Thursday, September 8, 2011

Ιωα 1:1, 2: «θεός» & «ο θεός»:
Η διαφορά των δύο όρων
κατά τον Ωριγένη /

Joh 1:1, 2: "[a] god" & "the god":
The difference between the two terms
according to Origen


(11.) Καὶ τάχα τοιαύτην τινὰ τάξιν ὁ Ἰωάννης ἐν τῷ λόγῳ ἰδὼν οὐ προέταξε τὸ «Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος» τοῦ «Ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν», ὅσον ἐπὶ ταῖς ἀποφάσεσιν οὐδὲν ἂν κωλυθέντος τοῦ εἱρμοῦ πρὸς τὸ καθ’ αὑτὸ ἰδεῖν ἑκάστου τῶν ἀξιωμάτων τὴν δύναμιν· ἓν γὰρ ἀξίωμα τὸ «Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν  ὁ λόγος» καὶ δεύτερον τὸ «Ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν» καὶ ἑξῆς «καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος». (12.) Ἀλλ’ ἐπεὶ τάχα τάξιν τινὰ δηλοῖ τὸ πρῶτον τετάχθαι τὸ «ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος» κατὰ τὸ οὕτως ἑξῆς τὸ «καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν» καὶ τρίτον τὸ «καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος», διὰ τοῦτο, ἵνα δυνηθῇ ἀπὸ τοῦ «πρὸς τὸν θεὸν» εἶναι ὁ λόγος νοηθῆναι γινόμενος θεός, λέγεται· «Καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν», ἔπειτα· «Καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.»

2.2. (13.) Πάνυ δὲ παρατετηρημένως καὶ οὐχ ὡς ἑλληνικὴν ἀκριβολογίαν οὐκ ἐπιστάμενος ὁ Ἰωάννης ὅπου μὲν τοῖς ἄρθροις ἐχρήσατο ὅπου δὲ ταῦτα ἀπεσιώπησεν, ἐπὶ μὲν τοῦ λόγου προστιθεὶς τὸ «ὁ», ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς θεὸς προσηγορίας ὅπου μὲν τιθεὶς ὅπου δὲ αἴρων. (14.) Τίθησιν μὲν γὰρ τὸ ἄρθρον, ὅτε ἡ «θεὸς» ὀνομασία ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀγενήτου τάσσεται τῶν ὅλων αἰτίου, σιωπᾷ δὲ αὐτό, ὅτε ὁ λόγος «θεὸς» ὀνομάζεται. Ὡς δὲ διαφέρει κατὰ τούτους τοὺς τόπους «ὁ θεὸς» καὶ «θεός», οὕτως μήποτε διαφέρῃ «ὁ λόγος» καὶ «λόγος». (15.) Ὃν τρόπον γὰρ ὁ ἐπὶ πᾶσι θεὸς «ὁ θεὸς» καὶ οὐχ ἁπλῶς «θεός», οὕτως ἡ πηγὴ τοῦ ἐν ἑκάστῳ τῶν λογικῶν λόγου «ὁ λόγος», τοῦ ἐν ἑκάστῳ λόγου οὐκ ἂν κυρίως ὁμοίως τῷ πρώτῳ ὀνομασθέντος καὶ λεχθέντος «ὁ λόγος».

(16.) Καὶ τὸ πολλοὺς φιλοθέους εἶναι εὐχομένους ταράσσον, εὐλαβουμένους δύο ἀναγορεῦσαι θεοὺς καὶ παρὰ τοῦτο περιπίπτοντας ψευδέσι καὶ ἀσεβέσι δόγμασιν, ἤτοι ἀρνουμένους ἰδιότητα υἱοῦ ἑτέραν παρὰ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς ὁμολογοῦντας θεὸν εἶναι τὸν μέχρι ὀνόματος παρ’ αὐτοῖς «υἱὸν» προσαγορευόμενον, ἢ ἀρνουμένους τὴν θεότητα τοῦ υἱοῦ τιθέντας δὲ αὐτοῦ τὴν ἰδιότητα καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν κατὰ περιγραφὴν τυγχάνουσαν ἑτέραν τοῦ πατρός, ἐντεῦθεν λύεσθαι δύναται· (17.) Λεκτέον γὰρ αὐτοῖς, ὅτι τότε μὲν αὐτόθεος ὁ θεός ἐστι, διόπερ καὶ ὁ σωτήρ φησιν ἐν τῇ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα εὐχῇ· «Ἵνα γινώσκωσι σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεόν»· πᾶν δὲ τὸ παρὰ τὸ αὐτόθεος μετοχῇ τῆς ἐκείνου θεότητος θεοποιούμενον οὐχ «ὁ θεὸς» ἀλλὰ «θεὸς» κυριώτερον ἂν λέγοιτο, οὗ πάντως «ὁ πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως», ἅτε πρῶτος τῷ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν εἶναι σπάσας τῆς θεότητος εἰς ἑαυτόν, ἐστὶ τιμιώτερος, τοῖς λοιποῖς παρ’ αὐτὸν θεοῖς—ὧν ὁ θεὸς θεός ἐστι κατὰ τὸ λεγόμενον· «Θεὸς θεῶν κύριος ἐλάλησε, καὶ ἐκάλεσε τὴν γῆν» —διακονήσας τὸ γενέσθαι θεοῖς, ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀρυσά<μενος> εἰς τὸ θεοποιηθῆναι αὐτούς, ἀφθόνως κἀκείνοις κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ χρηστότητα μεταδιδούς.

(18.) Ἀληθινὸς οὖν θεὸς ὁ θεός, οἱ δὲ κατ’ ἐκεῖνον μορφούμενοι θεοὶ ὡς εἰκόνες πρωτοτύπου· ἀλλὰ πάλιν τῶν πλειόνων εἰκόνων ἡ ἀρχέτυπος εἰκὼν ὁ πρὸς τὸν θεόν ἐστι λόγος, ὃς «ἐν ἀρχῇ» ἦν, τῷ εἶναι «πρὸς τὸν θεὸν» ἀεὶ μένων «θεός», οὐκ ἂν δ’ αὐτὸ ἐσχηκὼς εἰ μὴ πρὸς θεὸν ἦν, καὶ οὐκ ἂν  μείνας θεός, εἰ μὴ παρέμενε τῇ ἀδιαλείπτῳ θέᾳ τοῦ πατρικοῦ βάθους.

2.3. (19.) Ἀλλ’ ἐπεὶ εἰκὸς προσκόψειν τινὰς τοῖς εἰρημένοις, ἑνὸς μὲν ἀληθινοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀπαγγελλομένου παρὰ δὲ τὸν ἀληθινὸν θεὸν θεῶν πλειόνων τῇ μετοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ γινομένων, εὐλαβουμένους τὴν τοῦ πᾶσαν κτίσιν ὑπερέχοντος δόξαν ἐξισῶσαι τοῖς λοιποῖς τῆς «θεὸς»  προσηγορίας τυγχάνουσι, πρὸς τῇ ἀποδεδομένῃ διαφορᾷ, καθ’ ἣν ἐφάσκομεν πᾶσι τοῖς λοιποῖς θεοῖς διάκονον εἶναι τῆς θεότητος τὸν θεὸν λόγον, καὶ ταύτην παραστατέον. (20.) Ὁ γὰρ ἐν ἑκάστῳ λόγος τῶν λογικῶν τοῦτον τὸν λόγον ἔχει πρὸς τὸν ἐν ἀρχῇ λόγον πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ὄντα λόγον θεόν, ὃν ὁ θεὸς λόγος πρὸς τὸν θεόν· ὡς γὰρ αὐτόθεος καὶ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ πρὸς εἰκόνα καὶ εἰκόνας τῆς εἰκόνος, —διὸ καὶ «κατ’ εἰκόνα» λέγονται εἶναι οἱ ἄνθρωποι, οὐκ «εἰκόνες» —οὕτως ὁ αὐτόλογος πρὸς τὸν ἐν ἑκάστῳ λόγον.

Ἀμφότερα γὰρ πηγῆς ἔχει χώραν, ὁ μὲν πατὴρ θεότητος, ὁ δὲ υἱὸς λόγου. (21.) Ὥσπερ οὖν θεοὶ πολλοὶ ἀλλ’ ἡμῖν «εἷς θεός, ὁ πατήρ», καὶ πολλοὶ κύριοι ἀλλ’ ἡμῖν «εἷς κύριος, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός», οὕτως πολλοὶ λόγοι ἀλλ’ ἡμῖν εὐχόμεθα ὅπως ὑπάρξῃ ὁ ἐν ἀρχῇ λόγος ὁ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ὤν, ὁ θεὸς λόγος. [...]

(32.) Εἰ καὶ ἐδόξαμεν δὲ παρεκβεβηκέναι, οἶμαι δ’ ὅτι παρακειμένως ὑπὲρ τοῦ σαφῶς ἰδεῖν τέσσαρα τάγματα κατὰ τὸ «θεὸς» ὄνομα καὶ τέσσαρα κατὰ τὸ «λόγος» τοῦτο πεποιήκαμεν. Ἦν γὰρ «ὁ θεὸς» καὶ «θεός», εἶτα «θεοὶ» διχῶς, ὧν τοῦ κρείττονος τάγματος ὑπερέχει ὁ «θεὸς λόγος» ὑπερεχόμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ τῶν ὅλων «θεοῦ». Καὶ πάλιν ἦν «ὁ λόγος», τάχα δὲ καὶ «λόγος», ὁμοίως τῷ «ὁ θεὸς» καὶ «θεός», καὶ «οἱ λόγοι» διχῶς.


(11) Perhaps John, seeing some such order in the argument, did not place "the Word was God" before "the Word was with God," so that we might not be hindered in seeing the individual meaning of each of the propositions in the affirmations of the series. For the first proposition is this: "In the beginning was the Word"; and the second: "The Word was with God"; and the next: "And the Word was God." (12) But since the proposition, "In the beginning was the Word," has been placed first, perhaps it indicates some order; in the same manner, next, "And the Word was with God," and third, "And the Word was God." Perhaps he says, "And the Word was with God," then, "And the Word was God," that we might understand that the Word has become God because he is "with God."

(13) John has used the articles in one place and omitted them in another very precisely, and not as though he did not understand the precision of the Greek language. In the case of the Word, he adds the article "the," but in the case of the noun "God," he inserts it in one place and omits it in another. (14) For he adds the article when the noun "God" stands for the uncreated cause of the universe, but he omits it when the Word is referred to as "God." And as "the God" and "God" differ in these places, so, perhaps, "the Word" and "Word" differ. (15) For as the God who is over all is "the God" and not simply "God," so the source of reason in each rational being is "the Word." That reason which is in each rational being would not properly have the same designation as the first reason, and be said to be "the Word." (16) Many people who wish to be pious are troubled because they are afraid that they may proclaim two Gods and, for this reason, they fall into false and impious beliefs. They either deny that the individual nature of the Son is other than that of the Father by confessing him to be God whom they refer to as "Son" in name at least, or they deny the divinity of the Son and make his individual nature and essence as an individual to be different from the Father. (17) Their problem can be resolved in this way. We must say to them that at one time God, with the article, is very God, wherefore also the Savior says in his prayer to the Father, "That they may know you the only true God." On the other hand, everything besides the very God, which is made God by participation in his divinity, would more properly not be said to be "the God," but "God." To be sure, his "firstborn of every creature," inasmuch as he was the first to be with God and has drawn divinity into himself, is more honored than the other gods beside him (of whom God is God as it is said, "The God of gods, the Lord has spoken, and he has called the earth"). It was by his ministry that they became gods, for he drew from God that they might be deified, sharing ungrudgingly also with them according to his goodness.

(18) The God, therefore, is the true God. The others are gods formed according to him as images of the prototype. But again, the archetypal image of the many images is the Word with the God, who was "in the beginning." By being "with the God" he always continues to be "God." But he would not have this if he were not with God, and he would not remain God if he did not continue in unceasing contemplation of the depth of the Father.

(19) Some, however, have probably taken offense at what we said when we described the Father as the true God but, in addition to the true God, said many gods have come into existence by participation in the God. These people might fear that the glory of the one who transcends all creation is put on a level with the others who happen to have the title "god." Because of this we must set forth this explanation in addition to the difference which has already been explained in relation to which we declared that God the Word is the minister of deity to all the other Gods. (20) The reason which is in each rational being has the same position in relation to the Word which is in the beginning with God, which is God the Word, which God the Word has with God. For as the Father is very God and true God in relation to the image and images of the image (wherefore also men are said to be "according to the image," not "images"), so is the very Word in relation to the reason in each one.

For both hold the place of a source; the Father, that of divinity, the Son, that of reason. (21) As, therefore, there are many gods, but for us there is "one God, the Father," and there are many lords, but for us there is "one Lord, Jesus Christ," so there are many words, but we pray that the Word who is in the beginning, who is with God, God the Word, may be with us. [...]


(32) Although we seem to have digressed, I think that it is relevant that we have made this point so we can see clearly that there are four orders in relation to the noun "God," and four in relation to "Word." There was "the God" and "God," then "gods" in two senses. "God the Word" transcends the higher order of these gods, himself being transcended by "the God" of the universe. And again there was "the Word," and perhaps also "Word," comparable to "the God" and "God," and "the words" in two senses.


* Ωριγένης / Origen,
Των εις το Κατά Ιωάννην Ευαγγέλιον Εξηγητικών / Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 2:1.11-21, 32.


Ελληνικό κείμενο / Greek text:
C. Blanc, Origène. Commentaire sur saint Jean,
(Sources chrétiennes 120),
Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1966.


Αγγλική μετάφραση / English translation:
Commentary on the Gospel according to John, vol./τόμ. 1,
transl. Ronald E. Heine, The Catholic University of America Press 1989.

Επίσης, υπό / Also, by Philip Schaff. [English/Αγγλικά PDF]


No comments: