From: #porson (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Aug 16 1997 - 05:06:21 EDT
I think these imperatives struck a number of ancient authors, among them
Tatian and Origen. I have included a citatian from Origen, Libellus De
Oratione (Migne PG 11.493). Interestingly, Origen seems to link the
imperatives not to any Semitic usage, but rather to a predilection for an
imperative where good literary usage would,presumably, have anticipated
ETI PERI TOU hAGIAS8HTW TO ONOMA SOU, KAI TWN hEKsHS PROSTAKTIKWi
XARAKTHRI EIRHMENWN, LEKTEON, hOTI SUNEXWS PROSTAKTIKOIS ANTI EUKTIKWN
EXRHSANTO KAI hOI hERMHNEUSANTES...
He goes on to cite a variety of OT parallels and to criticize the methods
of Tatian in the latter's exposition of Genesis 1.3.
Cyril of Jerusalem,in his Fifth Mystagogical Catachesis also seems to
understand these imperatives as optatives or wishes, although he doesn't
comment from the point of view of a grammarian:
...EUXOME8A EN hHMIN hAGIAS8HNAITO ONOMA TOU 8EOU... (MYST. CAT. 5.12)
To go back to an old item, namely PEIRASMOS, Origen also deals with this
issue extensively in this little treatise.
There is also an interesting treatment in Maximos the Confessor's
hERMHNEIA SUNTOMOS EIS TO PATER hHMWN (FILOKALIA 2.202, EKDOTIKOS OIKOS
DITTOS GAR , KATA THN GRAFHN, TWN PEIRASMWN hO TROPOS. hO MEN hHDONIKOS,
hO DE ODUNHROS; KAI hO MEN PROAIRETIKOS, hO DE APROAIRETOS...
If anyone is interested in the rest of the quote (about 1/2 page), let me
Cyril also deals with PEIRASMOS in his little treatise, but not with the
depth and beauty found in Origen and Maximos.
Sorry to mix the old with the new.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:25 EDT