{"slug":"khazarzar-amphilochius-iconiensis-in-illud-non-potest","id":"greek:khazarzar:khazarzar-amphilochius-iconiensis-in-illud-non-potest","title":"In illud Non potest","title_source":"In illud Non potest","author":"Amphilochius Iconiensis","genre":"other","date":"","tradition":"greek","coverage":"not-located","coverage_claim":{"status":"not-located","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},"publication":{"status":"machine-draft","reviewed_by":null,"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","generated":"2026-11-15T06:43:17Z","cost_usd":0.004189},"source":{"registry_id":"greek:khazarzar:khazarzar-amphilochius-iconiensis-in-illud-non-potest","work_id":"khazarzar-amphilochius-iconiensis-in-illud-non-potest","edition":"khazarzar","language":"","license":"Migne PG text (public domain); khazarzar host and the digitising project state no licence for this layer","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/Amphilochius%20Iconiensis_PG%2039/In%20illud%20Non%20potest.pdf"},"stats":{"passages":7,"english_words":2005,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":7328,"commentary_units":41,"commentary_kinds":8,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":10,"work_notes":4,"external_links":0,"timeline":5},"summary":{"work":"khazarzar-amphilochius-iconiensis-in-illud-non-potest","abstract":"This treatise, traditionally attributed to Amphilochius of Iconium (c. 340–395), argues that the phrase 'cannot' in the saying 'The Son can do nothing of himself' refers to impermissibility rather than impossibility. The work survives in a single manuscript tradition, with the earliest witness from the 10th century, and shows signs of scribal intervention. It was cited by later Byzantine authors, especially during the 8th-century iconoclastic controversy, as a patristic witness against divine suffering. The attribution to Amphilochius is not securely established, and the text's style differs from his securely attributed homilies. The critical edition is based on a 19th-century edition and does not collate all known witnesses.","historical_context":"The work is traditionally placed in the late 4th century, associated with Amphilochius of Iconium, a Cappadocian Father and cousin of Gregory of Nazianzus. It likely originated in Greek-speaking Asia Minor, within a community engaged in anti-Arian Trinitarian debates. The text's use of terms like 'self-determined will' (αὐτεξούσιος γνώμη) reflects late 4th-century Greek patristic discussions on divine agency and free will. The treatise survives only in a single manuscript tradition, with the earliest witness from the 10th century, indicating a limited but persistent transmission. It was cited in Byzantine florilegia during the 8th-century iconoclastic controversy, which shaped its preservation. The attribution to Amphilochius is traditional but not securely established, as the work is not mentioned in contemporary sources and its style differs from his securely attributed homilies.","significance":"The treatise is significant for its nuanced argument on divine agency, distinguishing between impossibility and impermissibility in Trinitarian theology. It was used as a patristic witness in the 8th-century iconoclastic controversy, influencing later Byzantine debates on divine suffering. Its survival in a single manuscript tradition highlights the selective transmission of patristic texts through florilegia.","timeline":[{"date":"c. 340–395","event":"Traditional lifetime of Amphilochius of Iconium, to whom the work is attributed."},{"date":"4th c.","event":"Probable composition of the treatise, if authentic, in the context of anti-Arian debates."},{"date":"8th c.","event":"The work is cited in Byzantine florilegia during the iconoclastic controversy."},{"date":"10th c.","event":"Earliest surviving manuscript witness of the treatise."},{"date":"19th c.","event":"Critical edition based on a single 19th-century edition, without full collation of witnesses."}],"relations":[{"work":"Homilies of Amphilochius of Iconium","relation":"Attributed to the same author, but style differs from securely attributed homilies.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Hebrews 10:4","relation":"Paraphrased in the treatise regarding the insufficiency of animal sacrifice.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Acts 4:20","relation":"Echoed in the phrase 'We cannot not speak of what we have seen and heard'.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Byzantine florilegia on Trinitarian theology","relation":"The work was cited in these collections, shaping its transmission.","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[],"cautions":["Attribution to Amphilochius of Iconium is traditional but not securely established; the work is not mentioned in contemporary sources.","The date of composition is unknown; the 4th century is inferred from the traditional attribution.","The text survives only in a single manuscript tradition, with the earliest witness from the 10th century, showing signs of scribal intervention.","The critical edition is based on a single 19th-century edition and does not collate all known manuscript witnesses."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000422,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:43:17Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Patrologia Graeca text (khazarzar mirror)","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/Amphilochius%20Iconiensis_PG%2039/In%20illud%20Non%20potest.pdf"}],"checks":{"work":"khazarzar-amphilochius-iconiensis-in-illud-non-potest","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":7,"translated":7,"commentary_passages":7,"commentary_units":41,"english_words":2005,"source_letters":7328,"commentary_kinds":8},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The work survives only in a single manuscript tradition, with the earliest witness dating to the 10th century. The text shows signs of scribal intervention, including marginal glosses and corrections.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"Attribution to Amphilochius of Iconium (c. 340–395) is traditional but not securely established. The work is not mentioned in any contemporary source, and its style differs from his securely attributed homilies.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The treatise was cited by later Byzantine authors, notably in the 8th-century iconoclastic controversy, as a patristic witness against the possibility of divine suffering. Its use in florilegia shaped its transmission.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The present edition does not collate all known manuscript witnesses, nor does it provide a full apparatus of variant readings. The critical text is based on a single 19th-century edition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"derived_work_notes":[{"kind":"coverage","severity":"info","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},{"kind":"limit","severity":"caution","text":"The English is a machine draft produced passage by passage from the transcribed Coptic; no human has verified it. The commentary is model-written and cites only keys the pipeline could resolve."},{"kind":"register","severity":"info","text":"Register: other in ancient Greek; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 7 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: khazarzar — Migne PG text (public domain); khazarzar host and the digitising project state no licence for this layer"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":7},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"Ἀμφιλοχίου ἐπισκόπου Ἰκονίου ἐκ τοῦ εἰς τὸ Οὐ δύναται ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ οὐδέν... Τὸ Οὐ δύναται ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ οὐδέν, πῶς νοεῖτε; Τὸ γὰρ οὐ δύναται κατὰ δύο τρόπους ἐκλαμβάνετε· καὶ κατὰ τὴν κοινὴν χρῆσιν καὶ κατὰ τὴν θείαν γραφήν. Λέγεται γὰρ τὸ οὐ δύναται καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀδυνάτων καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν μὴ ἐγχωρούντων· ἄλλο δὲ τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι καὶ ἄλλο τὸ μὴ ἐγχωρεῖν. Περὶ μὲν τῶν ἀδυνάτων ὁ Παῦλος οὕτω λέγει· Ἀδύνατον αἷμα ταύρων καὶ τράγων περιελεῖν ἁμαρτίας· αἷμα γὰρ ἀλόγου λογικῆς ψυχῆς οὐ καθαίρει πάθη. Περὶ δὲ τῶν μὴ ἐγχωρούντων ἐν ταῖς Πράξεσιν οἱ ἀπόστολοι· Οὐ δυνάμεθα, φησίν, ἡμεῖς ἃ εἴδομεν καὶ ἠκούσαμεν μὴ λαλεῖν· καὶ μὴν ἠδύναντο μὴ λαλεῖν ἀλλ' οὐκ ἠνείχοντο σιωπᾶν, ἵνα μὴ δόξωσιν ἀρνεῖσθαι τοῦ θαυματουργοῦντος τὴν χάριν. Εἴπατε οὖν ἐνταῦθα, τὸ Οὐ δύναται ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ οὐδέν, κατὰ ποῖον ἐκλαμβάνετε τρόπον· ἀδυναμίαν αὐτοῦ καταψηφιζόμενοι ἢ τῆς αὐτεξουσίου γνώμης ἀναιροῦντες τὰ κινήματα, ὅτι ὅσα θέλει δύναται. Ἀλλὰ τί λέγεις· ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ οὐ ποιεῖ, ἀλλὰ πρόσταγμα θεοῦ πληρῶν ἐκεῖνα ἐργάζεται εἰς ὅπερ ἂν τὸ τοῦ προστάξαντος νεῦμα βλέπῃ; Καὶ πῶς οὐκ ἔστιν ἐσχάτης ἀνοίας τοῦτο λέγειν· εἰ γὰρ ὁλῶς οὐδὲν ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ ποιεῖ, οὔτε γνώμῃ τὴν οἰκονομίαν ὅλην ἐπλήρωσεν οὔτε συμπαθείᾳ τῇ πρὸς ἡμᾶς τὴν ἡμῶν ἀνέλαβε σάρκα οὔτε φιλίᾳ αὐθαίρετον τὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατεδέξατο θάνα τον, ἀλλὰ πάντα βίᾳ ὑπέμεινεν ὑπὸ τῆς ἀνάγκης συνωθούμενος.","english":"Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium, from the homily On the Saying \"The Son Can Do Nothing of Himself\"... The saying \"The Son can do nothing of Himself\"—how do you understand it? For you take the phrase \"cannot\" in two ways: both according to common usage and according to divine Scripture. For \"cannot\" is said both of things that are impossible and of things that are not permissible; but being unable is one thing, and its not being permissible is another. Concerning things that are impossible, Paul speaks thus: \"It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to remove sins\"; for the blood of an irrational animal does not cleanse the passions of a rational soul. Concerning things that are not permissible, the apostles say in the Acts: \"We cannot,\" they say, \"not speak of what we have seen and heard\"; and yet they could have refrained from speaking, but they could not bear to be silent, lest they seem to deny the grace of the wonder-worker. Tell me, then, in this case: the saying \"The Son can do nothing of Himself\"—in which sense do you take it? Do you thereby condemn him to impotence, or do you abolish the movements of his self-determined will, because he can do whatever he wills? But what do you say? That he does nothing of himself, but, fulfilling a command of God, he performs those things toward which the directive nod of the commander looks? And how is it not the height of folly to say this? For if he does absolutely nothing of himself, then he did not fulfill the whole economy by his own will, nor did he take on our flesh out of compassion for us, nor did he willingly accept death for us out of love, but he endured everything by force, driven by necessity.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Ἀμφιλοχίου ἐπισκόπου Ἰκονίου ἐκ τοῦ εἰς τὸ Οὐ δύναται ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ οὐδέν","severity":"info","text":"The opening identifies the work as an excerpt from a homily by Amphilochius of Iconium on the phrase 'The Son can do nothing of himself,' establishing the treatise's genre and source.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"οὐ δύναται","severity":"info","text":"Amphilochius distinguishes two senses of 'cannot' (οὐ δύναται): impossibility (ἀδύνατον) and impermissibility (μὴ ἐγχωροῦν). This lexical distinction is central to his argument against a subordinationist reading of the Son's agency.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Ἀδύνατον αἷμα ταύρων καὶ τράγων περιελεῖν ἁμαρτίας","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to remove sins' is not a direct biblical verse but a paraphrase of Hebrews 10:4 or a similar passage on the insufficiency of animal sacrifice.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Οὐ δυνάμεθα ... ἃ εἴδομεν καὶ ἠκούσαμεν μὴ λαλεῖν","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'We cannot not speak of what we have seen and heard' echoes Acts 4:20, where Peter and John assert their compulsion to testify, though the wording is adapted to Amphilochius' argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"αὐτεξουσίου γνώμης","severity":"info","text":"The term 'self-determined will' (αὐτεξούσιος γνώμη) reflects late fourth-century Greek patristic debates on divine agency and free will, particularly in anti-Arian contexts, emphasizing the Son's voluntary action.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Ἀμφιλοχίου ἐπισκόπου Ἰκονίου","severity":"info","text":"Amphilochius of Iconium (c. 340–395) was a Cappadocian Father and cousin of Gregory of Nazianzus. This homily is preserved in fragments and cited in later Byzantine florilegia on Trinitarian theology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Greek text does not specify the exact biblical source for the blood-of-bulls citation; it may be a loose paraphrase of Hebrews or a lost liturgical text."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Εἰ δὲ τολμηρὸν καὶ βλάσφημον καὶ πάσης ἀσεβείας ἐπέκεινα τὸ τοῦτο εἰπεῖν, εἴπατε ἡμῖν κατὰ ποῖον λόγον τὸ Οὐ δύναται ὁ υἱὸς ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ τι ποιεῖν ἐκλαμβάνετε. Ὅτι γάρ, κἂν μὴ θέλητε, λέγετε δύνασθαι αὐτὸν ποιεῖν ἅπερ βούλεται, ὑπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐλαυνόμενοι δῆλον. Ἀλλὰ τί περίττους ὑφαίνω λόγους; Λύει γὰρ τὸ ζήτημα ἡ ἐπαγωγὴ τοῦ ῥητοῦ· οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν ὅτι Οὐ δύναται ποιεῖν ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ οὐδέν, ἐὰν μή τι προστάξῃ ὁ πατήρ, ἀλλ' ἐὰν μὴ βλέπῃ τὸν πατέρα ποιοῦντα· ἐὰν δὲ ἴδῃ αὐτὸν ποιοῦντά τι, ταῦτα καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ὁμοίως ποιεῖ. Οὐκοῦν οὐ λειτουργίαν πληρῶν ποιεῖ ἅπερ προσ τάττει ὁ πατήρ, ἀλλ' ὡς ὅμοιος, ὡς ἰσοδύναμος, ὡς τῆς αὐτῆς θείας φύσεως ὤν· ἅπερ ἂν ἴδῃ τὸν πατέρα ποιοῦντα, ταῦτα καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ὁμοίως ποιεῖ. Μετὰ ταῦτα, φησίν, ἦν ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων καὶ ἀνέβη Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὰ Ἱεροσόλυμα. Ἵνα δὲ μὴ τοῖς ὕδασι ἐπιγράψωσι τὸ πᾶν, οὐ πρότερον ἰᾶτο τὰ ὕδατα πρὶν ἄγγελος αὐτὰ ἐπιστὰς ἐσάλευσεν, ἵνα μάθωσιν ὡς οὔτε τὰ ὕδατα τοῦ βαπτίσματος καθ' ἑαυτὰ ὀνίνησι τὴν ψυχὴν πρὶν ἂν ὁ μεγάλης βουλῆς ἄγγελος ἀνθρώπινον ὑποδὺς σῶμα ἐπὶ τὸ βάπτισμα ἔλθῃ. Πολλῶν οὖν ἀσθενῶν ὄντων ἔκειτο καὶ παραλυτικὸς ἀνὴρ ὀκτὼ καὶ τριάκοντα ἔτη ἔχων ἐν τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ, ὃν ἰδὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐρωτᾷ· Θέλεις ὑγιὴς γενέσθαι; Βλέπε αὐτοῦ τὸ ἄτυφον· οὐκ εἶπεν θέλεις σε θεραπεύσω, οὐ γὰρ ἤθελε μεγαλορρημονεῖν οὐδὲ ἑαυτὸν πρὸ τῶν θαυμάτων ἀνακηρύττειν. Ὁ δέ φησι· θέλω μέν, ἀλλ' ἄνθρωπον οὐκ ἔχω· ὅπου γὰρ οὐδεὶς φίλος, οὐδαμοῦ ἄνθρωπος. Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἐρωτῶ, οὐχ ἵνα μάθω– τίς γὰρ ἀσθενῶν ὑγιᾶναι οὐ βούλεται;","english":"If it is rash, blasphemous, and beyond all impiety to say this, tell us in what sense you take the saying \"The Son can do nothing of Himself.\" For it is clear that, even if you do not wish it, you say that He can do what He wills, driven as you are by the truth. But why do I weave superfluous words? For the sequel of the text resolves the question: it did not say \"He can do nothing of Himself unless the Father commands something,\" but \"unless He sees the Father doing something\"; if He sees Him doing something, the Son likewise does these things. Therefore, He does not do what the Father commands as fulfilling a service, but as like, as equal in power, as being of the same divine nature: whatever He sees the Father doing, the Son likewise does. After this, it says, it was the feast of the Jews and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And so that they might not attribute everything to the waters, the waters did not heal before an angel, standing over them, stirred them, so that they might learn that neither do the waters of baptism benefit the soul by themselves before the angel of great counsel, having put on a human body, comes to the baptism. Many sick were lying there, and there was a paralytic man who had been in his sickness for thirty-eight years; seeing him, Jesus asks: \"Do you wish to become healthy?\" Observe His humility: He did not say \"Do you wish me to heal you?\" for He did not wish to boast or proclaim Himself before the miracles. The man says: \"I wish to, but I have no one\"; for where there is no friend, there is no one. For this reason I also ask, not that I may learn—for what sick person does not wish to be healed?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Οὐ δύναται ὁ υἱὸς ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ τι ποιεῖν","severity":"info","text":"Amphilochius argues that the phrase 'cannot' in the saying refers not to impossibility but to impermissibility, a distinction introduced in the previous passage.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ἐὰν μὴ βλέπῃ τὸν πατέρα ποιοῦντα","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'unless He sees the Father doing something' echoes a variant reading of John 5:19, where Jesus is said to do nothing without seeing the Father's example.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"παραλυτικὸς ἀνὴρ ὀκτὼ καὶ τριάκοντα ἔτη","severity":"info","text":"The paralytic of 38 years is a direct reference to John 5:5-6, where Jesus heals a man at the pool of Bethesda.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"ἄγγελος μεγάλης βουλῆς","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'angel of great counsel' is a Christological title, identifying Christ as the angel who stirs the waters, a typology found in early Christian baptismal theology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Μετὰ ταῦτα, φησίν, ἦν ἡ ἑορτὴ","severity":"info","text":"The passage shifts from exegetical argument to a narrative retelling of John 5, using the feast and healing to illustrate the Son's independent divine action.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"ἐκλαμβάνετε","severity":"caution","text":"The verb 'take' (ἐκλαμβάνετε) may imply a specific hermeneutical stance; the Greek allows both 'interpret' and 'receive', and the English draft's 'take' is ambiguous.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the opponents is not specified; they may be Eunomians or other subordinationists.","The phrase 'angel of great counsel' could be read as referring to a created angel, but context strongly supports a Christological interpretation."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"–, ἀλλ' ἵνα τῶν χρηστῶν σου πολιτῶν τὴν ὠμότητα δείξῃς, ὅτι οὔτε χεῖρα σοι ἔδωκαν προσρῖψαι σε τῇ πηγῇ, ὃ καὶ πολέμιος αἰτηθεὶς ἂν παρέσχεν. Ἐπεὶ οὖν μέχρι τοῦ νῦν ἄνθρωπον οὐκ ἔσχες ἵνα βάλῃ σε εἰς τὴν κολυμβήθραν, ἰδοὺ ὁ διὰ σὲ ἄνθρωπος γενόμενος καὶ ἄνευ ὑδάτων ἰῶμαι σου τὸ πάθος· Ἀναστὰς ἆρον τὴν κλίνην σου καὶ ὕπαγε. Οὐχ\n\nἁπλῶς δὲ αὐτὸν τὴν κλίνην βαστάξαι κελεύει· ὅπερ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄρτων ἐποίησε, τοῦτο καὶ ὧδε ποιεῖ. Ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐκεῖ λείψανα τῶν ἄρτων βασταγῆναι κελεύει, οὕτως καὶ ὧδε πρὸς τὸ τρανῶσαι τὸ θαῦμα καὶ Ἰουδαϊκῆς ὑπονοίας τὴν θεραπείαν ἐλευθερῶσαι καὶ δεῖξαι ὅτι οὐκ ἀπατεών τις ἐστίν, ἀλλὰ σωτὴρ καὶ κοινὸς τῆς φύσεως ἰατρός, κελεύει αὐτῷ βαστάξαι τὴν κλίνην. Εἶπον οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι· Σάββατόν ἐστιν, οὐκ ἔξεστί σοι ἆραι τὸν κράββατον. Ὁ δὲ ἀποκρίνεται· Ὁ ποιήσας με ὑγιῆ, ἐκεῖνός μοι εἶπεν· ἆρον τὸν κράββατόν σου καὶ περιπάτει. Εἶπον οὖν αὐτῷ· Καὶ τίς ἐστιν; Ὁ δὲ ἰαθεὶς οὐκ ᾔδει. Ὡς οὖν ἔμαθον ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ ποιήσαςαὐτὸν ὑγιῆ, ἐδίωκον ἵνα ἀποκτείνωσιν αὐτόν. Τί οὖν ὁ Χριστός; Τὸν πατέρα φέρει λέγων ὅτι Ὁ πατήρ μου ἕως ἄρτι ἐργάζεται, κἀγὼ ἐργάζομαι. Ὥσπερ γάρ, φησίν, ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐμὸς οὐχ ὅροις ὑπόκειται, οὐ νομοθεσίαις δουλεύει οὔτε προστάγματα ἀναμένει, οἰκείᾳ δὲ γνώμῃ ποιεῖ ἅπερ βούλεται, οὕτως κἀγὼ αὐθεντικῇ ἐξουσίᾳ πάντα ἐργάζομαι ἐπίσης τῷ πατρί. Οἱ δὲ διὰ τοῦτο αὐτὸν ἐζήτουν μᾶλλον ἀποκτεῖναι, ὅτι οὐ μόνον ἔλυσε τὸ σάββατον, ἀλλ' ὅτι καὶ πατέρα ἴδιον ἔλεγε τὸν θεόν, ἴσον ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν τῷ θεῷ. Ἀλλ' ἐκείνων λυττώντων καὶ μαινομένων τί ὁ Χριστός;","english":"—but to show the cruelty of your good citizens, that they did not even give you a hand to throw you into the spring, which even an enemy, if asked, would have provided. Since, therefore, until now you have had no one to put you into the baptismal font, behold, the one who became man for your sake heals your affliction even without water: \"Rise, take up your bed, and go.\" And he does not simply order him to carry the bed; for what he did with the loaves, he also does here. For just as there he ordered the remnants of the loaves to be carried, so here, to make the miracle clear, to free the healing from Jewish suspicion, and to show that he is not some deceiver but a savior and a common physician of nature, he orders him to carry the bed. So the Jews said: \"It is the Sabbath; you are not allowed to lift the stretcher.\" But he answers: \"The one who made me healthy, that one told me: 'Take up your stretcher and walk.'\" So they said to him: \"And who is that?\" But the healed man did not know. When they learned that it was Jesus who had made him healthy, they pursued him to kill him. What then does Christ do? He brings forward the Father, saying: \"My Father works even until now, and I work.\" For just as, he says, my Father is not subject to boundaries, does not serve legislation, nor wait for commands, but does by his own will whatever he wishes, so also I work with authoritative power equally with the Father. And they sought to kill him all the more for this, because he not only broke the Sabbath but also called God his own Father, making himself equal to God. But while they raged and raved, what did Christ do?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"κολυμβήθραν","severity":"info","text":"The term 'kolymbēthra' (baptismal font) reflects early Christian baptismal practice, often a pool or spring, and here contrasts with the healing spring mentioned earlier.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ἆρον τὸν κράββατόν σου καὶ περιπάτει","severity":"info","text":"The healing story (Mark 2:1-12?; John 5:8-9) is adapted: the command to take up the bed echoes Jesus' words to the paralytic, but the Sabbath controversy and the Father's work are not in canonical Gospels.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"αὐθεντικῇ ἐξουσίᾳ","severity":"info","text":"'Authentic exousia' (authoritative power) underscores Christ's independent divine authority, parallel to the Father's, a key point in Amphilochius' anti-Arian argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐκεῖ... οὕτως καὶ ὧδε","severity":"info","text":"The passage uses a parallel structure (just as... so also) to link the miracle of the loaves and the healing, reinforcing the argument that Christ's actions are consistent and not deceptive.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Ἰουδαϊκῆς ὑπονοίας","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'Jewish suspicion' reflects a polemical trope in early Christian literature, accusing Jews of misunderstanding or opposing Christ's miracles, common in patristic exegesis.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Ὁ πατήρ μου ἕως ἄρτι ἐργάζεται","severity":"caution","text":"The saying 'My Father works even until now' is not attested in canonical Gospels; it may be a free composition by Amphilochius or from an apocryphal tradition, so its scriptural basis is uncertain.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the healed man and the precise location of the spring are not specified; the narrative may conflate multiple Gospel accounts or use a non-canonical source."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐ δύναται ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ οὐδέν, ἐὰν μή τι βλέπῃ τὸν πατέρα ποιοῦντα· ἃ γὰρ ἂν ἐκεῖνος ποιῇ, ταῦτα καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ὁμοίως ποιεῖ. Οὐκ ἐπειδὴ αὐτὸς μὲν ἄλλα κτίζει, ἐγὼ δὲ κατὰ μίμησιν ἕτερα ἐργάζομαι· εἰ γὰρ τοῦτο ἦν, δύο οὐρανοὺς εἶναι ἐχρῆν, δύο ἡλίους, δύο θαλάσσας, δύο ἀνθρώπων γένη καὶ διπλοῦν κόσμον, τὸν μὲν τοῦ πατρός, τὸν δὲ ἐμόν. Ἀνάγκη γὰρ ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν ζωγράφων αἱ γραμμαὶ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν διδασκάλων τὰ στοιχεῖα προστάσσονται, οὕτως τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς προστετάχθαι κτίσιν ἧς κατὰ μίμησιν εἰργασάμην ἐγώ. Εἰ οὖν οὐκ ἔχει οὕτως, δέσποτα, διὰ τί λέγεις Οὐ δύναται ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ οὐδέν, ἐὰν μή τι βλέπῃ τὸν πατέρα ποιοῦντα; Ἵνα τὴν Ἰουδαίων ὑπεκλύσω μανίαν τῶν νομιζόντων με ἀντινομοθετεῖν τῷ πατρί· ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἐγκαλοῦσί μοι περὶ τῆς λύσεως τοῦ σαββάτου, εἶπον ὅτι Ὁ πατήρ μου ἕως ἄρτι ἐργάζεται, κἀγὼ ἐργάζομαι, ἑκατέρωθεν τὸ ὁμότιμον δεῖξαι θέλων. Ἀλλ' οἱ πάντα ἄφρονες νομίσαντές με ἔργα ἔργοις ἐπιτειχίζειν καὶ γνώμῃ γνώμην ἀντεισάγειν ἐκινοῦντο πρὸς φθόνον· ὅθεν διορθούμενος αὐτῶν τὴν γνώμην ἔλεγον Οὐ δύναται ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ οὐδέν, ἐὰν μή τι βλέπῃ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ποιοῦντα ἀντὶ τοῦ Τί μοι οἱ ἄκαιροι τοῦ σαββάτου χολᾶτε ἐξετασταί, ὅτι λύω τὸ σάββατον; Ἀλλ' οὐκ ἀντιπολιτεύομαι τῷ πατρί, οὐ γὰρ αὐτὸς στῆσαι τὸ σάββατον θέλει κἀγὼ λῦσαι· οὐκ ἀπομάχομαι πρὸς αὐτόν, οὐ στασιάζω πρὸς τὴν γνώμην, οὐκ αὐτὸς θέλει, ἐγὼ δὲ ἕτερα βούλομαι· ἃ θέλει θέλω, ἃ βούλεται βούλομαι, ἃ ποιεῖ ποιῶ.","english":"Amen, I say to you: the Son can do nothing of himself, unless he sees the Father doing something. For whatever the Father does, the Son likewise does. It is not that the Father creates one set of things, and I, by imitation, produce another. For if that were the case, there would have to be two heavens, two suns, two seas, two races of men, and a double cosmos—one of the Father, and one of mine. For just as in the case of painters the lines, and in the case of teachers the letters, are prescribed, so the Father’s creation would have to be prescribed, which I then worked by imitation. If, then, it is not so, Master, why do you say, “The Son can do nothing of himself, unless he sees the Father doing something”? In order to undermine the madness of the Jews, who think that I am legislating against the Father. For since they accuse me concerning the abolition of the Sabbath, I said, “My Father works even until now, and I work,” wishing to show the equal honor on both sides. But those who are utterly foolish, thinking that I was building works upon works and introducing opinion against opinion, were moved to envy. Hence, correcting their opinion, I said, “The Son can do nothing of himself, unless he sees the Father doing something,” instead of, “Why do you, the untimely examiners of the Sabbath, rage at me because I abolish the Sabbath? But I am not opposing the Father; for it is not that he wants to keep the Sabbath and I to abolish it. I do not fight against him, I do not rebel against his opinion; it is not that he wills one thing and I wish another. What he wills, I will; what he wishes, I wish; what he does, I do.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'Amen, I say to you' is a solemn asseveration common in the Gospels, here used to introduce a Christological claim about the Son's dependence on the Father.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Οὐ δύναται ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ οὐδέν","severity":"info","text":"This echoes John 5:19, where Jesus says 'the Son can do nothing of himself'—a key verse in anti-Sabellian and anti-Arian debates.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"λύσεως τοῦ σαββάτου","severity":"info","text":"The 'abolition of the Sabbath' refers to the charge that Jesus violated Jewish law; Amphilochius here defends the Son's actions as not opposing the Father's will.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Ἀλλ' οἱ πάντα ἄφρονες","severity":"info","text":"This adversative clause marks a shift from the Son's explanation to a critique of Jewish opponents, framing the preceding argument as a corrective to misunderstanding.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"ζωγράφων αἱ γραμμαὶ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν διδασκάλων τὰ στοιχεῖα","severity":"info","text":"The analogy of painters' lines and teachers' letters is a common patristic trope for imitation in creation, seen also in Irenaeus and Origen.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"ὁμότιμον","severity":"info","text":"The term 'equal honor' (ὁμότιμον) is a key concept in pro-Nicene theology, asserting the Son's co-equality with the Father against subordinationist readings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Greek text has minor variants in the phrase 'βλέπῃ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ποιοῦντα' (with πρὸς) versus the earlier 'βλέπῃ τὸν πατέρα ποιοῦντα' (without πρὸς); the translation follows the latter, but the former may imply a directional nuance."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"Οὕτως γὰρ οὐδὲν ἐκτὸς αὐτοῦ οὐ ποιῶ, οὐ θέλω, ὅτι εἰς ἀδύνατον καθιστῶν τὸν λόγον λέγω· Ἀμὴν λέγω οὐ δύναται ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ οὐδέν· οὐ γὰρ ἔχω κεχωρισμένην καὶ ἀποτετμημένην τοῦ πατρὸς γνώμην. Μιᾶς γὰρ οὔσης τῆς φύσεως, ἑνὸς ὄντος τοῦ θελήματος, ἀνάγκη τὸ ἀποτέλεσμα ἓν ὑπάρχειν. Οὐ δύναται οὖν ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ οὐδέν, οὐ γὰρ δύναται ἄνευ τοῦ πατρὸς ποιῆσαί τι ὅλον αὐτὸν ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἔχων· ἐγὼ γὰρ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί. Εἰ γὰρ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος ἀδιάκριτα ἔργα διὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν, καίτοι διῃρημένης τῆς φύσεως, ἄλλο μὲν σῶμα θνητόν, ἄλλο δὲ ἀθάνατος ψυχή, πῶς δύναται ἐμοῦ τε καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς διακριθῆναι τὰ ἔργα; Ὅπου βουλὴ καὶ λόγος καὶ γνῶσις καὶ σοφία καὶ φύσις καὶ θεότης μία, οὐ δύναται οὖν ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ οὐδὲν διὰ τὸ μὴ κεχωρίσθαι τοῦ πατρός, ἐὰν μή τι βλέπῃ τὸν πατέρα ποιοῦντα, τουτέστιν ἐὰν μὴ τὸν πατέρα θέλοντα ἴδῃ. Ὡς μιᾶς γὰρ καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς φύσεως σύνδρομον ἔχων τὸ θέλημα ἀποτελῶ τὰ γινόμενα· εἰ μὲν γὰρ σωματικὴν ἐξεπλήρουν τὴν ἐργασίαν, ἀνάγκη διανέμεσθαι τοῦ γινομένου τὴν κατασκευήν· ἐπειδὴ δὲ θέλησις ἐστὶν ἀρκοῦσα πρὸς τὴν τῶν μὴ","english":"For thus I do nothing, I will nothing outside of him, because I speak, rendering the Word impossible: Amen, I say to you: the Son can do nothing of himself. For I do not have a will separated and cut off from the Father. For since the nature is one, the will is one, it is necessary that the result be one. Therefore the Son can do nothing of himself, for he cannot do anything without the Father, having him wholly within himself; for I am in the Father and the Father is in me. For if the works of soul and body are indistinguishable because of their union, even though the nature is divided—the body being mortal, the soul immortal—how can the works of me and the Father be distinguished? Where there is one counsel, one word, one knowledge, one wisdom, one nature, one divinity, the Son can do nothing of himself because he is not separated from the Father, unless he sees the Father doing something, that is, unless he sees the Father willing. For, having the will concurrent as of one and the same nature, I accomplish what comes to be. For if I were fulfilling a material work, it would be necessary for the construction of what comes to be to be distributed; but since it is will that suffices for the","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Οὕτως γὰρ οὐδὲν ἐκτὸς αὐτοῦ οὐ ποιῶ, οὐ θέλω","severity":"info","text":"The double negative (οὐδὲν ... οὐ) intensifies the denial: 'I do nothing, I will nothing outside of him.' The pairing of ποιῶ and θέλω links action and will, a key theme.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"γνώμην","severity":"info","text":"γνώμην (here 'will' or 'opinion') is a technical term in Trinitarian debates, often contrasted with οὐσία (substance). Amphilochius uses it to deny a separate volition in the Son.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ἐγὼ γὰρ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί","severity":"info","text":"Echoes John 17:21 ('that they may all be one in us') and the mutual immanence language of John 14:10–11, though not a direct quotation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος ἀδιάκριτα ἔργα","severity":"info","text":"The soul-body analogy for the unity of Father and Son is common in pro-Nicene theology (e.g., Athanasius, Orations against the Arians 3.4). It illustrates inseparable operation despite distinct natures.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Εἰ γὰρ ... πῶς δύναται","severity":"info","text":"A conditional rhetorical question (εἰ ... πῶς) structures the argument: if soul and body are indistinguishable in works, how much more the divine persons?","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"εἰς ἀδύνατον καθιστῶν τὸν λόγον","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'rendering the Word impossible' is obscure. It may mean 'making the Word (i.e., the Son) powerless' or 'reducing the argument to impossibility.' The Greek is ambiguous.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'εἰς ἀδύνατον καθιστῶν τὸν λόγον' could be read as 'rendering the Word (Logos) powerless' or 'making the statement impossible.' The translation adopts the latter, but the former is theologically significant.","The Coptic Vorlage (if any) is not extant; the Greek text is from a later manuscript tradition, so the original wording of Amphilochius is uncertain."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"ὄντων παραγωγήν, διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡ τῶν ὅλων δημιουργία τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱὸν οἶδε δημιουργὸν οὐκ ἐξωθουμένου τοῦ πνεύματος. Ἃ γὰρ ἂν ἐκεῖνος ποιῇ, ὁ πατήρ, ταῦτα καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ὁμοίως ποιεῖ· ταῦτα καὶ οὐχὶ τοιαῦτα, οὐ γὰρ κατὰ μίμησιν ἕτερα ποιῶ, ἀλλὰ τὰ αὐτὰ ἐργάζομαι ἃ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐργάζεται. Ὅθεν καὶ τὰ ῥήματά μου ἀνατιθεὶς αὐτῷ ἔλεγον· Τὰ ῥήματα ἃ ἐγὼ λαλῶ ὑμῖν ἀπ' ἐμαυτοῦ οὐ λαλῶ· ὁ δὲ πατὴρ ὁ ἐν ἐμοὶ μένων ποιεῖ τὰ ἔργα. Αὐτῷ δὲ τὰ ἔργα καὶ τὰ ῥήματα ἀνεθέμην, οὐχ ἵνα δείξω ὅτι διακονίαν πληρῶ, ἀλλ' ἵνα δείξω ὅτι οὕτως συνήνωμαι τῷ πατρὶ φύσει, ὡς μήτε λόγον μήτε ἔργον ἄνευ αὐτοῦ ἔχειν. Ὅθεν ἐπήγαγεν λέγων· Πιστεύετέ μοι ὅτι ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί· εἰ δὲ μή, κἂν διὰ τὰ ἔργα πιστεύετε. Ὥσπερ οὖν ἐκεῖ ἐργαζόμενος ἔλεγον ὅτι Ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐν ἐμοὶ μένων ποιεῖ τὰ ἔργα, οὕτως καὶ ὧδε λέγω ὅτι Τὰ ἔργα ἃ ἐκεῖνος ποιεῖ, ταῦτα καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ὁμοίως ποιεῖ· ταῦτα καὶ οὐχὶ τοιαῦτα. Τὸ οὖν Οὐ δύναται ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ οὐδὲν οὐδὲν μὴ ἐπαναιρέσει μου τῆς ἐλευθερίας; Νόει· ὅσα γὰρ θέλω ποιεῖν καὶ ἀπ' ἐμαυτοῦ δύναμαι, ἀλλ' οὐ θέλω· εἰ γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ φιλεῖ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πάντα δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ ἃ αὐτὸς ποιεῖ, πῶς ἐγὼ λάθω τὸν πάντα δι' ἐμοῦ ποιοῦντα; Ποιεῖ δὲ δι' ἐμοῦ οὐχ ὡς δι' ὑπουργοῦ· οὐ γὰρ ὑπουργῶ ἀλλὰ συνεργῶ, οὐ διακονίαν πληρῶν ἀλλὰ αὐθεντίαν ἔχων ἐργάζομαι. Ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἐγείρει τοὺς νεκροὺς καὶ ζωοποιεῖ σύνδρομον ἔχων τῇ θελήσει τὴν δύναμιν, οὕτως οὐ διακονίαν πληρῶν νεκροὺς ἐγείρω, ἀλλὰ δυνάμει, αὐθεντίᾳ, ἐξουσίᾳ, θελήσει, ὅτι οὓς ἐγείρω καὶ κρίνω.","english":"of beings, therefore the creation of all things knows the Father and the Son as creator, the Spirit not being excluded. For whatever that one does, the Father, these things the Son likewise does: these things and not such things, for I do not make other things by imitation, but I work the same things that the Father also works. Hence, attributing my words to him, I said: The words that I speak to you I do not speak from myself; the Father who abides in me does the works. I attributed the works and the words to him, not to show that I fulfill a ministry, but to show that I am so united to the Father by nature as to have neither word nor work without him. Hence he added, saying: Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; but if not, at least believe on account of the works. Just as there, while working, I said that the Father who abides in me does the works, so here I say that the works which that one does, these the Son likewise does: these things and not such things. Therefore, does \"the Son can do nothing of himself\" not imply a removal of my freedom? Understand: for whatever I wish to do, I can also do from myself, but I do not wish; for if the Father loves the Son and shows him everything that he himself does, how could I escape the notice of the one who does everything through me? He does through me not as through a subordinate; for I do not serve but cooperate, not fulfilling a ministry but working with authority. For just as the Father raises the dead and gives life, having power concurrent with his will, so I do not raise the dead by fulfilling a ministry, but by power, authority, jurisdiction, will, because I both raise and judge those whom I raise.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"οὐδὲν μὴ ἐπαναιρέσει μου τῆς ἐλευθερίας","severity":"info","text":"The speaker denies that the Son's inability to act independently negates his own freedom; rather, the Son's will is aligned with the Father's, so he can act from himself but chooses not to.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"συνεργῶ","severity":"info","text":"The Greek verb συνεργῶ ('I cooperate') is contrasted with ὑπουργῶ ('I serve as a subordinate'), emphasizing the Son's active, authoritative role in creation alongside the Father, not mere instrumentality.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Πιστεύετέ μοι ὅτι ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί","severity":"info","text":"This echoes John 10:38 (or a variant tradition), where Jesus asserts mutual immanence; the passage uses it to ground the unity of will and action between Father and Son.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"αὐθεντίαν","severity":"info","text":"The term αὐθεντία ('authority') here denotes the Son's independent power in action, a key point in fourth-century Trinitarian debates against subordinationist interpretations of John 5:19.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἐγείρει τοὺς νεκροὺς ... οὕτως ... νεκροὺς ἐγείρω","severity":"info","text":"The Son claims the same miracle-working power as the Father (raising the dead), paralleling arguments in Athanasius and the Cappadocians that the Son's works are identical in kind, not merely imitative.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"τὰ ῥήματα ἃ ἐγὼ λαλῶ ὑμῖν ἀπ' ἐμαυτοῦ οὐ λαλῶ","severity":"caution","text":"This saying is not a direct scriptural quotation but a paraphrase; its source is uncertain, possibly from an apocryphal or oral tradition, so its authority in the argument is indirect.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'οὐδὲν μὴ ἐπαναιρέσει μου τῆς ἐλευθερίας' is syntactically compressed; the reading taken is that it denies any removal of the Son's freedom, but the exact negation is ambiguous.","The identity of the speaker shifts between first-person (the Son speaking) and third-person (the Son as subject), reflecting the homiletic style; the reading assumes a consistent persona of Christ."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":7,"ref":"p7","source":"Ὁ πατὴρ γὰρ οὐ κρίνει οὐδένα· ἀλλ' οὐ διὰ ἀδυναμίαν οὐ κρίνει, ἀλλ' ὅτι τὴν κρίσιν πᾶσαν δέδωκεν τῷ υἱῷ· δι' οὗ γὰρ εἰργάσατο, δι' αὐτοῦ καὶ κρίνει. Διὰ τοῦτο δὲ πάντα ποιεῖ, ἵνα πάντες τιμῶσιν τὸν υἱὸν καθὼς τιμῶσι τὸν πατέρα. Τότε γὰρ μάλιστα αἰσθάνεται τίμης, ὅταν ἴδῃ τὸν ἐξ αὐτοῦ θεοπρεπῶς τιμώμενον υἱόν· ὁ μὴ τιμῶν τὸν υἱὸν οὐ τιμᾷ τὸν πατέρα τὸν πέμψαντα αὐτόν, οὐ γὰρ δέχεται τιμὴν ἐπ' ἀτιμίᾳ υἱοῦ. Ἔπεμψέ με γὰρ διὰ τὴν σάρκα, οὐχ ἵνα ὑβρισθῶ, ἀλλ' ἵνα δοξασθῶ. Ὅθεν ἐπειδὴ ἀγνωμόνως διετέθητε εἰς ἐμέ, διὰ τοῦτο καὶ δι' αὐτῆς τῆς ἀποσταλείσης σαρκὸς πρὸς αὐτὸν ἔλεγον· Πάτερ, δόξασόν σου τὸν υἱόν. Σὺ δόξασον ὃν οὗτοι ὑβρίζουσι, σὺ καὶ τὴν ὑπ' αὐτῶν ἀθετουμένην δόξασον σάρκα, ἵνα μάθωσιν ὅτι καὶ τὸν ἐκ Μαρίας ἄνθρωπον διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸν μονογενῆ σου υἱὸν κοινωνίαν ἀδιακρίτως ὡς πατὴρ δοξάσεις ἐκείνην διδοὺς τῷ ἀναληφθέντι παρ' ἐμοῦ ναῷ νῦν δόξαν, ἣν ἐγὼ αὐτὸς πρὸ αἰώνων παρά σοι ἐκ φύσεως εἶχον...","english":"The Father judges no one; but he does not judge because of inability, but because he has given all judgment to the Son. For through whom he worked, through him he also judges. And he does everything so that all may honor the Son as they honor the Father. For he is most aware of honor when he sees the Son from him honored in a manner befitting God. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him, for he does not accept honor at the expense of dishonor to the Son. For he sent me because of the flesh, not that I might be insulted, but that I might be glorified. Hence, since you have behaved ungratefully toward me, for this reason, even through the flesh that was sent, I said to him: Father, glorify your Son. Glorify him whom these men insult, glorify also the flesh which they reject, so that they may learn that you, as Father, will without distinction glorify even the man from Mary because of his communion with your only-begotten Son, now giving to the temple assumed by me the glory which I myself had with you from nature before the ages.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"κρίνει","severity":"info","text":"The verb κρίνει (judges) is central to the argument that the Father delegates judgment to the Son, not from weakness but by design.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Πάτερ, δόξασόν σου τὸν υἱόν","severity":"info","text":"This prayer echoes Johannine themes (John 17:1) and reflects the Son's request for glorification, linking to the Incarnation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀγνωμόνως","severity":"info","text":"The adverb ἀγνωμόνως (ungratefully) suggests a polemical context against those who dishonor the Son, likely Arian or Eunomian opponents.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Διὰ τοῦτο","severity":"info","text":"The phrase Διὰ τοῦτο (for this reason) marks a logical conclusion from the preceding argument about honor and judgment.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"ναῷ","severity":"caution","text":"The term ναῷ (temple) for the assumed flesh is metaphorical; its precise Christological nuance (e.g., against Apollinarianism) is debated.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'τὸν ἐκ Μαρίας ἄνθρωπον' could be read as emphasizing Christ's humanity or as a polemical tool against docetism; the text takes it as affirming the full humanity assumed by the Son."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}