picture Athanasius speaking to a large audience in Portland OR, in 2020. It wouldn't happen. Antifa would shutdown the event.

[Stirling Bartholomew]

After reading Basil and Gregory Nyssa Against Eunomius in English, I am back to Against the Arians.

Orations of St Athanasius Against the Arians

§ 8.3a Πῶς γὰρ ἂν ἀληθεύσῃ περὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς ὁ τὸν Υἱὸν ἀρνούμενος, τὸν ἀποκαλύπτοντα περὶ αὐτοῦ; ἢ πῶς περὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος ὀρθὰ φρονήσει, δυσφημῶν εἰς τὸν τοῦτο χορηγοῦντα Λόγον ;

§ 8.3 For how can he speak truth concerning the Father, who denies the Son, that reveals concerning Him? Or how can he be orthodox concerning the Spirit, while he speaks profanely of the Word that supplies the Spirit?
— J.H. Newman and A. Robertson

The idea ὀρθὰ φρονήσει appears to be more commonly expressed using ὀρθῶς.

Hippolytus Refutation of All Heresies
9.12.15 line 2

Οὗτο<ς> μετὰ τὴν τοῦ Ζεφυρίνου τελευτὴν νομίζων τετυχηκέναι οὗ
ἐθηρᾶτο, τὸν Σαβέλλιον ἀπέωσεν ὡς μὴ φρονοῦντα ὀρθῶς, δεδοικὼς
ἐμὲ καὶ νομίζων οὕτω δύνασθαι ἀποτρίψασθαι τὴν πρὸς τῆς ἐκκλησίας

[Barry Hofstetter]

Not uncommon for a neuter accusative plural to be used adverbially.

[Stirling Bartholomew]

Some inflection of φρονεῖν with ὀρθῶς is found frequently and as early as Aeschylus. Cyril of Alexandria is particularly fond of it.

Aeschylus Trag., Prometheus Bound 999-1000
τόλμησον, ὦ μάταιε, τόλμησόν ποτε
πρὸς τὰς παρούσας πημονὰς ὀρθῶς φρονεῖν.

HERMES
You self-willed fool, for once you should submit, given the present torments facing you.
Let your mind be ruled by what is right.
— Ian Johnston 2012

CYRILLUS Alexandrinus De adoratione et cultu in spiritu et veritate V68 p792 line 4

οἷς ἔνεστι μὲν ἡ φρόνησις, τό γε μὴν ἑλέσθαι φρονεῖν
ὀρθῶς οὐχ ὁρᾶται προσόν.

[Stirling Bartholomew]

Oration I

§ 9.1 Ἰδοὺ γὰρ ἡμεῖς μὲν ἐκ τῶν θείων γραφῶν παῤῥησιαζόμεθα περὶ τῆς εὐσεβοῦς πίστεως, καὶ ὡς λύχνον ἐπὶ τῆς λυχνίας τιθέαμεν λέγοντες· Υἱὸς ἀληθινὸς φύσει καὶ γνήσιός ἐστι τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἴδιος τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ, Σοφία μονογενὴς, καὶ Λόγος ἀληθινὸς καὶ μόνος τοῦ Θεοῦ οὗτός ἐστιν· οὐκ ἔστι κτίσμα οὔτε ποίημα, ἀλλʼ ἴδιον τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσίας γέννημα. Διὸ Θεός ἐστιν ἀληθινὸς, ἀληθινοῦ Πατρὸς ‘ ὁμοούσιος ὑπάρχων. Τὰ δʼ ἄλλα, οἷς εἷπεν, ‘Ἐγὼ εἴπα, θεοί ἐστε, μόνον μετοχῇ τοῦ Λόγου διὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος ταύτην ἔχουσι τὴν χάριν παρὰ τοῦ Πατρός. ‘Χαρακτὴρ γάρ ἐστι τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς ὑποστάσεως, καὶ ‘ φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς,ʼ καὶ δύναμις καὶ εἰκὼν ἀληθινὴ τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσίας, Τοῦτο γὰρ πάλιν εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος· ‘Ὁ ἐμὲ ἑωρακὼς ἑώρακε τὸν Πατέρα. Ἀεὶ δὲ ἦν καὶ ἔστι, καὶ οὐδέποτε οὐκ ἦν. Ἀϊδίου γὰρ ὄντος τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἀΐδιος ἂν εἴη καὶ ὁ τούτου Λόγος καὶ ἡ Σοφία.

§ 9.1 For, behold, we take divine Scripture, and thence discourse with freedom of the religious Faith, and set it up as a light upon its candlestick, saying:— Very Son of the Father, natural and genuine, proper to His essence, Wisdom Only-begotten, and Very and Only Word of God is He; not a creature or work, but an offspring proper to the Father's essence. Wherefore He is very God, existing one in essence with the very Father; while other beings, to whom He said, 'I said you are Gods ,' had this grace from the Father, only by participation of the Word, through the Spirit. For He is the expression of the Father's Person, and Light from Light, and Power, and very Image of the Father's essence. For this too the Lord has said, 'He that has seen Me, has seen the Father John 14:9.' And He ever was and is and never was not. For the Father being everlasting, His Word and His Wisdom must be everlasting.
— J.H. Newman and A. Robertson

I spent some time looking for language similar to Ἀεὶ δὲ ἦν καὶ ἔστι, καὶ οὐδέποτε οὐκ ἦν.

Prior to Athanasius it was slim pickings.

Origenes Fragments de principiis
Frag. 5, ln5
εἰ δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν ὅτε παντοκράτωρ οὐκ ἦν, ἀεὶ εἶναι δεῖ ταῦτα,
δι' ἃ παντοκράτωρ ἐστί, καὶ ἀεὶ ἦν ὑπ' αὐτοῦ κρατούμενα, ἄρχοντι αὐτῷ
χρώμενα.

A completely different expression in the Apocalypse:

Rev. 1:4 Ἰωάννης ταῖς ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαις ταῖς ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ· χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων ἃ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ

Rev. 1:8 Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ ἄλφα καὶ τὸ ὦ, λέγει κύριος ὁ θεός, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ὁ παντοκράτωρ.

After Athanasius there are plenty of samples. The following quotation (I assume) presents the ideas Athanasius is opposing. Athanasius may have adopted the language of his opponents. The issue here is the language, where did it come from. Is it found before Athanasius? Is it adapted from ancient philosophy? Did the Arians invent it?

Socrates Scholasticus Historia ecclesiastica b1 c6 l42ff (5th cent.)

‘Οὐκ ἀεὶ ὁ Θεὸς Πατὴρ ἦν, ἀλλ' ἦν ὅτε ὁ Θεὸς Πατὴρ οὐκ ἦν· οὐκ ἀεὶ ἦν ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγος, ἀλλ' ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων γέγονεν. Ὁ γὰρ ὢν Θεὸς τὸν μὴ ὄντα ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος πεποίηκε· διὸ καὶ ἦν ποτὲ ὅτε οὐκ ἦν. Κτίσμα γάρ ἐστι καὶ ποίημα ὁ Υἱός. Οὔτε δὲ ὅμοιος κατ' οὐσίαν τῷ Πατρί ἐστιν, οὔτε ἀληθινὸς καὶ φύσει τοῦ Πατρὸς Λόγος ἐστὶν, οὔτε ἀληθινὴ Σοφία αὐτοῦ ἐστί· ἀλλ' εἷς μὲν τῶν ποιημάτων καὶ γενητῶν ἐστί· καταχρηστικῶς δὲ λόγος καὶ σοφία, γενόμενος καὶ αὐτὸς δὲ τῷ ἰδίῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγῳ, καὶ τῇ ἐν τῷ Θεῷ Σοφίᾳ, ἐν ᾗ καὶ τὰ πάντα καὶ αὐτὸν πεποίηκεν ὁ Θεός· διὸ καὶ τρεπτός ἐστι καὶ ἀλλοιωτὸς τὴν φύσιν, ὡς καὶ πάντα τὰ λογικά· ξένος τε καὶ ἀλλότριος, καὶ ἀπεσχοινισμένος ἐστὶν ὁ Λόγος τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐσίας. Καὶ ἄρρητός ἐστιν ὁ Πατὴρ τῷ Υἱῷ· οὔτε γὰρ τελείως καὶ ἀκριβῶς γινώσκει ὁ Λόγος τὸν Πατέρα, οὔτε τελείως ὁρᾷν αὐτὸν δύναται. Καὶ γὰρ ἑαυτοῦ τὴν οὐσίαν οὐκ οἶδεν ὁ Υἱὸς ὡς ἔστι· δι' ἡμᾶς γὰρ πεποίηται, ἵνα ἡμᾶς δι' αὐτοῦ ὡς δι' ὀργάνου κτίσῃ ὁ Θεός· καὶ οὐκ ἂν ὑπέστη, εἰ μὴ ἡμᾶς ὁ Θεὸς ἤθελεν ποιῆσαι.’

[Stirling Bartholomew]

Oration I §12
τίς οὕτως ἐστὶν ἀνόητος, ὡς ἀμφιβάλλειν περὶ τοῦ ἀεὶ εἶναι τὸν Υἱόν ;

This might be understood as a condensed summary of the entire project.

[Stirling Bartholomew]

Oration I
§ 14.3 Οὐ γὰρ ἀτελὴς οὐσία τοῦ Πατρὸς ἦν ποτε, ἵνα καὶ τὸ ἴδιον αὐτῆς ἐπισυμβαίνῃ ταύτῃ· οὐδὲ ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἀνθρώπου γεγέννηται ὁ Υἱὸς, ἵνα καὶ ὑστερίζῃ τῆς πατρῴας ὑπάρξεως· ἀλλὰ Θεοῦ γέννημά ἐστι, καὶ ὡς Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀεὶ ὄντος ἴδιος ὢν Υἱὸς, ἀϊδίως ὑπάρχει. Ἀνθρώπων μὲν γὰρ ἴδιον τὸ ἐν χρόνῳ γεννᾷν διὰ τὸ ἀτελὲς τῆς φύσεως· Θεοῦ δὲ ἀΐδιον τὸ γέννημα, διὰ τὸ ἀεὶ τέλειον τῆς φύσεως. Εἰ μὲν οὖν οὐκ ἔστιν Υἱὸς, ἀλλʼ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ποίημα γέγονε, δεικνύτωσαν πρότερον, καὶ ὡς περὶ ποιήματος φανταζόμενοι κραζέτωσαν, ὅτι ‘ ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν· οὐκ ὄντα γὰρ γέγονε τὰ γενητά.

§ 14.3 For never was the essence of the Father imperfect, that what is proper to it should be added afterwards ; nor, as man from man, has the Son been begotten, so as to be later than His Father's existence, but He is God's offspring, and as being proper Son of God, who is ever, He exists eternally. For, whereas it is proper to men to beget in time, from the imperfection of their nature , God's offspring is eternal, for His nature is ever perfect. If then He is not a Son, but a work made out of nothing, they have but to prove it; and then they are at liberty, as if imagining about a creature, to cry out, 'There was once when He was not;' for things which are originated were not, and have come to be.

Οὐ γὰρ ποτε would have worked here. He uses it elsewhere. Placing ποτε before the ἵνα clause puts a "wrapper" around ἀτελὴς οὐσία τοῦ Πατρὸς ἦν. Wrapper is not a grammatical concept. It is an "information packaging" concept.