# Theological Oration 3: On the Son

- Author: [Gregory of Nazianzus](https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/authors/gregory-of-nazianzus/)
- Latin title: *Oratio 29, De Filio (I)*
- Date: 380 (probable)
- Source: Arthur James Mason, ed., The Five Theological Orations of Gregory of Nazianzus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899) (Greek text: Arthur James Mason, ed., The Five Theological Orations of Gregory of Nazianzus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899), digitized by the First Thousand Years of Greek project (Open Greek and Latin), CC BY-SA 4.0)

- Translation: Claude, from the original text, unless a passage says otherwise; each passage below gives the translator
- Editions and translations: Paul Gallay, ed., Grégoire de Nazianze, Discours 27-31 (Discours théologiques), Sources Chrétiennes 250 (Paris: Cerf, 1978)
- Work page: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/
- Passages: 21

## Theological Oration 3 (Or. 29), On the Son 1

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-1
- Source: Mason, 73–74
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Gregory turns from criticizing his opponents to setting out the orthodox doctrine of God, promising brevity.

### Greek text

Ἃ μὲν οὖν εἴποι τις ἂν ἐπικόπτων τὴν περὶ τὸν λόγον αὐτῶν ἑτοιμότητα καὶ ταχύτητα, καὶ τὸ τοῦ τάχους ἐπισφαλὲς ἐν πᾶσι μὲν πράγμασι, μάλιστα δὲ ἐν τοῖς περὶ θεοῦ λόγοις, ταῦτά ἐστιν. ἐπεὶ δὲ τὸ μὲν ἐπιτιμᾷν οὐ μέγα· ῥᾷστον γὰρ καὶ τοῦ βουλομένου παντός· τὸ δὲ ἀντεισάγειν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γνώμην ἀνδρὸς εὐσεβοῦς καὶ νοῦν ἔχοντος· φέρε, τῷ ἁγίῳ θαρρήσαντες πνεύματι, τῷ παρʼ αὐτῶν μὲν ἀτιμαζομένῳ, παρʼ ἡμῶν δὲ προσκυνουμένῳ, τὰς ἡμετέρας περὶ τῆς θεότητος ὑπολήψεις, αἵ τινές ποτέ εἰσιν, ὥσπερ τινὰ τόκον εὐγενῆ τε καὶ ὥριμον εἰς φῶς προενέγκωμεν· οὐδὲ ἄλλοτε μὲν σιωπήσαντες, τοῦτο γὰρ μόνον ἡμεῖς νεανικοί τε καὶ μεγαλόφρονες, νῦν δὲ καὶ μᾶλλον παρρησιαζόμενοι τὴν ἀλήθειαν· ἵνα μὴ τῇ ὑποστολῇ, καθὼς γέγραπται, τὸ μὴ εὐδοκεῖσθαι κατακριθῶμεν. διττοῦ δὲ ὄντος λόγου παντός, τοῦ μὲν τὸ οἰκεῖον κατασκευάζοντος, τοῦ δὲ τὸ ἀντίπαλον ἀνατρέποντος, καὶ ἡμεῖς τὸν οἰκεῖον ἐκθέμενοι πρότερον, οὕτω τὰ τῶν ἐναντίων ἀνατρέψαι πειρασόμεθα· καὶ ἀμφότερα ὡς οἷόν τε διὰ βραχέων, ἵν εὐσύνοπτα γένηται τὰ λεγόμενα, ὥσπερ ὃν αὐτοὶ λόγον εἰσαγωγικὸν ἐπενόησαν πρὸς ἐξαπάτην τῶν ἁπλουστέρων ἢ εὐηθεστέρων, καὶ μὴ τῷ μήκει τοῦ λόγου διαχεθῇ τὰ νοούμενα, καθάπερ ὕδωρ οὐ σωλῆνι σφιγγόμενον, ἀλλὰ κατὰ πεδίου χεόμενον καὶ λυόμενον.

### English translation (Claude)

This, then, is what one might say to check their readiness and quickness in argument, and the danger of haste in all matters, but above all in discourse about God. But since finding fault is no great thing (it is very easy, and open to anyone who likes), while putting forward one’s own view in its place is the mark of a pious and sensible man, come, let us take courage in the Holy Spirit, who is dishonoured by them but worshipped by us, and bring our own conceptions of the Godhead, whatever they are, into the light like a noble and timely offspring. We have not been silent at other times (for in this alone we are bold and high-minded), but now we will speak the truth even more freely, so that we may not, as it is written, be condemned as displeasing by shrinking back. Every discourse is twofold: one part establishes its own position, the other overturns the opposing one. So we too will first set out our own position and then try to overturn that of our opponents; and both as briefly as possible, so that what is said may be easily taken in at a glance (like the introductory handbook they themselves devised to deceive the simpler or more foolish), and so that the thoughts may not be dissipated by the length of the discourse, like water that is not confined in a pipe but spreads over a plain and runs to waste.

### Scripture references

- Heb 10:38: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Heb 10:38 (“if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him”). The “introductory handbook” is probably a Eunomian manual of arguments; uncertain.

### Citation (SBL)

Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 1 (Mason, 73–74; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-1).

## Theological Oration 3 (Or. 29), On the Son 2

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-2
- Source: Mason, 74–76
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Christians worship a divine monarchy that is not one person but one nature shared by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: the unbegotten, the begotten, and the one who proceeds.

### Greek text

τρεῖς αἱ ἀνωτάτω δόξαι περὶ θεοῦ, ἀναρχία, καὶ πολυαρχία, καὶ μοναρχία. αἱ μὲν οὖν δύο παισὶν ‘Ελλήνων ἐπαίχθησαν, καὶ παιζέσθωσαν. τό τε γὰρ ἄναρχον ἄτακτον· τό τε πολύαρχον στασιῶδες, καὶ οὕτως ἄναρχον, καὶ οὕτως ἄτακτον. εἰς ταὐτὸν γὰρ ἀμφότερα φέρει, τὴν ἀταξίαν, ἡ δὲ εἰς λύσιν· ἀταξία γὰρ μελέτη λύσεως. ἡμῖν δὲ μοναρχία τὸ τιμώμενον· μοναρχία δέ, οὐχ ἢν ἓν περιγράφει πρόσωπον· ἔστι γὰρ καὶ τὸ ἓν στασιάζον πρὸς ἑαυτὸ πολλὰ καθίστασθαι· ἀλλʼ ἢν φύσεως ὁμοτιμία συνίστησι, καὶ γνώμης σύμπνοια, καὶ ταὐτότης κινήσεως, καὶ πρὸς τὸ ἓν τῶν ἐξ αὐτοῦ σύννευσις, ὅπερ ἀμήχανον ἐπὶ τῆς γενητῆς φύσεως, ὥστε κἂν ἀριθμῷ διαφέρῃ, τῇ γε οὐσίᾳ μὴ τέμνεσθαι. διὰ τοῦτο μονὰς ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς, εἰς δυάδα κινηθεῖσα, μέχρι τριάδος ἔστη. καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν ἡμῖν ὁ πατήρ, καὶ ὁ υἱός, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα· ὁ μὲν γεννήτωρ καὶ προβολεύς, λέγω δὲ ἀπαθῶς, καὶ ἀχρόνως, καὶ ἀσωμάτως· τῶν δέ, τὸ μὲν γέννημα, τὸ δὲ πρόβλημα, ἢ οὐκ οἱδʼ ὅπως ἄν τις ταῦτα καλέσειεν, ἀφελὼν πάντῃ τῶν ὁρωμένων. οὐ γὰρ δὴ ὑπέρχυσιν ἀγαθότητος εἰπεῖν θαρρήσομεν, ὃ τῶν παρʼ Ἕλλησι φιλοσοφησάντων εἰπεῖν τις ἐτόλμησεν, οἷον κρατήρ τις ὑπερερρύῃ, σαφῶς οὑτωσὶ λέγων, ἐν οἷς περὶ πρώτου αἰτίου καὶ δευτέρου φιλοσοφεῖ· μή ποτε ἀκούσιον τὴν γέννησιν εἰσαγάγωμεν, καὶ οἷον περίττωμά τι φυσικὸν καὶ δυσκάθεκτον, ἥκιστα ταῖς περὶ θεότητος ὑπονοίαις πρέπον. διὰ τοῦτο ἐπὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων ὅρων ἱστάμενοι τὸ ἀγέννητον εἰσάγομεν, καὶ τὸ γεννητόν, καὶ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, ὥς πού φησιν αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ λόγος.

### English translation (Claude)

There are three most ancient opinions about God: anarchy, polyarchy, and monarchy. The first two were the playthings of the children of the Greeks, and let them go on playing with them. For anarchy is disorder; and the rule of many is factious, and so anarchic, and so disorderly. Both lead to the same thing, disorder, and disorder to dissolution, for disorder is a rehearsal for dissolution. What we honour is monarchy; not a monarchy that one person circumscribes (for even the one, if at odds with itself, can become many), but one constituted by equality of honour of nature, agreement of will, sameness of movement, and the convergence toward the one of those who are from it, something impossible in created nature; so that, although there is a difference in number, there is no division in substance. For this reason a monad from the beginning, moved to a dyad, came to rest at a triad. And this for us is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit: the one the begetter and emitter (I mean impassibly, timelessly, and incorporeally); of the others, one the begotten and the other the emitted, or I do not know what one might call them, abstracting altogether from visible things. We will not dare to speak of an overflow of goodness, as one of the Greek philosophers dared to say, “like a mixing bowl overflowing,” saying so plainly where he philosophizes about the first and second cause; lest we bring in an involuntary begetting, a kind of natural and uncontrollable excess, least fitting for conceptions of the Godhead. For this reason, keeping within our own bounds, we speak of the unbegotten, the begotten, and what proceeds from the Father, as God the Word himself says somewhere.

### Scripture references

- John 15:26: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato, Tim. 41d (Plato (works)): echo, low confidence
- Plotinus, 5.1.6 (Plotinus, Enneads): echo, low confidence

### Translation notes

- The “monarchy” here is a single rule and nature shared equally, not a single person (πρόσωπον, “person”); “substance” renders οὐσία. The “Greek philosopher” of the overflowing bowl is probably Plotinus (Enneads 5.2.1), drawing on Plato’s mixing bowl (Timaeus 41d); identification uncertain. “Proceeds” (ἐκπορευόμενον): John 15:26.

### Citation (SBL)

Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 2 (Mason, 74–76; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-2).

## Theological Oration 3 (Or. 29), On the Son 3

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-3
- Source: Mason, 76–77
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The Son and the Spirit are eternal with the Father; they have the Father as cause but no beginning in time.

### Greek text

Πότε οὖν ταῦτα; ὑπὲρ τὸ πότε ταῦτα. εἰ δὲ δεῖ τι καὶ νεανικῶς εἰπεῖν, ὅτε ὁ πατήρ. πότε δὲ ὁ πατήρ; οὐκ ἢν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν. τοῦτο οὖν καὶ ὁ υἱός, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. πάλιν ἐρώτα με, καὶ πάλιν ἀποκρινοῦμαί σοι. πότε ὁ υἱὸς γεγέννηται; ὅτε ὁ πατὴρ οὐ γεγέννηται. πότε δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα ἐκπεπόρευται; ὅτε ὁ υἱὸς οὐκ ἐκπεπόρευται, ἀλλὰ γεγέννηται ἀχρόνως καὶ ὑπὲρ λόγον· εἰ καὶ μὴ δυνάμεθα τὸ ὑπὲρ χρόνον παραστῆσαι, θέλοντες χρονικὴν ἐκφυγεῖν ἔμφασιν· τὸ γὰρ ὅτε, καὶ πρὸ τοῦδε, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα, καὶ ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς, οὐκ ἄχρονα, κἂν ὅτι μάλιστα βιαζώμεθα· πλὴν εἰ τὸ παρεκτεινόμενον τοῖς ἀιδίοις διάστημα τὸν αἰῶνα λαμβάνοιμεν, τὸ μὴ κινήσει τινὶ μηδὲ ἡλίου φορᾷ μεριζόμενον καὶ μετρούμενον, ὅπερ ὁ χρόνος. πῶς οὖν οὐ συνάναρχα, εἰ συναίδια; ὅτι ἐκεῖθεν, εἰ καὶ μὴ μετʼ ἐκεῖνο. τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἄναρχον, καὶ ἀίδιον· τὸ ἀίδιον δέ, οὐ πάντως ἄναρχον, ἕως ἂν εἰς ἀρχὴν ἀναφέρηται τὸν πατέρα. οὐκ ἄναρχα οὖν τῷ αἰτίῳ· δῆλον δὲ τὸ αἴτιον ὡς οὐ πάντως πρεσβύτερον τῶν ὧν αἴτιον· οὐδὲ γὰρ τοῦ φωτὸς ἥλιος. καὶ ἄναρχά πὼς τῷ χρόνῳ, κἂν σὺ μορμολύττῃ τοὺς ἁπλουστέρους· οὐ γὰρ ὑπὸ χρόνον τὰ ἐξ ὧν ὁ χρόνος.

### English translation (Claude)

When, then, did these come to be? They are above “when.” But if I must speak somewhat boldly: when the Father did. And when did the Father? There was never a time when he was not. So too, then, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Ask me again, and again I will answer you. When was the Son begotten? When the Father was not begotten. When did the Spirit proceed? When the Son did not proceed but was begotten, timelessly and beyond explanation; although we cannot express what is above time when we wish to avoid a temporal sense. For “when,” “before this,” “after these things,” and “from the beginning” are not timeless, however much we force them; unless we take “age” to mean the extension that is coextensive with eternal things, not divided or measured by any motion or by the course of the sun, as time is. How then are they not without beginning together with the Father, if they are eternal together with him? Because they are from him, though not after him. For what is without beginning is also eternal; but what is eternal is not necessarily without beginning, so long as it refers back to the Father as its beginning. So they are not without beginning with respect to cause; and it is plain that a cause is not necessarily older than what it causes, for the sun is not older than its light. And they are in a sense without beginning with respect to time, even if you frighten the simpler with bogeys; for the sources of time are not subject to time.

### Translation notes

- “There was never a time when he was not” answers the Arian slogan about the Son, “there was when he was not.”

### Citation (SBL)

Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 3 (Mason, 76–77; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-3).

## Theological Oration 3 (Or. 29), On the Son 4

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-4
- Source: Mason, 77–78
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The Son’s begetting is incorporeal and free from passion, as different from ours as his virgin birth was.

### Greek text

Πῶς οὖν οὐκ ἐμπαθὴς ἡ γέννησις; ὅτι ἀσώματος. εἰ γὰρ ἡ ἐνσώματος ἐμπαθής, ἀπαθὴς ἡ ἀσώματος. ἐγὼ δέ σε ἀντερήσομαι· πῶς θεός, εἰ κτίσμα; οὐ γὰρ θεὸς τὸ κτιζόμενον· ἵνα μὴ λέγω, ὅτι κἀνταῦθα πάθος, ἂν σωματικῶς λαμβάνηται, οἷον χρόνος, ἔφεσις, ἀνατύπωσις, φροντίς, ἐλπίς, λύπη, κίνδυνος, ἀποτυχία, διόρθωσις· ἃ πάντα καὶ πλείω τούτων περὶ τὴν κτίσιν, ὡς πᾶσιν εὔδηλον. θαυμάζω δέ, ὅτι μὴ καὶ τοῦτο τολμᾷς, συνδυασμούς τινας ἐννοεῖν, καὶ χρόνους κυήσεως, καὶ κινδύνους ἀμβλώσεως, ὡς οὐδὲ γεννᾷν ἐγχωροῦν, εἰ μὴ οὕτω γεγέννηκεν· ἢ πάλιν πτηνῶν τινὰς καὶ χερσαίων καὶ ἐνύδρων γεννήσεις ἀπαριθμούμενος, τούτων τινὶ τῶν γεννήσεων ὑπάγειν τὴν θείαν καὶ ἀνεκλάλητον, ἢ καὶ τὸν υἱὸν ἀναιρεῖν ἐκ τῆς καινῆς ὑποθέσεως. καὶ οὐδʼ ἐκεῖνο δύνασαι συνιδεῖν, ὅτι ᾧ διάφορος ἡ κατὰ σάρκα γέννησις, — ποῦ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς σοῖς ἔγνως θεοτόκον παρθένον; — τούτῳ καὶ ἡ πνευματικὴ γέννησις ἐξαλλάττουσα· μᾶλλον δέ, ᾧ τὸ εἶναι μὴ ταὐτόν, τούτῳ καὶ τὸ γεννᾷν διάφορον.

### English translation (Claude)

How then is the begetting not a matter of passion? Because it is incorporeal. For if bodily begetting involves passion, incorporeal begetting is free of passion. But I will ask you in return: how is he God, if he is a creature? For what is created is not God. I will not say that there is passion here too, if it is taken in a bodily way: time, desire, forming an image, anxiety, hope, grief, risk, failure, correction, all of which and more belong to creation, as everyone sees. I am surprised you do not dare to go so far as to think of couplings, times of pregnancy, and dangers of miscarriage, as though he could not have begotten at all if he had not begotten in this way; or again, listing the ways birds, land animals, and water creatures reproduce, to bring the divine and ineffable begetting under one of these, or even to abolish the Son on the strength of this novel hypothesis. And you cannot even see that he whose birth in the flesh was different (for where among your examples did you find a virgin mother of God?) also differs in his spiritual begetting; or rather, he whose being is not the same as ours begets in a different way too.

### Translation notes

- θεοτόκον παρθένον: “a virgin mother of God” (Theotokos).

### Citation (SBL)

Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 4 (Mason, 77–78; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-4).

## Theological Oration 3 (Or. 29), On the Son 5

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-5
- Source: Mason, 78–80
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: God is Father eternally and in the proper sense; biblical tenses show that “he begot” need not imply a temporal beginning.

### Greek text

τίς οὖν ἐστὶ πατὴρ οὐκ ἠργμένος; ὅς τις οὐδὲ τοῦ εἶναι ἤρξατο· ᾧ δὲ τὸ εἶναι ἤρξατο, τούτῳ καὶ τὸ εἶναι πατρί. οὔκουν πατὴρ ὕστερον, οὐ γὰρ ἤρξατο· καὶ πατὴρ κυρίως, ὅτι μὴ καὶ υἱός· ὥσπερ καὶ υἱὸς κυρίως, ὅτι μὴ καὶ πατήρ. τὰ γὰρ ἡμέτερα οὐ κυρίως, ὅτι καὶ ἄμφω· οὐ γὰρ τόδε μᾶλλον ἢ τόδε· καὶ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ἡμεῖς, οὐχ ἑνός, ὥστε μερίζεσθαι, καὶ κατʼ ὀλίγον ἄνθρωποι, καὶ ἴσως οὐδὲ ἄνθρωποι, καὶ οἷοι μὴ τεθελήμεθα, καὶ ἀφιέντες καὶ ἀφιέμενοι, ὡς μόνας τὰς σχέσεις λείπεσθαι ὀρφανὰς τῶν πραγμάτων. ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐγέννησε, φησίν, αὐτό, καὶ τὸ γεγέννηται, τί ἄλλο, ἢ ἀρχὴν εἰσάγει γεννήσεως; τί οὖν ἂν μηδὲ τοῦτο λέγωμεν, ἀλλʼ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς γεγεννημένος, ἵνα σου ῥᾳδίως φύγωμεν τὰς περιέργους ἐνστάσεις καὶ φιλοχρόνους; ἆρα γραφὴν ἀποίσεις καθʼ ἡμῶν, ὡς παραχαραττόντων τι τῆς γραφῆς καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας; ἢ πᾶσιν εὔδηλον, ὅτι πολλὰ τῶν χρονικῶς λεγομένων ἐνηλλαγμένως τοῖς χρόνοις προφέρεται, καὶ μάλιστα παρὰ τῇ συνηθείᾳ τῆς γραφῆς, οὐχ ὅσα τοῦ παρεληλυθότος χρόνου μόνον ἐστίν, ἢ τοῦ παρόντος, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅσα τοῦ μέλλοντος; ὡς τό· Ἵνα τί ἐφρύαξαν ἔθνη; οὔπω γὰρ ἐφρυάξαντο· καί, Ἐν ποταμῷ διελεύσονται ποδί· ὅπερ ἐστί, διαβεβήκασι. καὶ μακρὸν ἂν εἴη πάσας ἀπαριθμεῖν τὰς τοιαύτας φωνάς, αἳ τοῖς φιλοπόνοις τετήρηνται.

### English translation (Claude)

Who, then, is a Father who did not begin to be one? He who did not begin to exist. One whose existence began also began to be a father. So he did not become Father later, for he did not begin. And he is Father in the proper sense, because he is not also son; just as the Son is Son in the proper sense, because he is not also father. Our relations are not so in the proper sense, because we are both, and not one more than the other; and we come from two, not one, so that we are divided, and become human beings gradually, and perhaps not even human beings, and such as we were not wanted to be, leaving and being left, so that only the relations remain, orphaned of the realities. “But the words ‘he begot’ and ‘he was begotten,’” he says, “what else do they introduce but a beginning of begetting?” What if we do not even say this, but “he was begotten from the beginning,” so as easily to escape your meddling and time-bound objections? Will you bring Scripture against us, as though we were debasing something in Scripture and the truth? Or is it not plain to everyone that many things said with reference to time are expressed with the tenses interchanged, especially in the usage of Scripture, not only of past or present time but also of the future? As in “Why did the nations rage?” for they had not yet raged; and “They will pass through the river on foot,” meaning they have crossed. It would take long to list all such expressions, which have been noted by the diligent.

### Scripture references

- Ps 2:1: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 66:6 (65:6 LXX): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Ps 2:1; Ps 66:6 (LXX 65:6). The opponents’ objection is set in quotation marks.

### Citation (SBL)

Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 5 (Mason, 78–80; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-5).

## Theological Oration 3 (Or. 29), On the Son 6

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-6
- Source: Mason, 80–82
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Gregory turns the Eunomian dilemma about the Father begetting “willingly or unwillingly” back on its authors.

### Greek text

τοῦτο μὲν δὴ τοιοῦτον. οἷον δὲ αὐτῶν κἀκεῖνο, ὡς λίαν δύσερι καὶ ἀναίσχυντον· βουληθείς, φασι, γεγέννηκε τὸν υἱόν, ἢ μὴ βουλόμενος. εἶτα δεσμοῦσιν, ὡς οἴονται, ἀμφοτέρωθεν ἅμμασιν, οὐκ ἰσχυροῖς, ἁλλὰ καὶ λίαν σαθροῖς. εἰ μὲν γὰρ οὐ θέλων, φασί, τετυράννηται. καὶ τίς το ὁ τυραννήσας; καὶ πῶς ὁ τυραννηθεὶς θεός; εἰ δὲ θέλων, θελήσεως υἱὸς ὁ υἱός· πῶς οὖν ἐκ τοῦ πατρός; καὶ καινήν τινα μητέρα τὴν θέλησιν ἀντὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀναπλάττουσιν. ἓν μὲν οὖν τοῦτο χαρίεν αὐτῶν, ἂν τοῦτο λέγωσιν, ὅτι τοῦ πάθους ἀποστάντες ἐπὶ τὴν βούλησιν καταφεύγουσιν· οὐ γὰρ πάθος ἡ βούλησις. δεύτερον δὲ ἴδωμεν τὸ ἰσχυρὸν αὐτῶν, ὅ τι λέγουσιν. ἄριστον δὲ αὐτοῖς συμπλακῆναι πρότερον ἐγγυτέρω. σὺ δὲ αὐτὸς ὁ λέγων εὐχερῶς ὅ τι ἃν ἐθέλῃς, ἐκ θέλοντος ὑπέστης τοῦ σοῦ πατρός, ἢ μὴ θέλοντος; εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἐξ οὐ θέλοντος, τετυράννηται. τῆς βίας· καὶ τίς ὁ τυραννήσας αὐτόν; οὐ γὰρ δὴ τὴν φύσιν ἐρεῖς· ἐκείνη γὰρ ἔχει καὶ τὸ σωφρονεῖν. εἰ δὲ θέλοντος, ἀπόλωλέ σοι διʼ ὀλίγας συλλαβὰς ὁ πατήρ. θελήματος γὰρ υἱός, ἁλλʼ οὐ πατρὸς ἀναπέφηνας. ἀλλʼ ἐπὶ τὸν θεὸν μέτειμι καὶ τὰ κτίσματα, καὶ τὸ σὸν ἐρώτημα προσάγω τῇ σῇ σοφίᾳ. θέλων ὑπέστησε τὰ πάντα, ἢ βιασθείς; εἰ μὲν βιασθείς, κἀνταῦθα ἡ τυραννίς, καὶ ὁ τυραννήσας. εἰ δὲ βουλόμενος, ἐστέρηται τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὰ κτίσματα, καὶ σὺ πρὸ τῶν ἄλλων, ὁ τοιούτους ἀνευρίσκων λογισμοὺς καὶ τοιαῦτα σοφιζόμενος. θελήσει γὰρ μέσῃ τοῦ κτίστου διατειχίζεται. ἁλλʼ ἕτερον, οἶμαι, θέλων ἐστὶ καὶ θέλησις, γεννῶν καὶ γέννησις, λέγων καὶ λόγος, εἰ μὴ μεθύομεν. τὰ μὲν ὁ κινούμενος, τὰ δὲ οἷον ἡ κίνησις. οὔκουν θελήσεως τὸ θεληθέν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἕπεται πάντως· οὐδὲ τὸ γεννηθὲν γεννήσεως, οὐδὲ τὸ ἀκουσθὲν ἐκφωνήσεως, ἀλλὰ τοῦ θέλοντος, καὶ τοῦ γεννήσαντος, καὶ τοῦ λέγοντος. τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ δὲ καὶ ὑπὲρ πάντα ταῦτα, ᾧ γέννησίς ἐστιν ἴσως ἡ τοῦ γεννᾷν θέλησις, ἀλλʼ οὐδὲν μέσον, εἴ γε καὶ τοῦτο δεξώμεθα ὅλως, ἀλλὰ μὴ καὶ θελήσεως κρείττων ἢ γέννησις.

### English translation (Claude)

So much for that. Consider another of their arguments, which is very contentious and shameless. “Did he beget the Son,” they say, “willing it, or not willing it?” Then, as they think, they bind us on both sides with knots, which are not strong but very weak. “If he did not will it,” they say, “he was under compulsion. And who compelled him? And how is one who was compelled God? But if he willed it, the Son is a son of will; how then is he from the Father?” And they invent a new kind of mother, the will, in place of the Father. One pleasing thing in them, if they say this, is that they abandon passion and take refuge in will; for will is not a passion. Secondly, let us see what their strong argument amounts to. It is best to grapple with them at close quarters first. You yourself, who say so easily whatever you like: did you come into being from a father who willed it or who did not will it? If from one who did not will it, he was compelled. What violence! And who compelled him? You will not say nature, for nature also allows for self-control. If from one who willed it, your father has perished for you in a few syllables: you have turned out to be the son of a will and not of a father. But I will pass on to God and his creatures and put your question to your wisdom. Did he bring all things into being willingly or under compulsion? If under compulsion, here too there is tyranny and one who exercised it. If willingly, the creatures too are deprived of God, and you before all, who invent such arguments and play such sophistries; for they are walled off from the Creator by the will in between. But one who wills is different, I think, from willing, one who begets from begetting, one who speaks from speech, unless we are drunk: the one is the mover, the other, as it were, the motion. So what is willed is not the offspring of willing, for it does not always follow; nor is what is begotten the offspring of begetting, nor what is heard of utterance, but of the one who wills, begets, and speaks. The things of God are beyond all these; for him perhaps begetting is the will to beget, but with nothing in between, if we accept even this at all, and do not rather say that begetting is superior to will.

### Translation notes

- The Eunomian dilemma is set in quotation marks.

### Citation (SBL)

Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 6 (Mason, 80–82; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-6).

## Theological Oration 3 (Or. 29), On the Son 7

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-7
- Source: Mason, 82–83
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Applied to the Father’s own existence, the Eunomian question about will proves absurd.

### Greek text

Βούλει τι προσπαίξω καὶ τὸν πατέρα; παρὰ σοῦ γὰρ ἔχω τὰ τοιαῦτα τολμᾷν. θέλων θεὸς ὁ πατήρ, ἢ μὴ θέλων. καὶ ὅπως ἀποφεύξῃ τὸ σὸν περιδέξιον, εἰ μὲν δὴ θέλων, πότε τοῦ θέλειν ἠργμένος; οὐ γὰρ πρὶν εἶναι· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἦν τι πρότερον. ἢ τὸ μὲν αὐτοῦ θελῆσαν, τὸ δὲ θεληθέν; μεριστὸς οὖν. πῶς δὲ οὐ θελήσεως καὶ οὗτος, κατὰ σέ, πρόβλημα; εἰ δὲ οὐ θέλων, τί τὸ βιασάμενον εἰς τὸ εἶναι; καὶ πῶς θεός, εἰ βεβίασται, καὶ ταῦτα οὐκ ἄλλο τι ἢ αὐτὸ τὸ εἶναι θεός; πῶς οὖν γεγέννηται; πῶς ἔκτισται, εἴπερ ἔκτισται κατὰ σέ; καὶ γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο τῆς αὐτῆς ἀπορίας. τάχα ἂν εἴποις, βουλήσει καὶ λόγῳ. ἀλλʼ οὔπω λέγεις τὸ πᾶν. πῶς γὰρ ἔργου δύναμιν ἔσχεν ἡ βούλησις καὶ ὁ λόγος; ἔτι λείπεται λέγειν. οὐ γὰρ οὕτως ἄνθρωπος.

### English translation (Claude)

Would you like me to play a little with the Father too? You have given me licence for such daring. The Father is God either willing or not willing. And how will you escape your own two-edged argument? If willing, when did he begin to will? Not before he existed, for there was nothing before. Or is part of him the willer and part the willed? Then he is divisible. And how is he too not, on your reasoning, the product of will? If not willing, what compelled him to exist? And how is he God if he was compelled, and that to nothing other than being God? How then was the Son begotten? How was he created, if he was created, as you say? For this too is the same difficulty. Perhaps you would say, by will and word. But you have not yet said everything: how did will and word get the power to act? That remains to be said, for that is not how it is with a human being.

### Citation (SBL)

Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 7 (Mason, 82–83; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-7).

## Theological Oration 3 (Or. 29), On the Son 8

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-8
- Source: Mason, 83–85
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: No one can explain how the Son was begotten; since we do not understand even our own birth, God’s begetting must be honoured in silence.

### Greek text

Πῶς οὖν γεγέννηται; οὐκ ἂν ἢν μεγάλη ἡ γέννησις, εἰ σοὶ κατελαμβάνετο, ὃς οὐδὲ τὴν ἰδίαν ἐπίστῃ γέννησιν, ἢ μικρόν τι ταύτης κατείληφας, καὶ ὅσον αἰσχύνῃ λέγειν· ἔπειτα οἴει τὸ πᾶν γινώσκειν; πολλὰ ἂν κάμοις πρότερον, ἢ εὕροις λόγους συμπήξεως, μορφώσεως, φανερώσεως, ψυχῆς πρὸς σῶμα δεσμόν, νοῦ πρὸς ψυχήν, λόγου πρὸς νοῦν, κίνησιν, αὔξησιν, τροφῆς ἐξομοίωσιν, αἴσθησιν, μνήμην, ἀνάμνησιν, τἄλλα ἐξ ὧν συνέστηκας· καὶ τίνα μὲν τοῦ συναμφοτέρου ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος, τίνα δὲ τὰ μεμερισμένα, τίνα δὲ ἃ παρʼ ἀλλήλων λαμβάνουσιν· ὧν γὰρ ὕστερον ἡ τελείωσις, τούτων οἱ λόγοι μετὰ τῆς γεννήσεως. εἰπὲ τίνες· καὶ μηδὲ τότε φιλοσοφήσῃς θεοῦ γέννησιν· οὐ γὰρ ἀσφαλές. εἰ μὲν γὰρ τὴν σὴν γινώσκεις, οὐ πάντως καὶ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ· εἰ δὲ μηδὲ τὴν σήν, πῶς τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ; ὅσῳ γὰρ θεὸς ἀνθρώπου δυστεκμαρτότερος, τοσούτῳ καὶ τῆς σῆς γεννήσεως ἀληπτοτέρα ἡ ἄνω γέννησις. εἰ δὲ ὅτι μή σοι κατείληπται, διὰ τοῦτο οὐδὲ γεγέννηται, ὥρα σοι πολλὰ διαγράφειν τῶν ὄντων, ἃ μὴ κατείληφας, καὶ πρό γε ἁπάντων τὸν θεὸν αὐτόν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ὅ τι ποτέ ἐστιν εἰπεῖν ἔχεις, καὶ εἰ λίαν τολμηρὸς εἰ, καὶ τὰ περιττὰ μεγαλόψυχος. κατάβαλέ σου τὰς ῥεύσεις, καὶ τὰς διαιρέσεις, καὶ τὰς τομάς, καὶ τὸ ὡς περὶ σώματος διανοεῖσθαι τῆς ἀσωμάτου φύσεως· καὶ τάχα ἃν ἄξιόν τι διανοηθείης θεοῦ γεννήσεως. πῶς γεγέννηται; πάλιν γὰρ τὸ αὐτὸ φθέγξομαι δυσχεραίνων. θεοῦ γέννησις σιωπῇ τιμάσθω. μέγα σοι τὸ μαθεῖν, ὅτι γεγέννηται. τὸ δὲ πῶς, οὐδὲ ἀγγέλοις ἐννοεῖν, μὴ ὅτι γέ σοι νοεῖν συγχωρήσομεν. βούλει παραστήσω τὸ πῶς; ὡς οἶδεν ὁ γεννήσας πατήρ, καὶ ὁ γεννηθεὶς υἱός. τὸ δὲ ὑπὲρ ταῦτα νέφει κρύπτεται, τὴν σὴν διαφεῦγον ἀμβλυωπίαν.

### English translation (Claude)

How then was he begotten? The begetting would not be great if it were grasped by you, who do not even know your own begetting, or have grasped only a little of it, and that such as you are ashamed to speak of; and then you think you know the whole? You would toil long before you found the principles of your composition, formation, and manifestation, the bond of soul to body, of mind to soul, of reason to mind; movement, growth, the assimilation of food, sense, memory, recollection, and the other things of which you are made; which belong to soul and body together, which to each separately, and which they receive from one another. For the principles of those things whose completion comes later are present with the begetting. Tell me what they are; and even then do not philosophize about the begetting of God, for it is not safe. For if you know your own, it does not follow that you know God’s; and if you do not even know your own, how can you know God’s? As God is harder to trace out than man, so much is the begetting above harder to grasp than yours. And if, because you have not grasped it, he was therefore not begotten, it is time for you to strike out many things that exist which you have not grasped, and above all God himself; for you cannot say what he is, however daring you are and extravagant in your ambitions. Throw away your flowings and divisions and cuttings, and your thinking of the incorporeal nature as of a body, and perhaps you might think something worthy of the begetting of God. How was he begotten? I will say the same thing again, with vexation: let the begetting of God be honoured in silence. It is a great thing for you to learn that he was begotten. How, we will not grant that even angels understand, let alone you. Shall I show you how? As the Father who begot knows, and the Son who was begotten. Anything beyond this is hidden by a cloud and escapes your dim sight.

### Scripture references

- Isa 53:8: echo, low confidence

### Translation notes

- Isa 53:8 (“who will declare his generation?”) lies in the background; not quoted.

### Citation (SBL)

Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 8 (Mason, 83–85; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-8).

## Theological Oration 3 (Or. 29), On the Son 9

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-9
- Source: Mason, 85–87
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The question whether the Father begot a Son who already existed or did not is as meaningless as the liar paradox or asking whether time is in time.

### Greek text

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 γεγόναμενʼ 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 ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς· ὥστε ποῦ θήσεις τὸ ἀμφίκρημνον τοῦτο ἐρώτημα; τί γὰρ τοῦ ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς πρεσβύτερον, ἵν ἐκεῖ θῶμεν τὸ εἶναί ποτε τοῦ υἱοῦ, ἢ τὸ μὴ εἶναι; ἀμφοτέρως γὰρ τὸ ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς λυθήσεται. εἰ μή σοι καὶ ὁ πατήρ, πάλιν ἐρωτώντων ἡμῶν, ἐξ ὄντων, ἢ ἐξ 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 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 διαλεκτικὰς ὑπολήψεις, δέξαι μού τι μικρὸν ἐρώτημα. ὁ χρόνος ἐν χρόνῳ, ἢ οὐκ ἐν χρόνῳ; εἰ μὲν οὖν ἐν χρόνῳ, 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 δώσομεν. ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἐνδέχεται. ἢ γὰρ ψευδόμενος ἀληθεύσει, 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 καὶ παρῆς, καὶ πάρει, ὡς τίς, καὶ τίνι; καὶ πῶς ὁ εἷς ἄμφω γεγόνατε; εἰ δὲ μηδέτερον τῶν εἰρημένων, πῶς σεαυτοῦ χωρίζῃ; καὶ τίς ἡ αἰτία τῆς διαζεύξεως; ἀλλʼ ἀπαίδευτον περὶ τοῦ ἑνός, εἰ ἑαυτῷ πάρεστιν, ἢ μή, πολυπραγμονεῖν. ταῦτα γὰρ ἐπʼ ἄλλων, οὐχ ἑαυτοῦ λέγεται. ἀπαιδευτότερον, εὖ ἴσθι, τὸ ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς γεγεννημένον, εἰ ἢν πρὸ τῆς γεννήσεως, ἢ οὐκ ἦν, διευθύνεσθαι. οὗτος γὰρ περὶ τῶν χρόνῳ διαιρετῶν ὁ λόγος.

### English translation (Claude)

“Did he, then, beget one who existed or one who did not exist?” What nonsense! That applies to you and me, who in part existed, as Levi did in the loins of Abraham, and in part came into being; so that our existence comes in a way both from what existed and from what did not. The opposite is true of primeval matter, which clearly came into being from what did not exist, even if some imagine it to be unoriginate. But here being begotten coincides with being, and is from the beginning. Where then will you put this precipitous question? For what is older than “from the beginning,” that we may place there the Son’s having once existed or not existed? Either way, “from the beginning” will be destroyed. Unless, when we ask whether the Father too is from what exists or from what does not, he runs the risk of either existing twice, once pre-existing and once existing, or of suffering the same as the Son and being from what does not exist, because of your playthings of questions and your houses built on sand, which cannot stand even against breezes. I accept neither alternative; and I say that the absurdity lies in the question, not a difficulty in the answer. But if you think, by your dialectical assumptions, that one of the two must be true in every case, accept a small question from me. Is time in time or not in time? If in time, in what time? And what is that besides time? And how does it contain time? If not in time, what surpassing wisdom it is to bring in a timeless time! Take the statement, “I am now lying”: grant one of the two, that it is only true or only false; for we will not grant both. But that cannot be; for either in lying he will speak the truth, or in speaking the truth he will lie; it is inevitable. What wonder, then, that as here opposites coincide, so there both are false, and so your cleverness will turn out foolish? Solve one more riddle for me. Were you present to yourself when you were being born? Are you present to yourself now? Or neither? If you were and are, as whom, and to whom? And how did you, being one, become both? If neither, how are you separated from yourself, and what is the cause of the separation? “But it is uneducated to inquire about one being whether it is present to itself or not; for these things are said of others, not of oneself.” It is more uneducated, you may be sure, to inquire whether what was begotten from the beginning existed before its begetting or not. For that question applies to things divided by time.

### Scripture references

- Heb 7:10: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 7:26: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Heb 7:10 (Levi in Abraham’s loins); Matt 7:26 (house on sand). The Eunomian questions and objection are set in quotation marks. The digital text’s “IO” (a stray number) is removed.

### Citation (SBL)

Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 9 (Mason, 85–87; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-9).

## Theological Oration 3 (Or. 29), On the Son 10

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-10
- Source: Mason, 87–88
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: If “unbegotten” were God’s substance, the begotten Son could not be God; but unbegotten and begotten are properties within one and the same nature.

### Greek text

Ἀλλʼ οὐ ταὐτόν, φησι, τὸ ἀγέννητον καὶ τὸ γεννητόν. εἰ δὲ τοῦτο, οὐδὲ ὁ υἱὸς τῷ πατρὶ ταὐτόν. ὅτι μὲν φανερῶς ὁ λόγος οὗτος ἐκβάλλει τὸν υἱὸν τῆς θεότητος, ἢ τὸν πατέρα, τί χρὴ λέγειν; εἰ γὰρ τὸ ἀγέννητον οὐσία θεοῦ, τὸ γεννητὸν οὐκ οὐσία· εἰ δὲ τοῦτο, οὐκ ἐκεῖνο. τίς ἀντερεῖ λόγος; ἑλοῦ τοίνυν τῶν ἀσεβειῶν ὁποτέραν βούλει, ὦ κενὲ θεολόγε, εἴπερ ἀσεβεῖν πάντως ἐσπούδακας. ἔπειτα πῶς οὐ ταὐτὸν λέγεις τὸ ἀγέννητον καὶ τὸ γεννητόν; εἰ μὲν τὸ μὴ ἐκτισμένον καὶ ἐκτισμένον, κἀγὼ δέχομαι. οὐ γὰρ ταὐτὸν τῆ φύσει τὸ ἄναρχον καὶ τὸ κτιζόμενον. εἰ δὲ τὸ γεγεννηκὸς καὶ τὸ γεγεννημένον, οὐκ ὀρθῶς λέγεται. ταὐτὸν γὰρ εἶναι πᾶσα ἀνάγκη. αὕτη γὰρ φύσις γεννήματος, ταὐτὸν εἶναι τῷ γεγεννηκότι κατὰ τὴν φύσιν. ἢ οὕτω πάλιν· πῶς λέγεις τὸ ἀγέννητον καὶ τὸ γεννητόν; εἰ μὲν τὴν ἀγεννησίαν αὐτὴν καὶ τὴν γέννησιν, οὐ ταὐτόν· εἰ δὲ οἷς ὑπάρχει ταῦτα, πῶς οὐ ταὐτόν; ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸ ἄσοφον καὶ τὸ σοφὸν ἀλλήλοις μὲν οὐ ταὐτά, περὶ ταὐτὸν δέ, τὸν ἄνθρωπον· καὶ οὐκ οὐσίας τέμνει, περὶ δὲ τὴν αὐτὴν οὐσίαν τέμνεται. ἢ καὶ τὸ ἀθάνατον, καὶ τὸ ἄκακον, καὶ τὸ ἀναλλοίωτον οὐσία θεοῦ. ἀλλʼ εἰ τοῦτο, πολλαὶ οὐσίαι θεοῦ, καὶ οὐ μία. ἢ σύνθετον ἐκ τούτων τὸ θεῖον. οὐ γὰρ ἀσυνθέτως ταῦτα, εἴπερ οὐσίαι.

### English translation (Claude)

“But the unbegotten and the begotten are not the same,” he says. If so, neither is the Son the same as the Father. Need I say that this argument plainly expels either the Son or the Father from the Godhead? For if being unbegotten is the substance of God, being begotten is not that substance; and if the latter is, the former is not. What argument can contradict this? Choose, then, whichever impiety you prefer, you empty theologian, if you are determined to be impious at all costs. Next, in what sense do you say that the unbegotten and the begotten are not the same? If you mean the uncreated and the created, I agree; for what is without beginning and what is created are not the same in nature. But if you mean the begetter and the begotten, it is wrongly said; for they must be the same. For this is the nature of offspring, to be the same in nature as the begetter. Or again: in what sense do you speak of the unbegotten and the begotten? If you mean unbegottenness itself and begottenness, they are not the same; but if you mean those to whom these belong, how are they not the same? For unwisdom and wisdom are not the same as one another, yet they belong to the same subject, a human being; they do not divide substances but are divided within the same substance. Or are immortality, innocence, and unchangeableness also the substance of God? But if so, there are many substances of God, not one; or the divine is compounded of them, for they cannot be there without composition if they are substances.

### Translation notes

- The central Eunomian claim is that ἀγέννητος (“unbegotten”) names God’s οὐσία (“substance”); Gregory distinguishes the properties from the subject that has them. The stray “ΙΟ” in the digital text is removed.

### Citation (SBL)

Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 10 (Mason, 87–88; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-10).

## Theological Oration 3 (Or. 29), On the Son 11

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-11
- Source: Mason, 88–90
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Being unbegotten is a property of the Father, not the divine substance; the Son, begotten of the Father, is equally God.

### Greek text

ταῦτα μὲν οὔ φασι, κοινὰ γὰρ καὶ ἄλλων. ὃ δὲ μόνου θεοῦ καὶ ἴδιον, τοῦτο οὐσία. οὐκ ἂν μὲν συγχωρήσαιεν εἶναι μόνου θεοῦ τὸ ἀγέννητον οἱ καὶ τὴν ὕλην καὶ τὴν ἰδέαν συνεισάγοντες ὡς ἀγέννητα. τὸ γὰρ Μανιχαίων πορρωτέρω ῥίψωμεν σκότος. πλὴν ἔστω μόνου θεοῦ. τί δὲ ὁ Ἀδάμ; οὐ μόνος πλάσμα θεοῦ; καὶ πάνυ, φήσεις. ἆρʼ οὖν καὶ μόνος ἄνθρωπος; οὐδαμῶς. τί δή ποτε; ὅτι μὴ ἀνθρωπότης ἡ πλάσις· καὶ γὰρ τὸ γεννηθὲν ἄνθρωπος. οὕτως οὐδὲ τὸ ἀγέννητον μόνον θεός, εἰ καὶ μόνου πατρός, ἁλλὰ δέξαι καὶ τὸ γεννητὸν εἶναι θεόν. ἐκ θεοῦ γάρ, εἰ καὶ λίαν εἰ φιλαγέννητος. ἔπειτα πῶς οὐσίαν θεοῦ λέγεις, οὐ τὴν τοῦ ὄντος θέσιν, ἁλλὰ τὴν τοῦ μὴ ὄντος ἀναίρεσιν; τὸ γὰρ μὴ ὑπάρχειν αὐτῷ γέννησιν ὁ λόγος δηλοῖ, οὐχ ὃ τὴν φύσιν ἐστὶ παρίστησιν, οὐδʼ ὃ ὑπάρχει τὸ μὴ ἔχον γέννησιν. τίς οὖν οὐσία θεοῦ; τῆς σῆς ἀπονοίας τοῦτο λέγειν, ὃς πολυπραγμονεῖς καὶ τὴν γέννησιν. ἡμῖν δὲ μέγα, κἂν εἴποτε καὶ εἰς ὕστερον τοῦτο μάθοιμεν, λυθέντος ἡμῖν τοῦ ζόφου καὶ τῆς παχύτητος, ὡς ἡ τοῦ ἀψευδοῦς ὑπόσχεσις. τοῦτο μὲν οὖν καὶ νοείσθω καὶ ἐλπιζέσθω τοῖς ἐπὶ τούτῳ καθαιρομένοις. ἡμεῖς δὲ τοσοῦτον εἰπεῖν θαρρήσομεν, ὅτι εἰ καὶ μέγα τῷ πατρὶ τὸ μηδαμόθεν ὡρμῆσθαι, οὐκ ἔλαττον τῷ υἱῷ τὸ ἐκ τοιούτου πατρός. τῆς τε γὰρ τοῦ ἀναιτίου δόξης μετέχοι ἄν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἀναιτίου, καὶ πρόσεστι τὸ τῆς γεννήσεως, πρᾶγμα τοσοῦτον καὶ οὕτω σεβάσμιον τοῖς μὴ πάντῃ χαμαιπετέσι καὶ ὑλικοῖς τὴν διάνοιαν.

### English translation (Claude)

“We do not say these,” they reply, “for they are shared with others; what belongs to God alone and is proper to him, that is his substance.” Those who bring in matter and form as unbegotten too would not agree that being unbegotten belongs to God alone; and let us cast the darkness of the Manichaeans still further off. But let it belong to God alone. What of Adam? Was he not alone the direct handiwork of God? Certainly, you will say. Was he then alone a man? By no means. Why so? Because being moulded is not what humanity is; for what was begotten is also a man. So too it is not only the unbegotten that is God, even if unbegottenness belongs to the Father alone; accept that the begotten is also God, for he is from God, however fond you are of the unbegotten. Then how can you call the substance of God not the affirmation of what is but the denial of what is not? For the word shows that he has no begetting; it does not present what he is in nature, nor what it is that has no begetting. What, then, is the substance of God? It would take your madness to say, you who busy yourself even with his begetting. For us it will be a great thing if we ever learn it, even later, when our darkness and grossness have been dissolved, as the one who cannot lie has promised. Let this be the thought and hope of those who are being purified for it. We will dare to say this much: if it is great for the Father to originate from nowhere, it is no less great for the Son to be from such a Father. For he would share the glory of the uncaused, since he is from the uncaused; and to this is added the glory of his begetting, a thing so great and venerable to those whose minds are not wholly earthbound and material.

### Scripture references

- Titus 1:2: echo, low confidence
- 1 Cor 13:12: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The Eunomian reply is set in quotation marks. “The one who cannot lie has promised”: Titus 1:2 with 1 Cor 13:12. Those who make matter and form unbegotten are Platonists and similar philosophers.

### Citation (SBL)

Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 11 (Mason, 88–90; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-11).

## Theological Oration 3 (Or. 29), On the Son 12

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-12
- Source: Mason, 90–92
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Being unbegotten and being God are not the same, or the Eunomian logic would make the Son’s substance older than the Father’s.

### Greek text

Ἀλλʼ εἰ ταὐτὸν τῷ πατρί, φασιν, ὁ υἱὸς κατʼ οὐσίαν, ἀγέννητον δὲ ὁ πατήρ, ἔσται τοῦτο καὶ ὁ υἱός. καλῶς, εἴπερ οὐσία θεοῦ τὸ ἀγέννητον, ἵν ᾖ τις καινὴ μίξις, γεννητοαγέννητον. εἰ δὲ περὶ οὐσίαν ἡ διαφορά, τί τοῦτο ὡς ἰσχυρὸν λέγεις; ἢ καὶ σὺ πατὴρ τοῦ πατρός, ἵνα μηδενὶ λείπῃ τοῦ σοῦ πατρός, ἐπειδὴ ταὐτὸν εἶ κατʼ οὐσίαν; ἢ δῆλον ὅτι, τῆς ἰδιότητος ἀκινήτου μενούσης, ζητήσομεν οὐσίαν θεοῦ, ἥ τις ποτέ ἐστιν, εἴπερ ζητήσομεν; ὅτι δὲ οὐ ταὐτὸν ἀγέννητον καὶ θεός, ὧδε ἂν μάθοις. εἰ ταὐτὸν ἦν, ἔδει πάντως, ἐπειδὴ τινῶν θεὸς ὁ θεός, τινῶν εἶναι καὶ τὸ ἀγέννητον· ἢ ἐπεὶ μηδενὸς τὸ ἀγέννητον, μηδὲ τὸν θεὸν εἶναι τινῶν. τὰ γὰρ πάντῃ ταὐτὰ καὶ ὁμοίως ἐκφέρεται. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐ τινῶν τὸ ἀγέννητον, τίνων γάρ; καὶ τινῶν θεὸς ὁ θεός, πάντων γάρ. πῶς οὖν ἂν εἴη ταὐτὸν θεὸς καὶ ἀγέννητον; καὶ πάλιν, ἐπειδὴ τὸ ἀγέννητον καὶ τὸ γεννητὸν ἀντίκειται ἀλλήλοις, ὡς ἕξις καὶ στέρησις, ἀνάγκη καὶ οὐσίας εἰσαχθῆναι ἀντικειμένας ἀλλήλαις, ὅπερ οὐ δέδοται· ἢ ἐπειδὴ πάλιν αἱ ἕξεις τῶν στερήσεων πρότεραι, καὶ ἀναιρετικαὶ τῶν ἕξεων αἱ στερήσεις, μὴ μόνον πρεσβυτέραν εἶναι τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας τὴν τοῦ υἱοῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀναιρουμένην ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός, ὅσον ἐπὶ ταῖς σαῖς ὑποθέσεσι.

### English translation (Claude)

“But if the Son is the same as the Father in substance,” they say, “and the Father is unbegotten, the Son will be unbegotten too.” Quite right, if being unbegotten is the substance of God; so that there may be a novel mixture, a begotten-unbegotten. But if the difference lies in what surrounds the substance, why do you put this forward as a strong argument? Or are you the father of your father, so as to lack nothing that your father has, since you are the same in substance? Or is it not plain that, while the distinctive property stays unmoved, we will look for the substance of God, whatever it is, if we look for it at all? That “unbegotten” and “God” are not the same, you may learn like this. If they were the same, then, since God is God of some beings, the unbegotten would have to be unbegotten of some; or, since the unbegotten is of no one, God would have to be God of no one. For things wholly the same are also expressed in the same way. But the unbegotten is not unbegotten of anyone (of whom could it be?), while God is God of some, indeed of all. How then could God and the unbegotten be the same? And again, since unbegotten and begotten are opposed to each other as possession and privation, opposed substances would necessarily be brought in, which is not granted; or else, since possessions are prior to privations and privations abolish possessions, the substance of the Son would be not only older than the substance of the Father but even abolished by the Father, as far as your assumptions go.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Aristotle, Cat. 10 (Aristotle (works)): allusion, low confidence

### Translation notes

- The Eunomian argument is set in quotation marks. “Possession and privation” is Aristotle’s logical pair (Categories 10).

### Citation (SBL)

Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 12 (Mason, 90–92; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-12).

## Theological Oration 3 (Or. 29), On the Son 13

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-13
- Source: Mason, 92–93
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Gregory refutes the argument that the Son’s begetting must have begun or be unfinished, and insists that God has one substance and name, properly shared by the Son.

### Greek text

τίς ἔτι λόγος αὐτοῖς τῶν ἀφύκτων; τάχα ἂν ἐπʼ ἐκεῖνο καταφύγοιεν τελευταῖον· ὡς εἰ μὲν οὐ πέπαυται τοῦ γεννᾷν ὁ θεός, ἀτελὴς ἡ γέννησις, καί ποτε παύσεται. εἰ πέπαυται δέ, πάντως καὶ ἤρξατο. πάλιν οἱ σωματικοὶ τὰ σωματικά. ἐγὼ δὲ εἰ μὲν ἀίδιον αὐτῷ τὸ γεννᾶσθαι, ἢ μή, οὔπω λέγω, ἕως ἂν τὸ Πρὸ πάντων βουνῶν γεννᾶ με ἀκριβῶς ἐπισκέψωμαι. οὐχ ὁρῶ δὲ τίς ἡ ἀνάγκη τοῦ λόγου. εἰ γὰρ ἦρκται κατʼ αὐτοὺς τὸ παυσόμενον, οὐκ ἦρκται πάντως τὸ μὴ παυσόμενον. τί τοίνυν ἀποφανοῦνται περὶ ψυχῆς, ἢ τῆς ἀγγελικῆς φύσεως; εἰ μὲν ἦρκται, καὶ παύσεται· εἰ δὲ οὐ παύσεται, δῆλον ὅτι κατʼ αὐτοὺς οὐδὲ ἦρκται. ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ ἦρκται, καὶ οὐ παύσεται. οὐκ ἄρα ἦρκται κατʼ αὐτοὺς τὸ παυσόμενον. ὁ μὲν οὖν ἡμέτερος λόγος· ὥσπερ ἵππου, καὶ βοός, καὶ ἀνθρώπου, καὶ ἑκάστου τῶν ὑπὸ τὸ αὐτὸ εἶδος, εἷς λόγος ἐστί, καὶ ὂ μὲν ἂν μετέχῃ τοῦ λόγου, τοῦτο καὶ κυρίως λέγεσθαι, ὃ δʼ ἂν μὴ μετέχῃ, τοῦτο ἢ μὴ λέγεσθαι, ἢ μὴ κυρίως λέγεσθαι, οὕτω δὲ καὶ θεοῦ μίαν οὐσίαν εἶναι, καὶ φύσιν, καὶ κλῆσιν, κἂν ἐπινοίαις τισὶ διαιρουμέναις συνδιαιρῆται καὶ τὰ ὀνόματα. καὶ ὃ μὲν ἂν κυρίως λέγηται, τοῦτο καὶ εἶναι θεόν· ὃ δʼ ἂν ἦ κατὰ φύσιν, τοῦτο καὶ ἀληθῶς ὀνομάζεσθαι· εἴπερ μὴ ἐν ὀνόμασιν, ἀλλʼ ἐν πράγμασίν ἐστιν ἡμῖν ἢ ἀλήθεια. οἱ δέ, ὥσπερ δεδοικότες μὴ πάντα κινεῖν κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας, θεὸν μὲν εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν ὁμολογοῦσιν, ὅταν βιασθῶσι τῶ λόγῳ καὶ ταῖς μαρτυρίαις, ὁμώνυμον δὲ καὶ μόνης κοινωνοῦντα τῆς κλήσεως.

### English translation (Claude)

What unanswerable argument have they left? Perhaps they may take refuge in this last one: “If God has not ceased begetting, the begetting is incomplete and will cease one day; but if he has ceased, he certainly also began.” Once again the bodily-minded speak of bodily things. For my part, I do not yet say whether his being begotten is eternal or not, until I have examined carefully the words, “Before all the hills he begets me.” But I do not see what compels their argument. For if, as they say, what will cease has begun, then what will not cease has certainly not begun. What then will they declare about the soul, or the angelic nature? If it began, it will also cease; if it will not cease, then clearly, on their reasoning, it did not begin either. But in fact it began and will not cease. So it is not true, as they say, that what will cease has begun. Our own account is this. Just as a horse, an ox, a man, and each member of the same species has one definition, and what shares in the definition is properly called by the name, while what does not share in it is either not called so or not called so properly; so too God has one substance, nature, and name, even if the names are divided along with certain distinctions of thought. What is properly called God is God; and what is God by nature is truly named so, if indeed truth for us lies in realities and not in names. But they, as if afraid of leaving no stone unturned against the truth, confess that the Son is God when they are forced by argument and testimony, but only in an equivocal sense, sharing the name alone.

### Scripture references

- Prov 8:25: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Prov 8:25 (LXX, present tense “begets”). The Eunomian arguments are set in quotation marks.

### Citation (SBL)

Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 13 (Mason, 92–93; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-13).

## Theological Oration 3 (Or. 29), On the Son 14

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-14
- Source: Mason, 93–95
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The Eunomian appeal to equivocal names, like the land dog and sea dog, fails because it is meant to make the Son unequal to the Father.

### Greek text

Ὅταν δὲ ἀνθυποφέρωμεν αὐτοῖς· τί οὖν; οὐ κυρίως θεὸς ὁ υἱός, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ ζῷον τὸ γεγραμμένον; πῶς οὖν θεός, εἰ μὴ κυρίως θεός; τί γὰρ κωλύει, φασί, καὶ ὁμώνυμα ταῦτα εἶναι, καὶ κυρίως ἀμφότερα λέγεσθαι; καὶ προοίσουσιν ἡμῖν τὸν κύνα, τὸν χερσαῖον, καὶ τὸν θαλάττιον, ὁμώνυμά τε ὄντα, καὶ κυρίως λεγόμενα, — ἔστι γάρ τι καὶ τοιοῦτον εἶδος ἐν τοῖς ὁμωνύμοις, — καὶ εἴτε τι ἄλλο τῇ αὐτῇ προσχρῆται προσηγορίᾳ, καὶ μετέχει ταύτης ἐπʼ ἴσης, τῇ φύσει διεστηκός. ἀλλʼ ἐκεῖ μέν, ὦ βέλτιστε, δύο φύσεις τιθεὶς ὑπὸ τὴν αὐτὴν προσηγορίαν, οὐδὲν ἀμείνω τὴν ἑτέραν τῆς ἑτέρας εἰσάγεις, οὐδὲ τὴν μὲν πρότερον, τὴν δὲ ὕστερον, οὐδὲ τὴν μὲν μᾶλλον, τὴν δὲ ἧττον οὖσαν τοῦθʼ ὅπερ λέγεται. οὐδὲ γάρ τι συνέζευκται τὸ ταύτην παρέχον αὐταῖς τὴν ἀνάγκην. οὐ γὰρ ὁ μὲν μᾶλλον κύων, ὁ δὲ ἧττον τοῦ ἑτέρου κυνός, οἷον ὁ θαλάττιος τοῦ χερσαίου, ἢ ὁ χερσαῖος ἔμπαλιν τοῦ θαλαττίου· διὰ τί γάρ, ἢ κατὰ τίνα λόγον; ἀλλʼ ἐν ὁμοτίμοις πράγμασι καὶ διαφόροις ἡ κοινωνία τῆς κλήσεως. ἐνταῦθα δὲ τῷ θεῷ παραζευγνὺς τὸ σεβάσμιον, καὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν οὐσίαν εἶναι καὶ φύσιν, ὂ μόνου θεοῦ καὶ οἱονεὶ φύσις θεότητος, εἶτα τῷ πατρὶ μὲν τοῦτο διδούς, τὸν υἱὸν δὲ ἀποστερῶν καὶ ὑποτιθείς, καὶ τὰ δεύτερα νέμων αὐτῷ τῆς τιμῆς καὶ τῆς προσκυνήσεως, κἂν ταῖς συλλαβαῖς χαρίζῃ τὸ ὅμοιον, τῷ πράγματι τὴν θεότητα περικόπτεις, καὶ μεταβαίνεις κακούργως ἀπὸ τῆς τὸ ἴσον ἐχούσης ὁμωνυμίας ἐπὶ τὴν τὰ μὴ ἴσα συνδέουσαν· ὥστε ὁ γραπτός σοι καὶ ὁ ζῶν ἄνθρωπος μᾶλλον ἢ οἱ τοῦ ὑποδείγματος κύνες τῇ θεότητι πλησιάζουσιν. ἢ δὸς ἀμφοτέροις, ὥσπερ τὴν κοινωνίαν τῆς κλήσεως, οὕτω δὲ καὶ τὴν ὁμοτιμίαν τῶν φύσεων, εἰ καὶ διαφόρους ταύτας εἰσάγεις· καὶ καταλέλυκάς σου τοὺς κύνας, οὓς ἐξηῦρες κατὰ τῆς ἀνισότητος. τί γὰρ ὄφελος τῆς ὁμωνυμίας, εἰ τὸ ἰσότιμον ἔχοιεν οἱ παρά σου διαιρούμενοι; οὐ γὰρ ἵνα ἰσότιμα δείξῃς, ἁλλʼ ἵνα ἀνισότιμα, πρὸς τὴν ὁμωνυμίαν καὶ τοὺς κύνας κατέφυγες. πῶς ἄν τις ἐλεγχθείη μᾶλλον καὶ ἑαυτῷ μαχόμενος καὶ θεότητι;

### English translation (Claude)

When we object to them: “What then? Is the Son not properly God, as a painted animal is not properly an animal? How then is he God, if he is not properly God?” “What prevents these,” they say, “from being equivocal and yet both properly so called?” And they will bring forward the dog, the land dog and the sea dog, which are equivocal and properly so called (for there is such a class among equivocal terms), and anything else that uses the same name and shares it equally while differing in nature. But there, my good man, in putting two natures under the same name, you do not make one better than the other, nor one prior and the other later, nor one more and the other less what it is called; for nothing is attached to them that imposes such a necessity. One dog is not more a dog and the other less, the sea dog than the land dog or the other way round; why should it be, or on what principle? The sharing of the name is between things of equal honour but different. Here, however, you join to God the attribute of being worshipped and of being above every substance and nature, which belongs to God alone and is, as it were, the nature of the Godhead; then you give this to the Father, but deprive the Son of it and subordinate him, assigning him second place in honour and worship. Even if you grant him likeness in syllables, in reality you cut off his Godhead, and you pass dishonestly from an equivocation that implies equality to one that links unequal things; so that on your view the painted and the living man come nearer to the Godhead than the dogs of your example. Or else grant both the sharing of the name and equality of honour of their natures, even if you introduce them as different; and you have done away with your dogs, which you invented to prove inequality. For what use is the equivocation if those you divide have equal honour? It was not to show equal honour but unequal that you took refuge in equivocation and the dogs. How could anyone be more clearly convicted of fighting both himself and the Godhead?

### Translation notes

- The “sea dog” is the dogfish or shark, a stock example of equivocation.

### Citation (SBL)

Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 14 (Mason, 93–95; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-14).

## Theological Oration 3 (Or. 29), On the Son 15

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-15
- Source: Mason, 95–97
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The Father is greater as the Son’s cause, but the Eunomians fallaciously conclude that he is greater in nature.

### Greek text

Ἐὰν δὲ λεγόντων ἡμῶν, ὅτι τῷ αἰτίῳ μείζων ὁ πατὴρ τοῦ υἱοῦ, προσλαβόντες τὴν Τὰ δὲ αἴτιον φύσει πρότασιν, ἔπειτα τὸ Μεῖζον τῆ φύσει συνάγωσιν· οὐκ οἶδα πότερον ἑαυτοὺς παραλογίζονται, ἢ τοὺς πρὸς οὓς ὁ λόγος. οὐ γὰρ ἁπλῶς ὅσα κατά τινος λέγεται, ταῦτα καὶ κατὰ τοῦ ὑποκειμένου τούτῳ ῥηθήσεται· ἀλλὰ δῆλον κατὰ τίνος, καὶ τίνα. ἐπεὶ τί κωλύει κἀμὲ ταύτην πρότασιν ποιησάμενον τήν, ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ μείζων τῇ φύσει, ἔπειτα προσλαβόντα τὸ Φύσει δὲ οὐ πάντως μείζων οὐδὲ πατήρ, ἐντεῦθεν συναγαγεῖν τὸ Μεῖζον οὐ πάντως μεῖζον· ἤ, Ὁ πατὴρ οὐ πάντως πατήρ. εἰ βούλει δὲ οὕτως· ὁ θεός οὐσία· ἡ οὐσία δέ, οὐ πάντως θεός· τὸ ἑξῆς αὐτὸς συνάγαγε· ὁ θεός, οὐ πάντως θεός. ἀλλʼ οἶμαι, παρὰ τὸ πῇ καὶ ἁπλῶς ὁ παραλογισμὸς οὗτος, ὡς τοῖς περὶ ταῦτα τεχνολογεῖν σύνηθες. ἡμῶν γὰρ τὸ μεῖζον τῇ τοῦ αἰτίου φύσει διδόντων, αὐτοὶ τὸ τῇ φύσει μεῖζον ἐπάγουσιν· ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ καὶ λεγόντων ἡμῶν, ὅτι ὁ δεῖνα νεκρὸς ἄνθρωπος, ἁπλῶς ἐπῆγον αὐτοὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον.

### English translation (Claude)

If, when we say that the Father is greater than the Son as cause, they add the premise “but the cause is by nature,” and then conclude “greater by nature,” I do not know whether they deceive themselves or those they are addressing. For not everything that is said of something will also be said of its subject; it must be clear of what and in what sense. Otherwise, what prevents me too from taking the premise “the Father is greater by nature,” then adding “but what is by nature is not necessarily greater, nor a father,” and from this concluding “the greater is not necessarily greater,” or “the Father is not necessarily a father”? Or, if you like, like this: “God is substance; but substance is not necessarily God”; draw the conclusion yourself: “God is not necessarily God.” I think this fallacy comes from confusing a qualified with an unqualified statement, as is usual among those who practise these techniques. For while we assign “greater” to the nature of the cause, they infer “greater in nature”; just as if, when we said that so-and-so is a dead man, they simply inferred “a man.”

### Scripture references

- John 14:28: allusion, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Aristotle, Soph. elench. 5 (Aristotle (works)): allusion, low confidence

### Translation notes

- John 14:28 lies behind “greater.” The fallacy of confusing a qualified with an unqualified statement is Aristotle’s (Sophistical Refutations 5).

### Citation (SBL)

Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 15 (Mason, 95–97; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-15).

## Theological Oration 3 (Or. 29), On the Son 16

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-16
- Source: Mason, 97–99
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: “Father” names neither a substance nor an activity but a relation, which implies that the Son shares the Father’s nature.

### Greek text

Ἐκεῖνο δὲ πῶς παραδράμωμεν, οὐδενὸς ἧττον τῶν εἰρημένων ὂν ἀξιάγαστον; ‘Ο πατήρ, φησιν, οὐσίας, ἢ ἐνεργείας ὄνομα; ὡς ἀμφοτέρωθεν ἡμᾶς δήσοντες, — εἰ μὲν οὐσίας φήσομεν, συνθησομένους ἑτεροούσιον εἶναι τὸν υἱόν, ἐπειδὴ μία μὲν οὐσία θεοῦ, ταύτην δέ, ὡς οὗτοι, προκατείληφεν ὁ πατήρ· εἰ δὲ ἐνεργείας, ποίημα σαφῶς ὁμολογήσοντας, ἁλλʼ οὐ γέννημα. οὗ γὰρ ὁ ἐνεργῶν, ἐκεῖ πάντως καὶ τὸ ἐνεργούμενον. καὶ πῶς τῷ πεποιηκότι ταὐτὸν τὸ πεποιημένον, θαυμάζειν φήσουσι. σφόδρα ἂν ᾐδέσθην ὑμῶν καὶ αὐτὸς τὴν διαίρεσιν, εἰ τῶν δύο τὸ ἕτερον δέξασθαι ἢν ἀναγκαῖον, ἁλλὰ μὴ τὰ δύο διαφυγόντα τρίτον εἰπεῖν ἀληθέστερον· ὅτι οὔτε οὐσίας ὄνομα ὁ πατήρ, ὦ σοφώτατοι, οὔτε ἐνεργείας, σχέσεως δὲ καὶ τοῦ πῶς ἔχει πρὸς τὸν υἱὸν ὁ πατήρ, ἢ ὁ υἱὸς πρὸς τὸν πατέρα. ὡς γὰρ παρʼ ἡμῖν αἱ κλήσεις αὗται τὸ γνήσιον καὶ οἰκεῖον γνωρίζουσιν, οὕτω κἀκεῖ τὴν τοῦ γεγεννημένου πρὸς τὸ γεγεννηκὸς ὁμοφυίαν σημαίνουσιν. ἔστω δέ, ὑμῶν χάριν, καὶ οὐσία τις ὁ πατήρ· συνεισάξει τὸν υἱόν, οὐκ ἀλλοτριώσει, κατὰ τὰς κοινὰς ἐννοίας καὶ τὴν τῶν κλήσεων τούτων δύναμιν. ἔστω καὶ ἐνεργείας, εἰ τοῦτο δοκεῖ· οὐδὲ οὕτως ἡμᾶς αἱρήσετε. αὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο ἐνηργηκὼς ἂν εἴη τὸ ὁμοούσιον, εἰ καὶ ἄτοπος ἄλλως ἡ τῆς περὶ τοῦτο ἐνεργείας ὑπόληψις. ὁρᾶς ὅπως ὑμῶν, καὶ κακομαχεῖν ἐθελόντων, τὰς στροφὰς διαφεύγομεν; ἐπεὶ δέ σου τὸ ἐν τοῖς λογισμοῖς καὶ ταῖς στροφαῖς ἄμαχον ἔγνωμεν, ἴδωμέν σου καὶ τὴν ἐκ τῶν θείων λογίων ἰσχύν, ἃν ἄρα δέξῃ κἀντεῦθεν πείθειν ἡμᾶς.

### English translation (Claude)

And how can we pass over this one, which is no less remarkable than those already mentioned? “Is ‘Father,’” he says, “the name of a substance or of an activity?” They mean to bind us on both sides: if we say it is the name of a substance, we will agree that the Son is of another substance, since God has one substance and, as they say, the Father has occupied it already; if of an activity, we will clearly confess that the Son is a thing made, not begotten. For where there is one who acts, there is certainly also what is acted upon; and they will say they wonder how what is made can be the same as its maker. I too would be very much in awe of your division if one of the two had to be accepted, and it were not possible to escape both and give a truer third answer: that “Father,” most wise sirs, is the name neither of a substance nor of an activity, but of a relation, of how the Father stands to the Son or the Son to the Father. For as with us these names make known genuine kinship, so there too they signify the sameness of nature of the begotten with the begetter. But let the Father be a substance, for your sake: he will bring the Son with him, not estrange him, according to common notions and the force of these names. Let it be the name of an activity, if you like: even so you will not catch us. What that activity produced would be the very sameness of substance, even if the notion of an activity in this matter is otherwise absurd. Do you see how we escape your twists, even when you want to fight unfairly? But since we have learned how invincible you are in reasonings and twists, let us see your strength from the divine oracles, in case you choose to persuade us from there too.

### Translation notes

- The Eunomian dilemma is in quotation marks. “Sameness of substance” renders τὸ ὁμοούσιον; ὁμοούσιος is rendered “consubstantial” or “of one substance.” The digital text’s “προκατείληφες” is read as προκατείληφεν.

### Citation (SBL)

Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 16 (Mason, 97–99; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-16).

## Theological Oration 3 (Or. 29), On the Son 17

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-17
- Source: Mason, 99–100
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Gregory lists the lofty biblical titles of the Son, God, Word, Wisdom, Power, Image, Lord, which show his eternal Godhead.

### Greek text

Ἡμεῖς μὲν γὰρ ἐκ μεγάλων καὶ ὑψηλῶν τῶν τοῦ υἱοῦ τὴν θεότητα καὶ κατειλήφαμεν, καὶ κηρύσσομεν. τίνων τούτων; τῆς θεός, τῆς λόγος, ὁ ἐν ἀρχῇ, ὁ μετὰ τῆς ἀρχῆς, ἡ ἀρχή· Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος· καί, Μετά σου ἡ ἀρχή· καί, ‘Ο καλῶν αὐτὴν ἀπὸ γενεῶν ἀρχήν. ἐπειδὴ υἱὸς μονογενής· ‘Ο μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. ὁδός, ἁλήθεια, ζωή, φῶς· Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδός, καὶ ἡ ἁλήθεια, καὶ ἡ ζωή· καί, Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου. σοφία, δύναμις· Χριστὸς θεοῦ δύναμις, καὶ θεοῦ σοφία. ἀπαύγασμα, χαρακτήρ, εἰκών, σφραγίς· Ὅς ὣν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ· καί, Εἰκὼν τῆς ἀγαθότητος· καί, τοῦτον γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἐσφράγισεν ὁ θεός. κύριος, βασιλεύς, ὁ ὤν, ὁ παντοκράτωρ· Ἔβρεξε κύριος πῦρ παρὰ κυρίου· καί, Ῥάβδος εὐθύτητος ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου· καί, ‘O ὤν, καὶ ὁ ἢν, καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, καὶ ὁ παντοκράτωρ. σαφῶς περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ λεγόμενα, καὶ ὅσα τῆς αὐτῆς τούτοις ἐστὶ δυνάμεως ὧν οὐδὲν ἐπίκτητον, οὐδὲ ὕστερον τῷ υἱῷ προσγενόμενον, ἢ τῷ πνεύματι, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ αὐτῷ τῷ πατρί. οὐ γὰρ ἐκ προσθήκης τὸ τέλειον. οὐ γὰρ ἦν ὅτε ἄλογος ἦν, οὐδὲ ἦν ὅτε οὐ πατήρ, οὐδὲ ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἀληθής, ἢ ἄσοφος, ἢ ἀδύνατος, ἢ ζωῆς ἐνδεής, ἢ λαμπρότητος, ἢ ἀγαθότητος.

### English translation (Claude)

For our part, we have grasped and proclaim the Godhead of the Son from great and lofty sayings. Which ones? These: “God,” “Word,” “the one in the beginning,” “the one with the beginning,” “the beginning.” “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”; and “With you is the beginning”; and “He who calls it the beginning from the generations.” Then, that he is the only-begotten Son: “The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” “Way,” “truth,” “life,” “light”: “I am the way and the truth and the life,” and “I am the light of the world.” “Wisdom,” “power”: “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” “Radiance,” “imprint,” “image,” “seal”: “Who is the radiance of his glory and the imprint of his hypostasis,” and “image of his goodness,” and “For him has God the Father sealed.” “Lord,” “King,” “He who is,” “the Almighty”: “The Lord rained fire from the Lord,” and “A sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of your kingdom,” and “Who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” These are clearly said of the Son, and all others of the same force; none of them acquired, or added to the Son or the Spirit later, any more than to the Father himself. For perfection does not come by addition. There was never a time when he was without the Word, nor a time when he was not Father, nor a time when he was not true, or without wisdom, or without power, or lacking life or splendour or goodness.

### Scripture references

- John 1:1: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 110:3 (109:3 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Isa 41:4: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:18: quotation, high confidence
- John 14:6: quotation, high confidence
- John 8:12: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 1:24: quotation, high confidence
- Heb 1:3: quotation, high confidence
- John 6:27: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 19:24: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 45:6 (44:7 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Rev 1:8: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Wis 7:26 (Wisdom of Solomon): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- John 1:1; Ps 110:3 (LXX 109:3); Isa 41:4 (LXX); John 1:18; John 14:6; John 8:12; 1 Cor 1:24; Heb 1:3 (ὑπόστασις, here left as “hypostasis”: in Gregory’s own usage the word means a distinct “person” of the Trinity, as does πρόσωπον); Wis 7:26; John 6:27; Gen 19:24; Ps 45:6 (LXX 44:7); Rev 1:8. The digital text’s garbled “κηρύσφωνῶν σομεν” is read as κηρύσσομεν.

### Citation (SBL)

Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 17 (Mason, 99–100; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/1/#p-17).

## Theological Oration 3 (Or. 29), On the Son 18

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/18/#p-18
- Source: Mason, 100–102
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The lowly biblical statements about Christ refer to his human nature assumed for our salvation, the lofty ones to his Godhead.

### Greek text

Σὺ δέ μοι καταρίθμει πρὸς ταῦτα τὰ τῆς ἀγνωμοσύνης ῥήματα, τὸ θεός μου καὶ θεὸς ὑμῶν, τὸ μείζων, τὸ ἔκτισε, τὸ ἐποίησε, τὸ ἡγίασεν. εἰ βούλει δέ, καὶ τὸ δοῦλον, καὶ τὸ ὑπήκοον· τὸ δέδωκε, τὸ ἔμαθε, τὸ ἐντέταλται, τὸ ἀπέσταλται, τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι ἀφʼ ἑαυτοῦ τι ποιεῖν, ἢ λέγειν, ἢ κρίνειν, ἢ δωρεῖσθαι, ἢ βούλεσθαι. ἔτι δὲ καὶ ταῦτα, τὴν ἄγνοιαν, τὴν ὑποταγήν, τὴν εὐχήν, τὴν ἐρώτησιν, τὴν προκοπήν, τὴν τελείωσιν. πρόσθες, εἰ βούλει, καὶ ὅσα τούτων ταπεινότερα, τὸ ὕπνουν, τὸ πείνην, τὸ κοπιᾷν, τὸ δακρύειν, τὸ ἀγωνιᾷν, τὸ ὑποδύεσθαι. τάχα δʼ ἂν ὀνειδίσαις καὶ τὸν σταυρόν, καὶ τὸν θάνατον. τὴν γὰρ ἔγερσιν καὶ τὴν ἀνάληψιν παρήσειν μοι δοκεῖς, ἐπειδή τι καὶ πρὸς ἡμῶν ἐν τούτοις εὑρίσκεται. πολλὰ δʼ ἂν ἔτι πρὸς τούτοις σπερμολογήσαις, εἰ βούλοιο συντιθέναι τὸν ὁμώνυμόν σου θεὸν καὶ παρέγγραπτον, ἡμῖν δὲ ἀληθινὸν καὶ ὁμότιμον. τούτων γὰρ ἕκαστον οὐ χαλεπὸν μὲν καὶ κατὰ μέρος ἐπεξιόντα ἐξηγεῖσθαί σοι πρὸς τὸ εὐσεβέστατον, καὶ ἀνακαθαίρειν τὸ ἐν τοῖς γράμμασι πρόσκομμα, εἴ γε προσπταίεις ὄντως, ἀλλὰ μὴ ἑκὼν κακουργεῖς. ἑνὶ δὲ κεφαλαίῳ, τὰ μὲν ὑψηλότερα πρόσαγε τῇ θεότητι καὶ τῇ κρείττονι φύσει παθῶν καὶ σώματος· τὰ δὲ ταπεινότερα τῷ συνθέτῳ, καὶ τῷ διὰ σὲ κενωθέντι καὶ σαρκωθέντι, οὐδὲν δὲ χεῖρον εἰπεῖν, καὶ ἀνθρωπισθέντι, εἶτα καὶ ὑψωθέντι, ἵνα σὺ τὸ τῶν δογμάτων σου σαρκικὸν καὶ χαμαιπετὲς καταλύσας μάθης ὑψηλότερος εἶναι, καὶ συνανιέναι θεότητι, καὶ μὴ τοῖς ὁρωμένοις ἐναπομένοις, ἀλλὰ συνεπαίρῃ τοῖς νοουμένοις, καὶ γινώσκῃς, τίς μὲν φύσεως λόγος, τίς δὲ λόγος οἰκονομίας.

### English translation (Claude)

Now list for me, against these, the words of your ingratitude: “my God and your God,” “greater,” “created,” “made,” “sanctified”; and, if you like, “servant” and “obedient”; “gave,” “learned,” “was commanded,” “was sent,” “cannot do anything of himself,” or speak, or judge, or give, or will. Add these too: his ignorance, subjection, prayer, questioning, progress, being made perfect. Add, if you like, things lower still: sleeping, hungering, toiling, weeping, being in agony, shrinking back. Perhaps you would reproach him with the cross and death as well; you will pass over the resurrection and ascension, I think, since there is something for our side in them. You could pick up many more scraps besides, if you wanted to compose your God, a god in name only and falsely enrolled, but for us a true God, equal in honour. It would not be hard to go through each of these one by one and explain them to you in the most reverent sense, and to clear away the stumbling block in the texts, if you really stumble and are not deliberately malicious. But in one summary: apply the loftier expressions to the Godhead, to the nature that is above passions and body; and the lowlier ones to the compound, to the one who for your sake was emptied and became flesh, and, it is no worse to say, became man, and was then exalted; so that you may put an end to the fleshly and earthbound character of your doctrines, learn to be loftier, rise with the Godhead, and not remain among visible things but be lifted up with the things of the mind, and recognize which is the language of nature and which the language of the economy.

### Scripture references

- John 20:17: quotation, high confidence
- John 14:28: quotation, high confidence
- Prov 8:22: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 2:36: allusion, high confidence
- John 10:36: allusion, high confidence
- Phil 2:7: allusion, high confidence
- Heb 5:8: allusion, high confidence
- John 5:19: allusion, high confidence
- Mark 13:32: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:28: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 2:52: allusion, high confidence
- Heb 2:10: allusion, medium confidence
- Luke 22:44: allusion, medium confidence
- Phil 2:9: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- John 20:17; John 14:28; Prov 8:22; Acts 2:36; John 10:36; Phil 2:7–9; Heb 5:8; John 12:49; John 10:36; John 5:19, 30; Mark 13:32; 1 Cor 15:28; Luke 2:52; Heb 2:10; Mark 4:38; Matt 4:2; John 4:6; John 11:35; Luke 22:44. “Economy” (οἰκονομία): the incarnation and God’s saving plan.

### Citation (SBL)

Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 18 (Mason, 100–102; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/18/#p-18).

## Theological Oration 3 (Or. 29), On the Son 19

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/18/#p-19
- Source: Mason, 102–104
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Gregory sets the humble facts of Christ’s birth and early life beside the divine glory that accompanied each.

### Greek text

Οὗτος γὰρ ὁ νῦν σοι καταφρονούμενος, ἦν ὅτε καὶ ὑπὲρ σὲ ἦν· ὁ νῦν ἄνθρωπος καὶ ἀσύνθετος ἦν. ὃ μὲν ἦν, διέμεινεν· ὃ δὲ οὐκ ἦν, προσέλαβεν. ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ἀναιτίως· τίς γὰρ αἰτία θεοῦ; ἀλλὰ καὶ ὕστερον γέγονε διʼ αἰτίαν ἡ δὲ ἦν τὸ σὲ σωθῆναι τὸν ὑβριστήν, ὃς διὰ τοῦτο περιφρονεῖς θεότητα, ὅτι τὴν σὴν παχύτητα κατεδέξατο) διὰ μέσου νοὸς ὁμιλήσας σαρκί, καὶ γενόμενος ἄνθρωπος, ὁ κάτω θεός· ἐπειδὴ συνανεκράθη θεῷ, καὶ γέγονεν εἷς, τοῦ κρείττονος ἐκνικήσαντος, ἵνα γένωμαι τοσοῦτον θεός, ὅσον ἐκεῖνος ἄνθρωπος. ἐγεννήθη μέν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐγεγέννητο· ἐκ γυναικὸς μέν, ἀλλὰ καὶ παρθένου. τοῦτο ἀνθρώπινον, ἐκεῖνο θεῖον. ἀπάτωρ ἐντεῦθεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀμήτωρ ἐκεῖθεν. ὅλον τοῦτο θεότητος. ἐκυοφορήθη μέν, ἀλλʼ ἐγνώσθη προφήτῃ καὶ αὐτῷ κυοφορουμένῳ, καὶ προσκιρτῶντι τοῦ λόγου, ὃν ἐγένετο. ἐσπαργανώθη μέν, ἀλλʼ ἀποσπαργανοῦται τὰ τῆς ταφῆς ἀνιστάμενος. ἐν φάτνῃ μὲν ἀνεκλίθη, ἀλλʼ ὑπʼ ἀγγέλων ἐδοξάσθη, καὶ ὑπʼ ἀστέρος ἐμηνύθη, καὶ ὑπὸ μάγων προσεκυνήθη. πῶς σὺ προσπταίεις τῷ βλεπομένῳ, μὴ σκοπῶν τὸ νοούμενον; ἐφυγαδεύθη μὲν εἰς Αἴγυπτον, ἀλλὰ φυγαδεύει τὰ Αἰγυπτίων. οὐκ εἶχεν εἶδος οὐδὲ κάλλος παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις, ἁλλὰ τῷ Δαβὶδ ὡραῖος ἦν κάλλει παρὰ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἀλλʼ ἐπὶ τοῦ ὄρους ἀστράπτει, καὶ ἡλίου φωτοειδέστερος γίνεται, τὸ μέλλον μυσταγωγῶν.

### English translation (Claude)

For he whom you now despise was once above you. He who is now man was once uncompounded. What he was, he remained; what he was not, he assumed. In the beginning he was, without cause (for what is the cause of God?); but later he came to be for a cause, and the cause was that you, the insolent, might be saved, you who despise the Godhead because it accepted your grossness. Through the mediation of the mind he had converse with flesh, and God on earth became man, since it was blended with God and became one, the higher prevailing, so that I might become God as much as he became man. He was born, but he had also been begotten; from a woman, but also a virgin. The one is human, the other divine. Here without a father, there without a mother; all this belongs to the Godhead. He was carried in the womb, but he was recognized by a prophet who was himself still in the womb, and who leapt before the Word for whose sake he came into being. He was wrapped in swaddling clothes, but he unwrapped the grave clothes when he rose. He was laid in a manger, but he was glorified by angels, made known by a star, and worshipped by magi. How can you stumble at what is seen, without regarding what is understood? He was driven into exile in Egypt, but he drives out the idols of the Egyptians. He had no form or beauty among the Jews, but to David he was fairer than the sons of men; and on the mountain he flashes like lightning and becomes brighter than the sun, initiating us into what is to come.

### Scripture references

- Gal 4:4: allusion, medium confidence
- Heb 7:3: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 1:41: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 2:7: allusion, high confidence
- John 20:7: allusion, medium confidence
- Luke 2:13: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 2:2: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 2:11: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 2:14: allusion, high confidence
- Isa 19:1: allusion, medium confidence
- Isa 53:2: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 45:2 (44:3 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Matt 17:2: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The contrasts of chs. 19–20 pair Christ’s human and divine acts. John 1:1, 14; Gal 4:4; Heb 7:3; Luke 1:41–44; Luke 2:7, 12–14; John 20:6–7; Matt 2:2, 11, 13–15; Isa 19:1; Isa 53:2; Ps 45:2 (LXX 44:3); Matt 17:2. “So that I might become God”: Gregory’s language of deification. The digital text repeats ἐγένετο; the repeat is removed.

### Citation (SBL)

Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 19 (Mason, 102–104; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/18/#p-19).

## Theological Oration 3 (Or. 29), On the Son 20

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/18/#p-20
- Source: Mason, 104–106
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: In a long series of contrasts Gregory shows Christ acting in the same events as man and as God, from his baptism to his return in judgment.

### Greek text

Ἐβαπτίσθη μὲν ὡς ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλʼ ἁμαρτίας ἔλυσεν ὡς θεός· οὐ καθαρσίων αὐτὸς δεόμενος, ἀλλʼ ἵνα ἁγιάσῃ τὰ ὕδατα. ἐπειράσθη ὡς ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλʼ ἐνίκησεν ὡς θεός· ἀλλὰ θαρρεῖν διακελεύεται, ὡς κόσμον νενικηκώς. ἐπείνησεν, ἀλλʼ ἔθρεψε χιλιάδας, ἀλλʼ ἄρτος ἐστὶ ζωτικὸς καὶ οὐράνιος. ἐδίψησεν, ἀλλʼ ἐβόησεν· Ἐάν τις δίψᾳ, ἐρχέσθω πρός με, καὶ πινέτω• ἀλλὰ καὶ πηγάζειν ὑπέσχετο τοὺς πιστεύοντας. ἐκοπίασεν, ἀλλὰ τῶν κοπιώντων καὶ πεφορτισμένων ἐστὶν ἀνάπαυσις. ἐβαρήθη μὲν ὕπνῳ, ἀλλʼ ἐπὶ πελάγους κουφίζεται, ἁλλʼ ἐπιτιμᾷ πνεύμασιν, ἀλλὰ Πέτρον κουφίζει βαπτιζόμενον. δίδωσι τέλος, ἀλλʼ ἐξ ἰχθύος, ἀλλὰ βασιλεύει τῶν ἀπαιτούντων. Σαμαρείτης ἀκούει καὶ δαιμονῶν, πλὴν σώζει τὸν ἀπὸ Ἰερουσαλὴμ καταβαίνοντα καὶ λῃσταῖς περιπεσόντα, πλὴν ὑπὸ δαιμόνων ἐπιγινώσκεται, καὶ ἀπελαύνει δαίμονας, καὶ λεγεῶνα πνευμάτων βυθίζει, καὶ ὡς ἀστραπὴν ὁρᾷ πίπτοντα τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τῶν δαιμόνων. λιθάζεται, ἀλλʼ οὐχ ἁλίσκεται. προσεύχεται, ἀλλʼ ἐπακούει. δακρύει ἀλλὰ παύει δάκρυον. ἐρωτᾷ ποῦ Λάζαρος, ἄνθρωπος γὰρ ἦν· ἀλλʼ ἐγείρει Θεὸς θεὸς γὰρ ἦν. πωλεῖται, καὶ λίαν εὐώνως, τριάκοντα γὰρ ἀργυρίων, ἁλλʼ ἐξαγοράζει κόσμον, καὶ μεγάλης τιμῆς, τοῦ ἰδίου γὰρ αἵματος. ὡς πρόβατον ἐπὶ σφαγὴν ἄγεται, ἀλλὰ ποιμαίνει τὸν Ἰσραήλ, νῦν δὲ καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην. ὡς ἀμνὸς ἄφωνος, ἁλλὰ λόγος ἐστί, φωνῇ βοῶντος ἐν τῆ ἐρήμῳ καταγγελλόμενος. μεμαλάκισται, τετραυμάτισται, ἀλλὰ θεραπεύει πᾶσαν νόσον, καὶ πᾶσαν μαλακίαν. ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον ἀνάγεται, προσπήγνυται, ἀλλὰ τῷ ξύλῳ τῆς ζωῆς ἀποκαθίστησιν, ἀλλὰ σώζει καὶ λῃστὴν συσταυρούμενον, ἀλλὰ σκοτίζει πᾶν τὸ ὁρώμενον. ὄξος ποτίζεται, χολὴν βρωματίζεται· τίς; ὁ τὸ ὕδωρ εἰς οἶνον μεταβαλών, ὁ τῆς πικρᾶς γεύσεως καταλύτης, ὁ γλυκασμὸς καὶ ὅλος ἐπιθυμία. παραδίδωσι τὴν ψυχήν, ἀλλʼ ἐξουσίαν ἔχει πάλιν λαβεῖν αὐτήν, ἁλλὰ καταπέτασμα ῥήγνυται, τὰ γὰρ ἄνω παραδείκνυται, ἀλλὰ πέτραι σχίζονται, ἀλλὰ νεκροὶ προεγείρονται. ἀποθνήσκει, ζωοποιεῖ δέ, καὶ καταλύει τῷ θανάτῳ τὸν θάνατον. θάπτεται, ἀλλʼ ἀνίσταται. εἰς ᾅδου κάτεισιν, ἀλλʼ ἀνάγει ψυχάς, ἀλλʼ εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἄνεισιν, ἀλλʼ ἥξει κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, καὶ τοὺς τοιούτους βασανίσαι λόγους. εἰ ταῦτα ἐμποιεῖ σοι τῆς πλάνης τὴν ἀφορμήν, ἐκεῖνά σου λύει τὴν πλάνην.

### English translation (Claude)

He was baptized as man, but he released sins as God; he did not need purification himself, but he came to sanctify the waters. He was tempted as man, but he conquered as God, and he bids us take courage, since he has conquered the world. He hungered, but he fed thousands, and he is the living and heavenly bread. He thirsted, but he cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink,” and he promised that believers would become springs. He grew weary, but he is the rest of the weary and heavily burdened. He was heavy with sleep, but he walks lightly on the sea, rebukes the winds, and lightens Peter as he sinks. He pays tax, but from a fish, and he is king of those who demand it. He hears himself called a Samaritan and demon-possessed, but he saves the man who went down from Jerusalem and fell among robbers; he is recognized by demons, drives out demons, drowns a legion of spirits, and sees the prince of demons fall like lightning. He is stoned, but not caught. He prays, but he hears prayer. He weeps, but he puts an end to weeping. He asks where Lazarus is, for he was man; but he raises him, for he was God. He is sold, and very cheaply, for thirty pieces of silver; but he redeems the world, and at a great price, his own blood. As a sheep he is led to the slaughter, but he shepherds Israel, and now the whole world. As a lamb he is dumb, but he is the Word, proclaimed by the voice of one crying in the wilderness. He is weakened and wounded, but he heals every disease and every weakness. He is lifted up on the tree and nailed to it, but by the tree of life he restores us; he saves even the robber crucified with him, and darkens all that is seen. He is given vinegar to drink and gall to eat; who is he? He who turned water into wine, who destroyed the bitter taste, who is sweetness and altogether desirable. He gives up his life, but he has power to take it again; the veil is torn, for the things above are revealed; the rocks are split; the dead rise first. He dies, but he gives life, and by death he destroys death. He is buried, but he rises. He goes down to Hades, but he brings up souls; he goes up to heaven, and he will come to judge the living and the dead and to test such arguments as yours. If the first set of things gives you a starting point for error, the second dissolves your error.

### Scripture references

- Matt 3:16: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 4:1: allusion, high confidence
- John 16:33: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 14:21: allusion, high confidence
- John 6:51: allusion, high confidence
- John 19:28: allusion, high confidence
- John 7:37: quotation, high confidence
- John 4:6: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 11:28: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 8:26: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 14:31: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 17:27: allusion, high confidence
- John 8:48: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 10:30: allusion, high confidence
- Mark 5:13: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 10:18: allusion, high confidence
- John 10:31: allusion, high confidence
- John 11:34: allusion, high confidence
- John 11:43: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 26:15: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Pet 1:19: allusion, medium confidence
- Isa 53:7: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 80:1 (79:2 LXX): allusion, medium confidence
- Isa 40:3: allusion, high confidence
- Isa 53:5: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 4:23: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 23:43: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 27:45: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 27:34: allusion, high confidence
- John 2:9: allusion, high confidence
- Song 5:16: allusion, medium confidence
- John 10:18: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 27:51: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 27:52: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Pet 3:19: allusion, medium confidence
- 2 Tim 4:1: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Matt 3:13–16; Matt 4:1–11; John 16:33; Matt 4:2; Matt 14:21; John 6:51; John 19:28; John 7:37–38; John 4:6; Matt 11:28; Matt 8:24–26; Matt 14:25–31; Matt 17:27; John 8:48; Luke 10:30; Mark 1:24; Mark 5:9–13; Luke 10:18; John 10:31, 39; John 11:34–35, 43; Matt 26:15; 1 Pet 1:19; Isa 53:5, 7; Ps 80:1 (LXX 79:2); Isa 40:3; Matt 4:23; Gen 2:9; Luke 23:43; Matt 27:34, 45, 51–52; John 2:9; Song 5:16; John 10:18; 1 Pet 3:19; 2 Tim 4:1. At “he raises him” the digital text reads Θεὸς (“God”), probably a slip for Λάζαρον; translated by sense.

### Citation (SBL)

Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 20 (Mason, 104–106; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/18/#p-20).

## Theological Oration 3 (Or. 29), On the Son 21

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/18/#p-21
- Source: Mason, 106–107
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Gregory closes by urging his opponents to put faith before argument, and prays that they may become true believers while the Church keeps the Trinity safe.

### Greek text

ταῦτα τοῖς αἰνιγματισταῖς παρʼ ἡμῶν, οὐχ ἑκόντων μέν· οὐ γὰρ ἡδὺ τοῖς πιστοῖς ἀδολεσχία καὶ λόγων ἀντίθεσις, ἀρκεῖ γὰρ καὶ εἷς ἀντικείμενος· πλὴν ἀναγκαίως διὰ τοὺς ἐμπίπτοντας, ἐπεὶ καὶ διὰ τὰς νόσους τὰ φάρμακα, ἵν εἰδῶσι μὴ πάντα ὄντες σοφοὶ μηδὲ ἀήττητοι τὰ περιττὰ καὶ κενοῦντα τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. ὅταν γὰρ τὸ τοῦ λόγου δυνατὸν προβαλλώμεθα, τὸ πιστεύειν ἀφέντες, καὶ τὸ τοῦ πνεύματος ἀξιόπιστον ταῖς ζητήσεσι λύσωμεν, εἶτα ἡττηθῇ τοῦ μεγέθους τῶν πραγμάτων ὁ λόγος, — ἡττηθήσεται δὲ πάντως, ἀπὸ ἀσθενοῦς ὀργάνου τῆς ἡμετέρας διανοίας ὁρμώμενος — τί γίνεται; τὸ ἀσθενὲς τοῦ λόγου τοῦ μυστηρίου φαίνεται· καὶ οὕτω κένωσις τοῦ σταυροῦ τὸ τοῦ λόγου κομψὸν ἀναδείκνυται, ὡς καὶ Παύλῳ δοκεῖ. ἡ γὰρ πίστις τοῦ καθʼ ἡμᾶς λόγου πλήρωσις. ὁ δὲ ἀναγγέλλων συνδέσμους, καὶ λύων κρατούμενα, ὁ καὶ ἡμῖν ἐπὶ νοῦν ἀγαγὼν διαλῦσαι στραγγαλιὰς βιαίων δογμάτων, μάλιστα μὲν καὶ τούτους μεταβαλὼν ποιήσειε πιστοὺς ἀντὶ τεχνολόγων, καὶ Χριστιανοὺς ἀνθʼ ὧν νῦν ὀνομάζονται. τοῦτο δὴ καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν· δεόμεθα ὑπὲρ χριστοῦ· καταλλάγητε τῷ θεῷ, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα μὴ σβέννυτε· μᾶλλον δέ, καταλλαγείη Χριστὸς ὑμῖν, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ὀψὲ γοῦν ἀναλάμψειεν. εἰ δὲ λίαν ἔχοιτε φιλονείκως, ἀλλʼ ἡμεῖς γε σώζοιμεν ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς τὴν τριάδα, καὶ ὑπὸ τῆς τριάδος σωζοίμεθα, μένοντες εἰλικρινεῖς καὶ ἀπρόσκοποι, μέχρις ἀναδείξεως τελεωτέρας τῶν ποθουμένων, ἐν αὐτῷ Χριστῷ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν, ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας· Ἀμήν.

### English translation (Claude)

This is our reply to the riddle-mongers. We give it unwillingly, for idle talk and contradiction of words are not pleasant to the faithful (one adversary is enough), but necessarily, because of those who attack us, just as medicines exist because of diseases; so that they may know that they are not wise in everything, nor invincible in their superfluities that empty the gospel. For when we put forward the power of argument and abandon faith, and dissolve the trustworthiness of the Spirit by our inquiries, and then argument is overcome by the greatness of the realities (and it will certainly be overcome, since it starts from the weak instrument of our mind), what happens? The weakness of the argument appears to be the weakness of the mystery; and so cleverness of argument shows itself to be an emptying of the cross, as Paul too thinks. For faith is the fulfilment of our reasoning. May he who declares knots and loosens what is bound, who has put it into our mind to untie the strangling cords of violent doctrines, above all change these men too and make them believers instead of technicians, and Christians instead of what they are now called. This is what we urge: “We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God,” and “Do not quench the Spirit”; or rather, may Christ be reconciled to you, and may the Spirit shine forth, late though it be. But if you are too contentious, may we at least keep the Trinity safe for ourselves and be kept safe by the Trinity, remaining sincere and without offence until the more perfect revelation of what we long for, in Christ our Lord himself, to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

### Scripture references

- 1 Cor 1:17: allusion, high confidence
- Dan 5:12: allusion, medium confidence
- Isa 58:6: allusion, medium confidence
- 2 Cor 5:20: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Thess 5:19: quotation, high confidence
- Phil 1:10: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- 1 Cor 1:17; Dan 5:12 (loosening knots); Isa 58:6; 2 Cor 5:20; 1 Thess 5:19; Phil 1:10. “What they are now called” alludes to the party names (Eunomians, Anomoeans).

### Citation (SBL)

Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 21 (Mason, 106–107; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-29/18/#p-21).