In particular, I am thinking of ἀνερμηνεύτως on page 115, line 5 of the following tex: https://eclass.upatras.gr/modules/document/file.php/LIT1979/Beate_Regina_Suchla_Ioannis_Scythopolitani_Prologus_Et_Scholia_in_Dionysii_Areopagitae_Librum_de_Divinis_Nominibus_Cum_Additamentis_Interpretum_Aliorum__2011.pdf
Or how else to construe the force of this adverb here?
Thanks in advance.
Πᾶσα ἀνθρωπίνη σοφία ἐκ τῶν αἰσθητῶν τὰς πιθανότητας τῶν ἀποδείξεων ἐρανίζεται. ἡ γὰρ μεγάλη τῶν συλλογισμῶν ἀνάγκη τῆς γεωμετρίας τὰς ἀφορμὰς παραλαμβάνει. ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἀσωμάτων, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ ὑπερασωμάτων καὶ ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν οὐσίαν <ὄντων> πῶς ἄν τις λογικῶς ἐπιστήσειεν ἀνερμηνεύτως, εἰ μὴ μόλις τῷ ἀκροτάτῳ ἄνθει τοῦ νοῦ τὴν περὶ θεοῦ ἀγνωσίαν, ὅ τι ποτέ ἐστιν, διὰ {τῆς} εἰλικρινοῦς εὐσεβείας ἀλαλήτως συννοεῖν δυνάμενος.
My trans of the relevant bit: In the case of unbodied things, and yet moreso in the case of things beyond the unbodied and beyond all substance, how could someone intellectually understand them inexpressibly, unless…
By this read, he seems to be using the two semi-contradictory adverbs to highlight the difficulty of it.
The way I read it, ἀνερμηνεύτως is simply adverbial, modifying the whole of πῶς ἄν τις λογικῶς ἐπιστήσειεν: “how could one logically understand them without interpretation?” (without ἑρμηνεία, in a non-interpretive way)
Michael, “without ἑρμηνεία” is attractive, thanks! Patrologiæ Græcæ (vol. 4.2, page 186) has “…, explicari nequit,…”
The “ἀλαλήτως συννοεῖν” in the second half of the sentence seems to suggest that ἀνερμηνεύτως has its standard meaning in Patristic Greek: “Inexpressibly.”
My translation of the sentence above continues: …unless he is barely able through unalloyed reverence to unutterably understand the ignorance regarding god, whatever it is, together with the loftiest flower of mind.
Joel, “τῷ ἀκροτάτῳ ἄνθει” is instrumental here, I believe.
Sure, that’s probably better. My translation took it has an secondary object to the συννοειν. I see examples of συννοεῖν τί τινι on TLG, but always with ἅμα: “τῷ γὰρ αἰτίῳ συννοοῦνται ἅμα τὰ ἐξ αὐτοῦ” and “ἅμα δ’ ὡς τῇ σελήνῃ συνεξακουόμενόν τε καὶ συννοούμενον”, “τῷ γὰρ αἰτίῳ συννοοῦνται ἅμα τὰ ἐξ αὐτοῦ”, “ἅμα γὰρ τῇ διακρίσει συννοοῦμεν σύγκρισιν”.
For the adjective ἀνερμήνευτος, LSJ give “with none to interpret,” but I could not figure out what source the abbreviation “E.Hyps.Fr.1 iv18” refers to (am interested in the genre and dating); Lampe gives “unexplained” for the adjective, but only “inexplicably, ineffably” for the adverb.
Am still curious what the answer to the general question posed in my subject line might be.
“E” = Euripides. And that’s not all that the LSJ says about the adjective. Look at II in the entry. But ἀλαλήτως συννοεῖν anchors the meaning here.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=anermhneutos&la=greek#lexicon
ἀνερμήνευτος , ον,
A.with none to interpret, E.Hyps.Fr.1 iv18.
II. inexplicable, indescribable, “τῷ πέλας” S.E.M.7.65; “ὀδύνη” Aristaenet. 2.5.
p.s. I did not say that it is the only this meaning that LSJ give. I brought it in as a reflection on Michael’s suggestion. The Latin translation in PG employs the other meaning.
p.p.s. Joel–to decide between your suggestion and the one in PG, I need to know precisely the answer to the question in the subject line.
Right. I didn’t mean that you were confused, but given that you hadn’t mentioned the other section (which in fact applies here), I pointed out that it existed for the benefit of any others in the thread, beyond you and I.
Here is the relevant bit of the Euripides fragment, by the way:
ὡς ἐχθρὸν ἀνθρώποισιν αἵ τ’ ἐκδημίαι
ὅταν τε χρείαν εἰσπεσὼν ὁδοιπόρος
ἀγροὺς ἐρήμους καὶ μονοικήτους ἴδῃ
ἄπολις ἀνερμήνευτος ἀπορίαν ἔχων
ὅπῃ τράπηται·
Next to ἄπολις there it looks like “without a translator [ἑρμηνεύς]”. Maybe “guide.” I doubt there was much light between a travel guide and (language) interpreter back then.
Regarding your PPS., the trick would be to find some instances of an adverb where ἔχειν is dropped. If it were me, I’d look in the grammars first, near the sections on elided εἶναι.
διὰ {τῆς} εἰλικρινοῦς εὐσεβείας ἀλαλήτως συννοεῖν δυνάμενος “capable of apprehending ineffably (without words) through pure piety.” I expect Paul’s use of ἀλαλήτοις at Romans 8.26 ultimately lies behind this.
To look for an implicit ἔχει in the main clause would be a fool’s errand, see my previous post.
Michael, do I get it right that, on your reading (which is attractive, as I said), a question mark is to be supplied at the end of this sentence?
Yes. It is framed as a question, as πῶς shows.
Thanks! I asked to make sure, because the editors (Suchla and whoever edited the text in PG) apparently did not think so.