De Filio (Orat. 29)
Gregory, of Nazianzus
Gregorius Nazianzenus, The Five Theological Orations, Mason, Cambridge, 1899
ὄντα οὖν γεγέννηκεν, ἢ οὐκ ὄντα; τῶν ληρημάτων· περὶ ἐμὲ καὶ σὲ ταῦτα, οἳ τὸ μέν τι ἦμεν, ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ ὀσφύι τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ ὁ Λευὶ, τὸ δὲ γεγόναμεν’ ὥστε ἐξ ὄντων τρόπον τινὰ τὸ ἡμέτερον, καὶ οὐκ ὄντων· ἐναντίως περὶ τὴν ἀρχέγονον ὕλην ὑποστᾶσαν σαφῶς ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, κἄν τινες ἀγένητον ἀναπλάττωσιν. ἐνταῦθα δὲ σύνδρομον τῷ εἶναι τὸ γεγεννῆσθαι, καὶ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς· ὥστε ποῦ θήσεις τὸ ἀμφίκρημνον τοῦτο ἐρώτημα; τί γὰρ τοῦ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πρεσβύτερον, ἵν ἐκεῖ θῶμεν τὸ εἶναί ποτε τοῦ υἱοῦ, ἢ τὸ μὴ εἶναι; ἀμφοτέρως γὰρ τὸ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς λυθήσεται. εἰ μή σοι καὶ ὁ πατήρ, πάλιν ἐρωτώντων ἡμῶν, ἐξ ὄντων, ἢ ἐξ [*](9. 1 τῶν] ω τῶν e || 6 ἀγένητον] ἀγέννητον def ΙΙ ἀναπλάττουσιν e || 7 τὼ εἶναι τὸ] τὸ εἶναι τὼ ‘Reg.’ a’ 9 η τὸ μὴ] om τὸ cd) [*](1. ὄντα] Α fresh difficulty: was the Son already in existence when He was begotten, or not? Gr. admits that the question might have some meaning in regard to human generation. In one sense we already existed τὸ μέν τι); in another, we then began to be (λγλόναμεν practically=ἐγενήθημεν).) [*](3. ὁ Λευί] Heb. vii 10.) [*](4. τὸ ἡμέτερον] = ἡμεῖς.) [*](6. κἄν τινες ἂγ. ἀναπλ.] The reference is to ’s Timaeus.) [*](ib. σύνδρομον τῷ εἰ. τὸ γ.] ’In this ’ of the Eternal Son, ‘generation is coincident with existence, and is from all eternity.’) [*](7. ποῦ θήσεις] Where will you find a place, a date, for your question to apply to? ‘Already in existence when He was begotten ’ implies a time before the begetting; but there was no such time. He was begotten from the beginning. What was there before ’the begin- ning, ’ that we may say whether the Son then existed or not? In either case, whether we affirm or deny His existence, it is clear that that subsequent moment at which we suppose Him to have been begotten cannot really have been the beginning.) [*](10. εἰ μή σοι κ. ὁ π.] If you still press your question, we will once more ask you about the Father, whether His existence is derived from elements that were beforehand or from elements that were not. Perhaps then you will make out that both propositions are true, and that He has two modes or stages of existence, one before and the other after the absorption of those elements. Or you will choose the latter alternative, and say of Him, as you say of the Son, that He comes into being from nothingness. If you are ready to admit this of the Father (such is the force of the εἰ μή), there is some consistency in what you affirm of the Son.)