[B-Greek] Encyclical Letter of the Synod of Alexandria (362)

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Apr 16 08:35:13 EDT 2004


At 11:18 AM -0500 4/15/04, Dodson, Derek S wrote:
>I am requesting assitance in analyzing a greek sentence that comes from an
>encyclical letter of the Synod of Alexandria in 362.  The text is given by
>Martin Tetz in Zeitschrift fur Neutesmentliche Wissenschaft 79 (1988):
>262-281 (the actual text is found on pages 271-273).
>
>For the sake of context, the first sentence is an exhortation neither to
>"interact with the impiety of those who reject the one, true divinity of
>the holy trinity, alienate the Son from the Father, and separate the
>Spirit from the Son, nor should you join associate with their turmoils and
>bloodthirstiness."  The second sentence is as follows (commas are from
>Tetz):
>
>OUTW GAR KAI hHEIS, hEAUTOUS BOULOMENOI SWZEIN KAI TOUS PEIQOMENOUS hHMIN,
>EK PLEIONOS HDH CRONOU THN PROFANH ASEBEIAN TWN AREIOU DIELEGCOMEN KAI THN
>hUPOKRISIN TWN EPIPLASTOIS hRHMASIN hUPAGOMENWN TOUS AFELESTEROUS
>CWRIZOMEQA TE PASHS ATAXIAS AUTWN, PENQOUNTES EF OIS PRATTOUSIN, hOTI TO
>ONOMA TO AGATHON DUSFHMEISQAI POIOUSI, KAI BOULOMENOI DIATHRHQHNAI PWS EN
>hHMIN KAI TOIS MEQ hHMWN TON TE THS PISTEWS KAI THS EPIEIKOUS ANASTROFHS
>NOMON.
>
>Here is my tenative translation:
>
>For in the same way, we too-wanting to save ourselves and those who
>follow/obey us-have been refuting for a long time now the conspicuous
>impiety of the Arians and the hypocrisy of the those who lead away by
>feigned/false words the more simple-minded.  We also separate ourselves
>from every undisciplined way of theirs by grieving over the things that
>they do-namely, cause the good name to be slandered/reviled/blasphemed-and
>by wanting the law/custom/principle/rule of both the faith and the gentle
>lifestyle to be observed by us and those with us.
>
>My questions:
>
>1)  What is the function of the two participles PENQOUNTES ("grieving")
>and the second BOULOMENOI?  I translate them as parallel adverbial
>participles modifying the verb CWRIZOMEQA ("we separate").  Or does
>BOULOMENOI modify POIOUSI ("they cause")?  But this doesn't seem to make
>sense:  The ones who revile the good name also want to the rule of faith
>and gentle lifestyle to be observed by us and those with us?  Or does the
>particle PWS offer some misgiving about BOULOMENOI:  They cause the good
>name to be reviled, though somehow also wanting the rule of faith and
>gentle lifestyle to be observed by us . . . .?

This is an elaborately fashioned rhetorical period with quite a bit of
subordination; it nicely illustrates our recent reiteration of the
importance of understanding Attic in order to read patristic Greek.

Note the structure:

subject: hHMEIS -- followed by a circumstantial participle BOULOMENOI
SWiZEIN with two objects (hEAUTOUS and TOUS PEIQOMENOUS hHMIN),

main predicate with two verbs: (1) EK PLEIONOS ... DIELEGCOMEN ("we've long
been disputing ...") with two objects (THN PROFANH ASEBEIAN and THN
hUPOKRISIN ..., this latter with its own subordinate substantival
participial phrase) and (2) CWRIZOMEQA PASHS ATAXIAS AUTWN,

two more complex circumstantial participial phrases explaining the stance
enunciated in the main predicate, (1) PENQOUNTES with subordinate hOTI
clause, (2) BOULOMENOI DIATEHRHQHNAI TON NOMON, this second with a twofold
adverbial prepositional phrase (EN hHMIN KAI TOIS MEQ' hHMWN) and an object
(TON NOMON) with a twofold adnominal genitive phrase (THS PISTEWS, THS
EPIEIKOUS ANASTROFHS).

In response to your questions, I'd agree about the participles PENQOUNTES
and BOULOMENOI; we might even suggest that the first BOULOMENOI should be
understood simply with DIELEGCOMEN and these two later participles should
be understood with CWRIZOMEQA; I think that the hOTI ... POIOUSI clause
gives a reason for PENQOUNTES EF' hOIS PRATTOUSIN ("we grieve at what they
are doing because they are allowing the good name to be
besmirched")--although it might be argued that the hOTI ... POIOUSI clause
is a simple appositive to EF' hOIS PRATTOUSIN (but I doubt it--I think this
sentence is rhetorically too well-crafted to have a simple redundancy of
that sort); the BOULOMENOI participial phrase is parallel to PENQOUNTES and
adds a second motive for the action of withdrawal from the Arians indicated
in CWRIZOMEQA. I assume the PWS is indefinite rather than
interrogative--i.e. it's not circumflexed; I would understand it as
qualifying the infinitive DIATHRHQHNAI, and I think I would prefer to
understand DIATHRHQHNAI as middle rather than passive "wishing to keep
intact somehow amongst ourselves and those associated with us the rule both
of the faith and of respectable behavior."

>2)  How does the hOTI clause function?  I translate it epexegetically, but
>it could also be causal.

I have agreed (above) that it could be epexegetical--appositional to
clarify what it is that they do--, but I think it more likely that it's
causal, explaining why the writers feel grieved at the actions of the
Arians.

This sort of elaborate rhetorical structure with its elegant parallelism
and subordination seems far removed the most elaborate NT eloquence,
although we see occasional hints of it in sections such as the proem of
Luke's gospel and the argumentation of 1 Cor 1-4.
-- 

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/



More information about the B-Greek mailing list