EN XXVIa: οὐσιωθῆναι

This infinitive form is extremely rare. No more than four instances can be identified prior to the fifth century AD. Among them, we find both Didymus and Theodoret, but definitive ascription should be cautious, since it may well be the vocabulary of a catenist rather than of the authors themselves. In addition, we encounter a characteristic usage such as this in Pseudo-Justin: hence the likelihood that Cassian was the real author of this text remains strong. I believe, therefore, that the present infinitive-form in the Scholion is Cassian’s own.

EN XXVIb: κτίζον-κτιζόμενον

The distinction is made between the ‘Being of the Creator himself’ and that of ‘rational beings’, that is, creatures. The first half of this introductory period refers to the uncreated Logos, according to the common theological theme that the One who spoke throughout biblical history was God the Logos. He is also the same one who appeared in the apocalyptic vision of Revelation. The second half of the period refers to rational creatures, echoing Origen’s doctrine of creation: the object of creation was the ‘reasons’: it was according and after them that actual creatures came into being. Thus οὐσιωθῆναι refers to the creation of the ‘reasons’ (λόγοι), according to which creation was produced, whereas κτισθῆναι points to the actual creation. The author remains faithful to Origen’s distinction.

EN XXVIIa: ὁ πᾶς λόγος τῆς προνοίας (‘the entire teaching about providence’)

The idea that ‘providence’ (πρόνοια) is the force responsible for the ‘government’ (διοίκησις) of the world is a Christian borrowing from Stoicism, which was treated by Origen, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Didymus. This is also used in the Pseudo-Clementine writings. At a particular point where the ‘teaching about providence’ is discussed, one should notice that Didymus appears to copy Eusebius commenting on Psalm 103:13. In fact, however, this is actually an ascription to Didymus by later catenists. By the same token, both the idea and vocabulary occur in passages ascribed to Origen, yet the abundance of references is perhaps partially due to those (Didymus, Evagrius) who inserted a specific formulations into excerpts from his work.

EN XXVIIb: ἡδέα καὶ ἀηδῆ (‘things either pleasant or unpleasant’)

The formula originates in Hellenistic literature. The first-century BC Alexandrian grammarian Philoxenus refers to the ancients who made a distinction between ἡδέα καὶ τερπνά, which are things ‘pleasant’ and ‘warm’ (ἀπὸ τῶν θερμῶν), distinguished from those that are ἀηδῆ καὶ λυπηρά (‘cool’ and ‘depressing’, ἀπὸ τῶν ψυχρῶν). Galen classified all things that fall within the scope of the five senses into ἡδέα and ἀηδῆ, as Alexander of Aphrodisias also did. Sextus Empiricus employed the same distinction, too.

EN XXIVa: συγκαθεσθῆναι

The aorist infinitive συγκαθεσθῆναι is extremely rare. In the sense used in this Scholion, this occurs only in Cyril of Alexandria (or his catenist), and in Cassian’s (Pseudo-Didymus) De Trinitate.

Cyril of Alexandria, De Sancta et Consubstantiali Trinitate, PG.75.344 (and Catena in Epistulam ad Hebraeos, p. 331). ὥρα γὰρ ὁμολογεῖν καὶ συγκαθεσθῆναι δύνασθαι τῷ Θεῷ τοὺς Ἀγγέλους καὶ συμβασιλεύειν αὐτῷ. . . οὐδὲν ἆρα κωλύει καὶ Ἀγγέλους δύνασθαι συγκαθεσθῆναι τῷ Θεῷ, εἰ καὶ μήτις αὐτῶν ἠξιώθη τοῦ πράγματος. . .. ὁ μὲν γὰρ δεσπότης, τὰ δὲ δοῦλα τυγχάνει. οὐχ ὁμογενὴς ἆρα τοῖς Ἀγγέλοις ἐστὶν ὁ τῷ Πατρὶ συμβασιλεύων καὶ συγκαθήμενος.

EN Va: ἀτεχνῶς

The text of the Scholion is Clement’s, but some remarks point to the compiler of the Scholia.

The adverb ἀτεχνῶς appears in Christian authors, as it does in pagan ones, too. From the frequency of its usage, some interesting conclusions flow. The term is definitely Plato’s and appears no fewer than seventyseven times in his work, still it also occurs in Aristotle (five times), in Chrysippus (twice), Plotinus (once), Galen (four times), Plutarch (thirty-six times), and Posidonius (three times). It also occurs in Christian authors, such as Athanasius (twice), Basil of Caesarea (three times), Eusebius (eleven times), Cyril of Alexandria (three times), Evagrius of Pontus (three times), Gregory of Nazianzus (twice), Gregory of Nyssa (eight times), even Gregory Thaumaturgus (four times) in his speech paying homage to Origen. John Philoponus had also employed this (six instances), and so did Lucian of Samosata (twenty-seven instances). Procopius of Gaza used it once in one of his epistles (no. 46). Origen himself did not actually use the term, since four instances in Contra Celsum are actually a quotation from Celsus.