Johannine Comma and Gregory of Nazianzus

From Textus Receptus

(Difference between revisions)

Revision as of 18:10, 29 April 2020

Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329 – January 25 389 or 390) (also known as Gregory the Theologian or Gregory Nazianzen) was a 4th-century Archbishop of Constantinople. He is widely considered the most accomplished rhetorical stylist of the patristic age. As a classically trained orator and philosopher he infused Hellenism into the early church, establishing the paradigm of Byzantine theologians and church officials.

Gregory made a significant impact on the shape of Trinitarian theology among both Greek- and Latin-speaking theologians, and he is remembered as the "Trinitarian Theologian". Much of his theological work continues to influence modern theologians, especially in regard to the relationship among the three Persons of the Trinity. Along with the two brothers Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa, he is known as one of the Cappadocian Fathers.

Oration 31 - The Fifth Theological Oration. On the Holy Spirit, XIX

18. You say things of one essence are counted together, but those which are not consubstantial are reckoned one by one. Where did you get this from? From what teachers of dogma or mythology? Do you not know that every number expresses the quantity of what is included under it, and not the nature of the things? But I am so old-fashioned — or perhaps I should say so unlearned — as to use the word “three” of that number of things, even if they are of a different nature, and to use one and one and one in a different way of so many units, even if they are united in essence, looking not so much at the things themselves as at the quantity of the things in respect of which the emuneration is made. But since you hold so very close to the letter (although you are contending against the letter), pray take your demonstrations from this source. There are in the book of Proverbs three things which go well: a lion, a goat, and a ****; and to these is added a fourth: a king making a speech before the people, 22 to pass over the other sets of four which are there counted up, although things of various natures. And I find in Moses two cherubim counted singly.23 But now, in your technology, could either the former thin gs be called three, when they differ so greatly in their nature, or the latter be treated as units, when they are so closely connected and of one name? For if I were to speak of God and Mammon as two masters, 24 reckoned under one head, when they are so very different from each other, I should probably be still more laughed at for such a connumeration.

19. But to my mind, he says ,25 those things are said to be connumerated and of the same essence of which the names also correspond, as three men, or three gods, but not three this and that. What does this concession amount to? It is suitable to one laying down the law as to names, not to one who is asserting the truth. For I also will assert that Peter and James and John are not three or consubstantial, so long as I cannot say three Peters, or three Jameses, or three Johns; for what you have reserved for common names we demand also for proper names, in accordance with your arrangement; or else you will be unfair in not conceding to others what you assume for yourself.

What about John, then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood? 26 Do you think he is talking nonsense? First, because he has ventured to reckon under one numeral things which are not consubstantial, though you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are consubstantial. For who would assert that these are consubstantial? Secondly, because he has not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down.

For what is the difference between putting a masculine three first, and then adding one and one and one in the neuter, or after a masculine one and one and one to use the three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourself disclaim in the case of deity? What have you to say about the crab, which may mean either an animal or an instrument or a constellation? And what about the dog, now terrestrial, now aquatic, now celestial? Do you not see that three crabs or dogs are spoken of? Why, of course it is so. Well, then, are they therefore of one substance? None but a fool would say that. So you see how completely your argument from connumeration has broken down, and is refuted by all these instances. For if things that are of one substance are not always counted under one numeral, things not of one substance are thus counted, and the pronunciation of the name once for all is used in both cases, what advantage do you gain towards your doctrine?

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+'''Gregory of Nazianzus''' (c. 329 – January 25 389 or 390) (also known as '''Gregory the Theologian''' or '''Gregory Nazianzen''') was a 4th-century [[Archbishop]] of [[Constantinople]]. He is widely considered the most accomplished rhetorical stylist of the [[Church Fathers|patristic age]]. As a classically trained orator and [[philosopher]] he infused [[Hellenistic philosophy|Hellenism]] into the [[early church]], establishing the paradigm of [[Byzantine Empire| Byzantine]] [[theologian]]s and church officials.
+Gregory made a significant impact on the shape of [[Trinity| Trinitarian]] [[theology]] among both [[Greek language| Greek-]] and [[Latin]]-speaking theologians, and he is remembered as the "Trinitarian Theologian". Much of his theological work continues to influence modern theologians, especially in regard to the relationship among the three Persons of the Trinity. Along with the two brothers [[Basil the Great]] and [[Gregory of Nyssa]], he is known as one of the [[Cappadocian Fathers]].
 ==Oration 31 - The Fifth Theological Oration. On the Holy Spirit, XIX==
 :18. You say things of one essence are counted together, but those which are not consubstantial are reckoned one by one. Where did you get this from? From what teachers of dogma or mythology? Do you not know that every number expresses the quantity of what is included under it, and not the nature of the things? But I am so old-fashioned — or perhaps I should say so unlearned — as to use the word “three” of that number of things, even if they are of a different nature, and to use one and one and one in a different way of so many units, even if they are united in essence, looking not so much at the things themselves as at the quantity of the things in respect of which the emuneration is made. But since you hold so very close to the letter (although you are contending against the letter), pray take your demonstrations from this source. There are in the book of Proverbs three things which go well: a lion, a goat, and a ****; and to these is added a fourth: a king making a speech before the people, '''22''' to pass over the other sets of four which are there counted up, although things of various natures. And I find in Moses two cherubim counted singly.'''23''' But now, in your technology, could either the former thin gs be called three, when they differ so greatly in their nature, or the latter be treated as units, when they are so closely connected and of one name? For if I were to speak of God and Mammon as two masters, '''24''' reckoned under one head, when they are so very different from each other, I should probably be still more laughed at for such a connumeration.

Johannine Comma and Gregory of Nazianzus

From Textus Receptus

Revision as of 18:10, 29 April 2020

Oration 31 - The Fifth Theological Oration. On the Holy Spirit, XIX

Views

Personal tools

Navigation

Search

Toolbox