<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2022.tlg008.opp-grc1:8</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2022.tlg008.opp-grc1:8</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text><body><div type="edition" n="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2022.tlg008.opp-grc1" xml:lang="grc"><div type="textpart" subtype="chapter" n="8"><p>Ἠὼς δὲ καὶ σωθήσεται τὸ διὰ πάντων διήκειν καὶ
πληροῦν τὰ πάντα θεόν, κατὰ τό· Οὐχὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ
τὴν γῆν ἐγὼ πληρῶ; λέγει κύριος, καί· Ηνεῦμα κυρίου
<lb n="10"/> πεπλήρωκε τὴν οἰκουμένην, εἰ τὸ μὲν περιγράφοι, τὸ δὲ
περιγράφοιτο; ἢ γὰρ διὰ κενοῦ χωρήσει τοῦ παντός, καὶ
τὰ πάντα οἰχήσεται ἡμῖν, ἵν ὑβρισθῇ θεός, καὶ σῶμα
γενόμενος, καὶ οὐκ ἔχων ὅσα πεποίηκεν· ἢ σῶμα ἐν
σώμασιν ἔσται, ὅπερ ἀδύνατον· ἢ πλακήσεται καὶ ἀντι-
<note type="footnote">8. 10 περιγραφοι] φει ‘Reg. a’:μη περιγράφοιτο e || 13 om ἔχων e ǁ
14 και] η e</note>
<note type="footnote">1. λύεσθαι] treated as something
further than ἀναλ. The component
elements might conceivably be separated
and yet something remain;
but λ. would be the complete break
up of the whole thing.</note>
<note type="footnote">ib. σύνθεσις] The blending of
different elements introduces a possibility
of conflict, and so of division,
and so of destruction; which is unthinkable
in connexion with Him
who, if He exists at all, must be the
πρώτη φύσις, or primary existence,
into which no earlierexistence enters.
Elias observes that the ‘Platonic’
form of the argument is particularly
applicable to the heretical dialecticians
whom Gr. has in view.</note>
<note type="footnote">5. ἐκ τῶν τελ.] In other words,
the contention that God is not ‘a
body’ is proved by a reductio
absurdum.</note>
<note type="footnote">8. Besides, if God were corporeal,
His corporeity must involve either
the denial of all other corporeities, or
His interpenetration with them. Even
on the supposition of a ‘fifth element’
which might be identified with His
corporeity, He would be made subject
to motion and to space.</note>
<note type="footnote">8. τὸ Οὐχί] Jer. xxiii 24.</note>
<note type="footnote">9. πνεῦμα κ.] Wisd. i. 7. The
book is treated as authoritative.</note>
<note type="footnote">10. τὸ μὲν...τὸ δέ] It seems logically
best, if grammatically less obvious,
to take τὸ μὲν as the direct
ace. after περιγράφοι and τὸ δὲ as
the indirect ace. after περιγράφοιτο;
‘if God should circumscribeonething
and be circumscribed with another.’
This, it is assumed, must be the
case if God were ‘a body.’</note>
<note type="footnote">11. ἢ γάρ] as often, ‘for otherwise
either’etc.</note>
<note type="footnote">ib. διὰ κενοῦ...τ. παντός] ‘the
universe which He pervades must
be empty.’</note>
<note type="footnote">12. ἵν’ ὑβρισθῇ] an answer to the
implied rhetorical question, ‘And
why must everything perish?’
order that God may be doubly outraged,
by being made a body, and
by being deprived of all that He has
created.’</note>
<note type="footnote">14. ἀδύνατον] because ‘bodies’
are mutually exclusive.</note>

<pb n="33"/>
παρατεθήσεται, ὥσπερ ὅσα τῶν ὑγρῶν μίγνυται, καὶ τὸ
μὲν τέμνει, ὑπὸ δὲ τοῦ τμηθήσεται, ὃ καὶ τῶν Ἐπικουρείων
ἀτόμων ἀτοπώτερόν τε καὶ γραωδέστερον· καὶ οὕτω διαπεσεῖται
ἡμῖν, καὶ σῶμα οὐχ ἕξει, οὐδὲ πῆξίν τινα, ὁ περὶ
τοῦ σώματος λόγος. εἰ δὲ ἄυλον φήσομεν, εἰ μὲν τὸ <lb n="5"/>
πέμπτον, ὥς τισιν ἔδοξε, καὶ τὴν κύκλῳ φορὰν φερόμενον,
ἔστω μὲν ἄυλόν τι καὶ πέμπτον σῶμα, εἰ βούλονται δέ,
καὶ ἀσώματον, κατὰ τὴν αὐτόνομον αὐτῶν τοῦ λόγου
φορὰν καὶ ἀνάπλασιν· οὐδὲν γὰρ νῦν περὶ τούτου διοίσομαι.
<note type="footnote">2 τέμνει] τέμει c || 3 γραωδέστερον] + ὡς οἱ πέρι ταύτα ἐσχολακότες εληρησαν
bde El ǁ 9 διοίσομαι] μεν ‘Reg. a’</note>
<note type="footnote">ib. πλακήσεται κτλ.] πλακ. from
πλέκω ‘to weave,’ so ‘entangle,’
It is a somewhat strange
use of the simple verb; but Gr. has
elsewhere θεῷ πλακῆναι καἰ θεὸν
γενέσθαι ἐκ τῆς μίξεως. Ἀντιπ.
‘bring into juxtaposition.’
Gr. understands by the two words is
explained by the comparison with
mixing liquids.</note>
<note type="footnote">1. τὸ μὲν τέμνει] sc. ὁ θεός; the
fut. τμηθ. shews that Gr. is no longer
thinking of the liquids, though no
doubt it was the comparison with
them which caused the pres. τέμνει.
The supposed interpenetration of the
σῶμα of God with other σώματα
necessitates constant breaches of
continuity in both.</note>
<note type="footnote">2. Ἐπικ. ἀτόμων] Cp. p. 19
above.</note>
<note type="footnote">3. γραωδέστερον] Cp. 1 Tim.
iv 7. The words which follow in
some authorities must be an ancient
gloss. If they belonged to the text
at all, they must needs come in after
τμηθήσεται, where (apparently) no
MS. places them.</note>
<note type="footnote">ib. διαπεσεῖται] ‘fall through,’
‘come to ’; Plat. Phaed. 80 c.
The subject of διαπ. is ὁ π. τ σ.
λόγος.</note>
<note type="footnote">4. σῶμα οὐχ νεῖ] It is difficult
in English to keep up the play on
the word σῶμα. Gr. means of course
that the argument for a corporeal
existence of God proves unsubstantail:
it has no πῆξιν, ‘solidity’ (cp.
πάγιος λόγος in § 5).</note>
<note type="footnote">5. εἰ δὲ ἄυλον] ἁ priv. and ὕλη.
The protasis is broken up into εἰ μὲν
τὸ πέμπτον and εἰ δὲ ἄλλο τι παρὰ τὸ
πέμπτον. Then the first apodosis is
broken up likewise into ἒστω μέν
and κατὰ τί δέ.</note>
<note type="footnote">ib τὸ πέμπτον] The reference
is to the Aristotelian conception of
a “quintessence,” or fifth “element,”
besides earth, air, fire and water.
Cp. Bas. Hex. 11.</note>
<note type="footnote">7. ἔστω μέν] Gr. is willing to
assume for the moment that there is
such a thing as the imagined quintessence:
οὐδὲν νῦν διοίσομαι, ‘I will
not now differ.’</note>
<note type="footnote">8. κατὰ τὴν αὐτόνομον κτλ.]
Almost each word here requires annotation.
Λόγος is ‘the σῶμα,’
or perhaps ἀσώματον σῶμα Φορὰν
at first sight seems to refer to τὴν
κύκλῳ φ. just above; but there is
prob. no such play upon the word
intended. Gr. seems to employ it
in the sense of ‘usage.’ Although
no other example of the subst. in
that sense is at hand, the verb is not
infrequently so used. Gr. has διὰ
γλώσσης φέρειν ‘to speak of.
Ἀναπλάττειν and its derivatives are
frequent in Gr. Sometimes the prep.
has its full force, ‘re-construction,’
‘fashioning afresh,’ as for ex.
baptism; sometimes it is simply ‘to
fashion,’ ‘imagine.’ Thus he
of matter ὕλην) as ὑποστᾶσαν ἐξ οὐκ
ὄντων, κἄν τινες ἀγέννητον ἀναπλάττωσιν.
So here he seems to mean
the ‘shaping’ which the Aristotelians
put upon the word, with a slight
suggestion of its being a factitious
and not the legitimate construction.
This is further expressed by calling
it αὐτόνομον, ‘their inderpendent,’
arbitrary, ‘use and construction of
the word.’</note>

<pb n="34"/>
κατὰ τί δὲ τῶν κινουμένων ἔσται καὶ φερομένων, ἵνα μὴ
λέγω τὴν ὕβριν, εἰ τὰ αὐτὰ τοῖς πεποιημένοις ὁ πεποιηκὼς
κινηθήσεται, καὶ τοῖς φερομένοις ὁ φέρων, εἴ γε καὶ τοῦτο
δώσουσι; τί δὲ τὸ τοῦτο πάλιν κινοῦν; τί δὲ τὸ τὸ πᾶν
<lb n="5"/> κινοῦν; κἀκεῖνο τί; καὶ τί πάλιν ἐκεῖνο; καὶ τοῦτο εἰς
ἄπειρον. πῶς δὲ οὐκ ἐν τόπῳ πάντως, εἴ γε φερόμενον;
εἰ δὲ ἄλλο τι παρὰ τὸ πέμπτον φήσουσιν, εἰ μὲν ἀγγελικόν,
πόθεν ὅτι ἄγγελοι σώματα, καὶ τίνα ταῦτα; καὶ πόσον
ὑπὲρ ἄγγελον εἴη θεός, οὗ λειτουργὸς ἄγγελος; εἰ δὲ
<lb n="10"/> ὑπὲρ ταῦτα, πάλιν εἰσήχθη σωμάτων ἐσμὸς ἀλόγιστος,
καὶ φλυαρίας βυθός, οὐδαμοῦ στῆναι δυνάμενος.</p><note type="footnote">3 καὶ τοῦτο om καὶ e ǁ 4 τὸ τὸ πὰν] τοῦτο τὸ πὰν b: τὸ πὰν aef || 8 οἱ
ἄγγελοι ‘Reg. a’ || αν e ποσον]+αν e ‘duo Colb. Or. 1’</note><note type="footnote">1. κατὰ τί] Gr. seems to mean
’in what respect,’ ‘by virtue
what part of its being, will this
πέμπτον, which is identified with
the σῶμα of God, take its place
among the things which move and
revolve?’ It is, however, he
a ὕβρις, a wanton affront, to assign
such a place to God at all, whatever
may be the answer to his question.</note><note type="footnote">4. δώσουσι] ‘will grant’:
sc. that God is ὁ φέρων.</note><note type="footnote">ib. τί δὲ τὸ τοῦτο π. κινοῦν] τοῦτο
=τὸ πέμπτον: it (viz. God) moves
other things, and itself moves with
them; what then moves it? The τὸ
πᾶν which follows will then include
the thing which sets τὸ πέμπτον in
motion.</note><note type="footnote">6. ἐν τόπῳ] Motion is a change
of space- relations, and therefore implies
a local position.</note><note type="footnote">7. εἰ δὲ ἄλλο τι] The other alternative
(viz. that the σῶμα of God
is not the πέμπτον) is again confronted
with a dilemma; εἰ μὲν ἀγγελ.,
εἰ δὲ ὑπὲρ ταῦτα.</note><note type="footnote">8. πόθεν ὅτι] ’xvhence comes the
belief ’ ’how do they know
that?’</note><note type="footnote">ib. πδσον...εἴη] In better Greek
there would of course be an ἄν:
‘how far far would God excel an angel?</note><note type="footnote">10. εἰσήχθη] The aor. gives a
liveliness to the argument: the logical
consequences are represented as
having taken actual effect; as in i 2.</note><note type="footnote">id. ἐσμός] ‘a swarm,’ said to
derived from ἵημι. Ἀλόγιστος= ‘innumerable,’
though its possible sense
of ‘irrational’ may perh. have suggested
to Gr. the ’abyss of nonsense’
which follows. Στῆναι, ‘to stop.’
is not clear why the notion that
God's (supposed) σῶμα is superior to
angelic bodies should ‘again introduce
a countless swarm of bodies.
Perhaps by πάλιν. only means
that this notion is in that respect no
better than the former one, because
it also implies that the angels have
bodies. Otherwise he must mean
that the supposition of a body far
superior to angelic bodies leaves
room for the invention of swarms of
intermediate bodies between the angelic
bodies and it.</note><pb n="35"/></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>