Orations of St Athanasius Against the Arians

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1141
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Orations of St Athanasius Against the Arians

Post by Stirling Bartholomew »

Barry Hofstetter wrote: February 20th, 2020, 2:36 pm The Greek is perfectly comprehensible, and nothing is missing.
OK, I will take that bait.
§ 1.1 ἉΙ μὲν αἱρέσεις, ὅσαι τῆς ἀληθείας ἀπέστησαν, ἐπινοήσασαι μανίαν ἑαυταῖς φανεραὶ τυγχάνουσι, καὶ τούτων ἡ ἀσέβεια πάλαι πᾶσιν ἔκδηλος γέγονε.

Thanks to your first response, I now understand how ἐπινοήσασαι μανίαν and τυγχάνουσι hang together as a clause. φανεραὶ is in agreement with ἐπινοήσασαι so the syntax of that part is not a problem. But I would be hesitant to explain what it means.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Peng Huiguo
Posts: 93
Joined: April 28th, 2019, 2:02 am

Re: Orations of St Athanasius Against the Arians

Post by Peng Huiguo »

I will take that bait
That bait's meant for me. Barry, I wrote "is missing... in Newman & Robertson's translation".

Stirling, indeed τυγχάνω often leads (a subject, involuntarily) into a participle, like bringing them into a chance collision. But here, ἐπινοήσασαι is not that participle; instead it functions as an attendant circumstance. τυγχάνουσι's subject is αἱ αἱρέσεις, and its object is ἑαυταῖς. The thing that ἑαυταῖς "collides with" is φανεραί (what's a participle anyway but a verbal adjective?). And Iliad 11.116 shows that τυγχάνω doesn't need to lead into a participle. There's also something interesting about τυγχάνω — it's related to τεύχω (make, like ποιέω) with which it shares some forms, and ποιέω φανερός is a usual phrase (Contra Apionem 1.1, Mark 3:12...). So, bringing it all together (Ima go with heretics for αἱρέσεις), somewhat loosely,

Heretics (αἱ αἱρέσεις), inasmuch as they've gone against the truth (ὅσαι τῆς ἀληθείας ἀπέστησαν), and in devising madness (ἐπινοήσασαι μανίαν), unwittingly expose themselves (ἑαυταῖς φανεραὶ τυγχάνουσι) as exactly lunatics (back to ἐπινοήσασαι μανίαν)...

This is compact writing, and kind of interesting. Hope you won't be scared of τυγχάνω anymore; it's like an involuntary counterpart to ποιέω; quite useful word actually.
Peng Huiguo
Posts: 93
Joined: April 28th, 2019, 2:02 am

Re: Orations of St Athanasius Against the Arians

Post by Peng Huiguo »

Incidentally, the ending ἡ ἀσέβεια πάλαι πᾶσιν ἔκδηλος γέγονε answers the beginning τῆς ἀληθείας ἀπέστησαν (πάλαι could be punny in this regard), forming a little chiasm that makes the loopy structure of the middle ἐπινοήσασαι μανίαν ἑαυταῖς φανεραὶ τυγχάνουσι all the more clever.
Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 2159
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Orations of St Athanasius Against the Arians

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

Peng Huiguo wrote: February 20th, 2020, 7:16 pm
I will take that bait
That bait's meant for me. Barry, I wrote "is missing... in Newman & Robertson's translation".

Stirling, indeed τυγχάνω often leads (a subject, involuntarily) into a participle, like bringing them into a chance collision. But here, ἐπινοήσασαι is not that participle; instead it functions as an attendant circumstance. τυγχάνουσι's subject is αἱ αἱρέσεις, and its object is ἑαυταῖς. The thing that ἑαυταῖς "collides with" is φανεραί (what's a participle anyway but a verbal adjective?). And Iliad 11.116 shows that τυγχάνω doesn't need to lead into a participle. There's also something interesting about τυγχάνω — it's related to τεύχω (make, like ποιέω) with which it shares some forms, and ποιέω φανερός is a usual phrase (Contra Apionem 1.1, Mark 3:12...). So, bringing it all together (Ima go with heretics for αἱρέσεις), somewhat loosely,

Heretics (αἱ αἱρέσεις), inasmuch as they've gone against the truth (ὅσαι τῆς ἀληθείας ἀπέστησαν), and in devising madness (ἐπινοήσασαι μανίαν), unwittingly expose themselves (ἑαυταῖς φανεραὶ τυγχάνουσι) as exactly lunatics (back to ἐπινοήσασαι μανίαν)...

This is compact writing, and kind of interesting. Hope you won't be scared of τυγχάνω anymore; it's like an involuntary counterpart to ποιέω; quite useful word actually.
This is simply wrong. Of course the technical grammatical subject of τυγχάνουσι are αἱρεσεις, but ἐπινοήσασαι is clearly the supplementary participle (nothing involuntary about it, it's a standard construction). ἑαυταῖς is the dative dependent on φανεραί. And αἱρέσεις are certainly not αἱρετικοί.

Iliad 11:

116 ἡ δʼ εἴ πέρ τε τύχῃσι μάλα σχεδόν, οὐ δύναταί σφι
117 χραισμεῖν...

Is no support for you. It only shows that the verb may be used absolutely, probably with ἐοῦσα understood.

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

I would render, "These heresies, which stand against the truth, have produced madness manifest in themselves, and the godlessness of these people has been evident from of old." Or something like that.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter, M.A., Th.M.
Ph.D. Student U of FL
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1141
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Orations of St Athanasius Against the Arians

Post by Stirling Bartholomew »

Expressions like:

"perfectly comprehensible" and "simply wrong"

"perfectly comprehensible" to whom?

"simply wrong" What can we say to that. It isn't an argument.

Constantly claiming omnicompetence doesn't help one's reputation.

In the words of English Royalty: "We are not impressed."
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 2159
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Orations of St Athanasius Against the Arians

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

Stirling Bartholomew wrote: February 21st, 2020, 1:32 pm Expressions like:

"perfectly comprehensible" and "simply wrong"

"perfectly comprehensible" to whom?

"simply wrong" What can we say to that. It isn't an argument.

Constantly claiming omnicompetence doesn't help one's reputation.

In the words of English Royalty: "We are not impressed."
Notice that I didn't just say that it was wrong. I showed why it was wrong and gave the proper reading. When I say perfectly comprehensible, I mean it in the same way that I mean this English text I'm writing is perfectly comprehensible.

I'm not here to impress anyone. I am here to discuss the Greek, but being tentative or pretending that someone else's reading might have a percentage chance of being right when it's not is not going to help anyone. If you or Peng disagree, then present your case and we can continue to discuss it. Otherwise, let's move on.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter, M.A., Th.M.
Ph.D. Student U of FL
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
Peng Huiguo
Posts: 93
Joined: April 28th, 2019, 2:02 am

Re: Orations of St Athanasius Against the Arians

Post by Peng Huiguo »

This is simply wrong.
I'm not sure what "this" refers to. It can't be all that I wrote, because you agree that αἱρεσεις is the subject of τυγχάνουσι, and your rendition shows you think ἑαυταῖς and φανεραί are somehow joined by τυγχάνουσι just like I said they are. The heretics/heresies point is irrelevant here, that's why I gave a caveat about it, but frankly it can be translated to heretics (let's not start on that). The point of contention must be τυγχάνω+participle, and Ima talk about this shortly.
Is no support for you. It only shows that the verb may be used absolutely, probably with ἐοῦσα understood.
Then τυγχάνουσι here can be used "absolutely, probably with ἐοῦσαι understood" (whatever that means) too. Your point that it's no support for me doesn't stand. Nevertheless, bringing classical greek into a discussion of koine is hazardous, and I shouldn't have done it.
I showed why it was wrong and gave the proper reading.
If by proper reading you mean that truncated LSJ explanation, it's just a low-hanging cherry from the wrong tree (sorry), and saying that I'm wrong from that slim reading is quite a jump in conclusion — the most you can say is that you have some backing from LSJ. For the love of durians, Barry, pls exercise a bit of the principle of charity.

Now, τυγχάνω+participle... [pls wait a while for me to clean up the list of τυγχάνω's that I cobbled from Arianos]
Peng Huiguo
Posts: 93
Joined: April 28th, 2019, 2:02 am

Re: Orations of St Athanasius Against the Arians

Post by Peng Huiguo »

There's a reason why BDAG doesn't dwell on this construction — it's rare in LXX and NT. In the verses listed below, there's only one specimen of it. Sorry for not typing out all these verses — I don't have a digital copy to c&p from; anyway it's good to read the verses in context, not disembodied.

1 line down from Cp. de Syn. 31 in the margin

4th line from top

8th line from bottom

1 line below Cp. ii. 43 marked in margin

5 lines from top

8th line of §24

1 line above the mark John xiv. 28 in the margin

3rd line from top

last line

6th line from bottom

6th line from the bottom

line marked Rom viii. 26 in margin

3 lines above marked Jer. i. 5 in margin

5th line from bottom

3rd and 6th lines of §26

8th line of §48

7th line from top

3rd line from bottom

3rd line down from Ib. 18 marked in margin

4th line from bottom

5th line from top

8th line from bottom

3rd line from bottom

6th line from top and 3rd line from bottom

9th line from bottom

3rd line from bottom

4 lines above §21

2 lines above marked i. 37 in margin

3rd line from top

11th line from top

1st line

8th line from top

first line

And the LXX and NT occurrences. Quick scan thru these verses indicates the word takes not just strictly a participle for object, but almost anything — prepositional phrase, noun, adjective with any case (often genitive), and this object tends to stay close to the verb, mostly abutting it. Arians contains a compact use of a τυγχάνω participle that takes its object (in mismatched case) in its attributive position. It's pretty cool.

There's happenstance in the verb, causing it to take on some sense of passiveness. When negated (Acts 19:11, 28:2) it sheds its happenstance and takes on a heightened activeness.
Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 2159
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Orations of St Athanasius Against the Arians

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

Peng Huiguo wrote: February 22nd, 2020, 2:39 pm
This is simply wrong.
I'm not sure what "this" refers to. It can't be all that I wrote, because you agree that αἱρεσεις is the subject of τυγχάνουσι, and your rendition shows you think ἑαυταῖς and φανεραί are somehow joined by τυγχάνουσι just like I said they are. The heretics/heresies point is irrelevant here, that's why I gave a caveat about it, but frankly it can be translated to heretics (let's not start on that). The point of contention must be τυγχάνω+participle, and Ima talk about this shortly.
Is no support for you. It only shows that the verb may be used absolutely, probably with ἐοῦσα understood.
Then τυγχάνουσι here can be used "absolutely, probably with ἐοῦσαι understood" (whatever that means) too. Your point that it's no support for me doesn't stand. Nevertheless, bringing classical greek into a discussion of koine is hazardous, and I shouldn't have done it.
I showed why it was wrong and gave the proper reading.
If by proper reading you mean that truncated LSJ explanation, it's just a low-hanging cherry from the wrong tree (sorry), and saying that I'm wrong from that slim reading is quite a jump in conclusion — the most you can say is that you have some backing from LSJ. For the love of durians, Barry, pls exercise a bit of the principle of charity.

Now, τυγχάνω+participle... [pls wait a while for me to clean up the list of τυγχάνω's that I cobbled from Arianos]
"This" refers to your overall analysis, while acknowledging that one part of it was correct. "Absolutely" means that τυγχάνω may be used absolute in the sense of οὖσα τυγχάνω without the actual use of the participle. And you very much want to make use of "classical Greek" in looking at Athanasius, since he composing his Greek using Attic models, as many of the later church writers attempt to do. And by proper reading, I gave a translation designed to illustrate the construction I was putting on the Greek. The LSJ does give examples of the usage that Athanasius uses.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter, M.A., Th.M.
Ph.D. Student U of FL
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
Peng Huiguo
Posts: 93
Joined: April 28th, 2019, 2:02 am

Re: Orations of St Athanasius Against the Arians

Post by Peng Huiguo »

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.
Post Reply

Return to “Church Fathers and Patristic Greek Texts”