<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns:py="http://codespeak.net/lxml/objectify/pytype" py:pytype="TREE"><text><body><div type="edition" n="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2022.tlg009.1st1K-grc1" xml:lang="grc"><div type="textpart" subtype="chapter" n="9"><p>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, <lb n="5"/>
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 <lb n="10"/>
σοι καὶ ὁ πατήρ, πάλιν ἐρωτώντων ἡμῶν, ἐξ ὄντων, ἢ ἐξ
<note type="footnote">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</note>
<note type="footnote">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).</note>
<note type="footnote">3. ὁ Λευί] Heb. vii 10.</note>
<note type="footnote">4. τὸ ἡμέτερον] = ἡμεῖς.</note>
<note type="footnote">6. κἄν τινες ἂγ. ἀναπλ.] The
reference is to ’s Timaeus.</note>
<note type="footnote">ib. σύνδρομον τῷ εἰ. τὸ γ.] ’In
this ’ of the Eternal Son, ‘generation
is coincident with existence,
and is from all eternity.’</note>
<note type="footnote">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.</note>
<note type="footnote">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.</note>

<pb n="86"/>
οὐκ ὄντων, κινδυνεύσειεν ἢ δὶς εἶναι, ὃ μὲν προών, ὃ δὲ ὤν,
ἢ ταὐτὸν τῷ υἱῷ παθεῖν, ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων εἶναι, διὰ τὰ σὰ τῶν
ἐρωτημάτων παίγνια, καὶ τὰς ἐκ ψάμμων οἰκοδομάς, αἱ
μηδὲ αὔραις ἵστανται. ἐγὼ μὲν οὖν οὐδέτερον τούτων
<lb n="5"/> δέχομαι, καὶ τὴν ἐρώτησίν φημι τὸ ἄτοπον ἔχειν, οὐχὶ τὸ
ἄπορον τὴν ἀπάντησιν. εἰ δέ σοι φαίνεται ἀναγκαῖον
εἶναι τὸ ἕτερον ἀληθεύειν ἐπὶ παντός, κατὰ τὰς σὰς δια-
λεκτικὰς ὑπολήψεις, δέξαι μού τι μικρὸν ἐρώτημα. ὁ
χρόνος ἐν χρόνῳ, ἢ οὐκ ἐν χρόνῳ; εἰ μὲν οὖν ἐν χρόνῳ,
IO τίνι τούτῳ; καὶ τί παρὰ τοῦτον ὄντι; καὶ πῶς περιέχοντι;
εἰ δὲ οὐκ ἐν χρόνῳ, τίς ἢ περιττὴ σοφία χρόνον εἰσάγειν
ἄχρονον; τοῦ δέ, Νῦν ἐγὼ ψεύδομαι, δὸς τὸ ἕτερον, ἢ
ἀληθεύεσθαι μόνον, ἢ ψεύδεσθαι· οὐ γὰρ ἀμφότερα δώ-
σομεν. ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐνδέχεται. ἢ γὰρ ψευδόμενος ἀληθεύσει,
<lb n="15"/> ἢ ἀληθεύων ψεύσεται· πᾶσα ἀνάγκη. τί οὖν θαυμαστόν,
ὥσπερ ἐνταῦθα συμβαίνει τὰ ἐναντία, οὕτως ἐκεῖσε ἀμφότερα
ψεύδεσθαι, καὶ οὕτω σοι τὸ σοφὸν ἠλίθιον ἀναφανήσεται;
ἓν ἔτι μοι λῦσον τῶν αἰνιγμάτων· σεαυτῷ δὲ
γεννωμένῳ παρῆς; πάρει δὲ νῦν; ἢ οὐδέτερον; εἰ μὲν γὰρ
<lb n="20"/> καὶ παρῆς, καὶ πάρει, ὡς τίς, καὶ τίνι; καὶ πῶς ὁ εἷς
ἄμφω γεγόνατε; εἰ δὲ μηδέτερον τῶν εἰρημένων, πῶς
<note type="footnote">3 ἐκ ψάμμων] εξ ἄμμων a || οἰκοδομίας ac || 12 om η ’duo Reg.’</note>
<note type="footnote">1. ö μὲν πρ., δ δὲ ὤν] For this
use of δ (here accus.) cp. Matt.
xiii 8.</note>
<note type="footnote">4. μ. αὔραις ἵστανται] ‘cannot
even stand a puff of wind’; a natural
use of ἴστ’. but difficult to parallel.
ib. τούτων] of the two alternatives,
ὄντα ἢ οὐκ ὄντα γεγέννηκεν. </note>
<note type="footnote">5. τὸ ἄπορον τὴν ἀπ’.] Α chiasm:
ἀπάντ. corresponds to ἐρώτ., as τὸ
ἄπορον to τὸ ἄτοπον. It is not that
the encounter presents a difficulty,
but the question presents an ab-
surdity.</note>
<note type="footnote">10. τί παρὰ τοῦτον ὄντι] ’what is
it besides the time which is in it?
and how does it contain that ?’</note>
<note type="footnote">12. τοῦ δέ, Νῦν ἐγὼ ψ.] Α well-known
puzzle. ’"I am now telling
a lie." One thing or the other; is
the statement true or false? We
will not admit that it is both.
you answer, it is impossible to adopt
the one alternative to the exclusion
of the other, for if he is lying, he
speaks the truth, and if he speaks
the truth, he lying.’</note>
<note type="footnote">15. τί οὖν θαυμαστόν] As, in the
case of the ψευδόμενος, contradictories
are reconciled, so we need
not be surprised if, in the proposed
dilemma of ὄντα ἢ οὐκ ὄντα, both
alternatives are false.</note>
<note type="footnote">17. ἠλίθιον] ‘silly.’</note>

<pb n="87"/>
σεαυτοῦ χωρίζῃ; καὶ τίς ἡ αἰτία τῆς διαζεύξεως; ἀλλ’
ἀπαίδευτον περὶ τοῦ ἑνός, εἰ ἑαυτῷ πάρεστιν, ἢ μή,
πολυπραγμονεῖν. ταῦτα γὰρ ἐπ’ ἄλλων, οὐχ ἑαυτοῦ λέγεται.
ἀπαιδευτότερον, εὖ ἴσθι, τὸ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς γεγεννημένον,
εἰ ἢν πρὸ τῆς γεννήσεως, ἢ οὐκ ἦν, διευθύνεσθαι. οὗτος <lb n="5"/>
γὰρ περὶ τῶν χρόνῳ διαιρετῶν ὁ λόγος.</p></div></div></body></text></TEI>