114 See Note on 'Agennhtoj, p. 100.
116 Reading ousan for ousian of Oehler and Migne.
118 presbeuein. So Lucian. Diog. Laert., and Origen passim.
119 your own words, i.e. not ours, as you say. The Codex of Turin has toij hmeteroij, and hmin above: but Oehler has wisely followed that of Venice. Eunomius had said of Basil's party (§34) `justice records in your own words a verdict against yourselves.0' `No,0' Gregory answers; `your words (interpreting our doctrine) alone lend themselves to that.0' But to change kaq' hmwn of the Codd. also to kaq' umwn would supply a still better sense.
120 John x. 30.
121 osa epiqewreitai th fusei.
122 Psalm ciii. 8.
123 Luke vi. 36.
124 Matthew v. 7.
125 John xvii. 23. "I in them, and thou in Me, that they may be perfected into one." (R.V.)
126 upenantiwj, i.e. as logical "contraries" differ from each other. This is not an Aristotelian, but a Neo-Platonic use of the word (i.e. Ammonius, a.d. 390, &c.). It occurs so again in this Book frequently.
129 plhn all' epeidh esti kai en qhrioij krioij.
130 arbitrary distribution, apoklhrwsewj: kat' apoklhrwsin "at random," is also used by Sextus Empiric. (a.d. 200), Clem. Alex., and Greg Naz.
131 One First Cause, monarxiaj. In a notable passage on the Greeks who came up to the Feast (John xii. 20), Cyril (Catena, p. 307), uses the same word. "Such, seeing that some of the Jews' customs did not greatly differ from their own, as far as related to the manner of sacrifice, and the belief in a One first Cause ...came up with them to worship," &c. Philo had already used the word so (De Charit.). Athanasius opposes it to poluqeia (Quoest. ad Antioch. I.).
132 1 Cor. xii. 3.
133 enohsamen: aorist of instantaneous action.
134 i.e. pathr, agennhtoj
135 Putting a full stop at sunageiromen. Oehler otherwise.
136 Isaiah xxix. 13; Matthew xv. 8.
137 the Master's mind. "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." Matth. xviii. 6; Mark ix. 42.
138 1 Tim. iv. 4 (R.V.)
139 1 Cor. viii. 13.
140 Transpositions of the terms in his own false premises; twn sofismatwn antistrofaj. The same as "the professional twisting of premisses," and "the hooking backward and forward and twisting of premisses" below. The terms Father and 'Agennhtoj are transposed or twisted into each other's place in this `irrefragable syllogism.0' It is `a reductio ad absurdum0' thus:-
Father means 'Agennhtoj (Basil's premiss),
\ 'Agennhtoj means Father.
The fallacy of Eunomius consists in making `Father0' universal in his own premiss, when it was only particular in Basil's. "'Agennhtoj means the whole contents of the word Father," which therefore cannot mean having generated a son. It is a False Conversion.
This Conversion or antiotrofh is illustrated in Aristotle's Analytics, Prior. I. iii. 3. It is legitimate thus:-
Some B is A
\ Some A is (some) B.
141 kata thn twn antikeimeiwn fnsin. If 'Agennhtoj means not having a son, then to affirm `God is always 'Agennhtoj0' is even to deny (its logical contradictory) `God once had a Son.0'
142 ton basilea.
143 proj tw. Cod. Ven., surely better than the common proj to, which Oehler has in his text.
144 eleuqeria; late Greek, for eleuqeriothj.
145 "the living whole,' swmatoj: this is the radical meaning of swma, and also the classical. Viger. (Idiom. p. 143 note) distinguishes four meanings under this. 1. Safety. 2. Individuality. 3. Living presence. 4. Life: and adduces instances of each from the Attic orators.
146 to kathgkulwmenon thj twn sufismatwn plokhj. See c. 38, note 7. The false premisses in the syllogisms have been-
1. Father (partly) means 'Agennhtoj.
Things which mean the same in part, mean the same in all (false premiss).
\ Father means 'Agennhtoj (false).
2. Father means 'Agennhtoj (false).
Agennhtoj does not mean `having a Son.0'
\ Father does not mean `having a Son0' (false).
147 enedeicato, ou to epekeina. This is the reading of the Turin Cod., and preferable to that of the Paris edition.
148 The first syllogism was-
`Father0' means the `coming from nothing;0'
(`Coming from nothing0' does not mean `begetting a Son0')
\ Father does not mean begetting a Son.
He "pulls to pieces" this conclusion by taking its logical `contrary0' as the first premiss of his second syllogism; thus-
Father means begetting a Son;
(Father means 'Agennhtoj)
\ 'Agennhtoj means begetting a Son.
From which it follows that before that begetting the Almighty was not 'Agennhtoj.
The conclusion of the last syllogism also involves the contrary of the 2nd premiss of the first.
It is to be noticed that both syllogisms are aimed at Basil's doctrine, `Father0' means `coming from nothing.0' Eunomius strives to show that, in both, such a premiss leads to an absurdity. But Gregory ridicules both for contradicting each other.
149 to men mh dunasqai. The negative, absent in Oehler, is recovered from the Turin Cod.
150 John xvi. 15. Oehler conjectures these words (!Exei o pathr) are to be repeated; and thus obtains a good sense, which the common reading, o pathr eipon, does not give.
151 Psalm cii. 27.
152 en th periodw kai anastrofh twn omoiwn rhmatwn.
153 auto to peplasmenon thj uponoiaj.
154 the parable, i.e. of the Tares. Matthew xiii. 27: cf. v. 52.
155 2 Tim. ii. 20.
156 Heb. vii. 9, Heb. vii. 10; Genesis xiv. 18.
157 John x. 38.
158 Heb. i.
159 Heb i. 3. (wn, not genomenoj).
160 John iv. 57.